C. REVIEW OF GRAPHICS ADMISSIBILITY

There is no uniform rule regarding review of judicial discretion in the trial court; some courts consider it non-reviewable, ²⁷ while others permit an action to be reviewed de novo on appeal. In general, however, courts that have reviewed the admissibility of graphics at trial have found that despite the admission of evidence having constituted error, it will not warrant reversal of the judgment or overturning the verdict of the jury so long as it did not constitute prejudicial error. ²⁸ When the probative value of the evidence is slight, however, and the potential for prejudice great, the admission of such evidence may constitute an abuse of discretion and will be grounds for reversal. ²⁹

It should be noted that an objection to the admissibility of graphics may not be raised for the first time on appeal. ³⁰ Counsel who objects to the admissibility of maps, diagrams or charts should make a good record at trial so that if they are admitted by the trial judge, opposing counsel will be able to establish on appeal that any error made by the trial judge in admitting the exhibits was prejudicial to his case.

<< Return to Section I, Part B

Continue to Section II. Graphics Not Admitted into Evidence >>

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.