Diagrams, charts, maps and drawings have long been recognized as extremely useful, if not necessary, in jury trials. Matters presented visually are more readily understood than those presented in verbal form, and graphics generally tend to have a far more convincing effect on a jury than mere testimonial evidence.

Although graphics may be introduced to serve a variety of different functions, each governed by different rules of admissibility, this memorandum will focus on graphics used as "demonstrative evidence," a "generic label applied to exhibits that share the common characteristic of visualizing for the fact finder data that have been, or can be, admitted in evidence." ¹ Used in conjunction with a witness' testimony, these graphics can visually orient jurors with the objects and scenes of an action or the relationships of people in a case. They can also help explain complex concepts such as how an invention works, accounting schemes, or medical processes. Summary graphics such as charts and tables can also be used, oftentimes by counsel in closing arguments to the jury, to focus the attention of the jury upon the most important pieces of evidence in a case where voluminous records have been admitted into evidence. ²

Demonstrative evidence may consist of trial exhibits that are admitted into evidence and used by the jury during deliberations, or as demonstrative aids that are not admitted into evidence, but simply used by the witness or lawyer to explain matters that are relevant to the trial. ³ This memorandum discusses the use and admissibility of both types of demonstrative evidence, as well as common objections that may arise.

Continue to Section I, Part A. General Rules of Admissibility >>

written by Ron Kurzman Litigation Consultant / Partner
	Click for a full biography Ron Kurzman, Esq., is a Member of Magna Legal Services, LLC. He is an expert in assisting counsel in developing trial strategy for large, complex matters, based on behavioral research and jury analysis. As a litigation and trial consultant his activities include the development of trial strategy and tactics, jury selection and voir dire, implementing shadow juries, witness communication training, ordering of evidence, opening /closing statements, development of themes and arguments, demonstrative evidence preparation, and teaching persuasion techniques. He works with members of the trial team to develop themes and case strategies that will be persuasive to juries, judges and arbitration panels. Mr. Kurzman has worked on cases ranging from toxic tort and product liability to intellectual property and contract disputes. He has successfully worked with some of the top law firms in the nation such as; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Pryor Cashman Sherman & Flynn LLP, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, Troutman Sanders LLP, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP and Kelley Drye & Warren LLP. Mr. Kurzman has been associated with many highly publicized trials, most recently: US v. Richard Scrushy, Final Analysis v. General Dynamics and various national asbestos and brand name drug cases. Mr. Kurzman has a Jurist Doctorate from Nova Southeastern University School of Law and received a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Florida State University. He is a member of the New York Bar Association, New York Trial Lawyers Association and the American Bar Association. Mr. Kurzman continues to be committed to volunteer work through his association with the New York Lawyers for the Public Interest.