CLCT Laboratory Trials, often referred to as our "Lab Trials," are annual experiments that test the innovative use of technology for dispute resolution during case simulations, that are the closest thing we can produce to the real world. In conducting Lab Trials, the Center often works with major national organizations and frequently uses the assistance of the Courtroom 21 Participating Companies and Organizations.
All Lab Trials have been presided over by distinguished federal and state judges. Our experimental mediation used a noted retired Delaware judge and professional mediator. Laboratory Trials often involve our associated academic projects at the University of Leeds, England, and the Queensland University of Technology, Australia. United States v. Linsor involved assistance from the University of Canberra, Australia.
Lab Trials are often tied to the Law School’s courses in Legal Technology and Technology Augmented Trial Advocacy.
Select a Year:
2010 Lab Trial
Though the test trials held in the McGlothlin Courtroom over the years have utilized technology extensively, the 2010 Lab Trial is notable for being about the use of technology itself. The mock case, United States v. Varic, focused on the difficulties in ascertaining whether the accused had actually been responsible for creating the digital evidence used against them, or whether the evidence had (in part or whole) been manufactured by a third party and then falsely attributed to the accused.
First, painstaking effort was made to actually fabricate evidence that could be used (in this case to incriminate an innocent party for participating in attempted child slavery) as evidence against a defendant. Even basing this data creation on what a fabricator with limited resources could achieve, investigators were not able to find a "smoking gun" proving that the evidence was, in fact, fabricated. In one sense, the difficulty an investigator would have proving that a piece of evidence was falsely attributed works agains the defendant, but the defense's knowledge that such evidence is difficult to trace inherently injects doubt into the proof itself.
One very important aspect of this test trial was determining just how computer literate the average person likely to be selected to sit on a jury really is. According to a survey given to those prospective jurors, the average person is well-versed enough in computer jargon to comprehend a wide variety of expert testimony on data storage, wireless network hacking, and keylogging. However, there is some evidence that a full-length trial with an even greater barrage of testimony would tend to "lose the jury" either because of boredom or information overload.
The result of the trial was a split verdict, though CLCT Director, Prof. Fred Lederer believes that, "most if not all of the jurors accepted the fabricated evidence as true." The split verdict instead appears to be the result of other perceived holes in the prosecution's argument.
The advanced level of technology in the McGlothlin Courtroom enabled clear presentation of the case. The trial also utilized portable video conferencing equipment, cloud-based multi-media court record presentation, real-time transcription, and electronic evidence display. Digital pictures of key witnesses were even used to aid the parties during jury selection. As previously ascertained, this courtroom technology assists juries in understanding evidence, provides evidence that would otherwise not be available, and speeds up trial progress.
In the end, the carefully controlled nature of the evidence at trial and the utilization of long-distance experts who might normally not be available may have skewed the case from a truly realistic outcome. That being said, the trial does indicate that computer evidence should be corroborated with traditional non-digital evidence in order to avoid doubt, while simultaneously indicating that juries may be surprisingly susceptible to taking "lack of disproof" as proof when it comes to highly accurate digital forgeries and other computerized fakery.
To read a more detailed summary, click here.
2008 Lab Trial
The Center for Legal and Courtroom Technology (CLCT) analyzed the elderly response to modern courtroom technology Sept. 13, in a Laboratory Trial at the William & Mary School of Law. The fictitious case In Re Leslie Lyndon decided a guardianship dispute between an elderly woman and her adult children. The lab trial featured multiple remote witnesses, including a historic testimony of a remote witness appearing via videoconference from Williamsburg Landing, a local retirement community. This remote testimony is believed to be the first time that a witness has testified from home. The CLCT conducted the experiment for occasions when witnesses may be too ill or weak to leave their homes or a retirement community. "The one difficulty regarding the remote witnesses is that you lose some of the body language and tonality," said volunteer Jury Foreman Art Block. “But it is absolutely better than having someone read the transcript." Commenting on remote witness testimony from home, presiding Circuit Court Judge Charles Posten said that the step could change everything. “The technology allowed us to have her testimony, live and in her own words, when otherwise it would have been impossible,” added Erin McNeill, a William & Mary student who served as counsel for petitioners in the lab trial. The trial also utilized assistive technology devices targeting vision and hearing impairments which are available in many modern courtrooms. Multi-media trial presentation software was utilized in the proceeding, as well as PowerPoint presentations and live transcripts in an effort to gauge their effectiveness for elderly persons. Fred Lederer, director of the CLCT, said that assisting elderly trial participants is especially relevant in today’s society. “The baby boomer population is getting older,” he noted. “We can expect a lot more people in court matters who have trouble seeing and hearing. The case revolved around Leslie Lyndon, a wealthy elderly woman living in an assisted living facility. Leslie’s adult children moved for guardianship of their mother, expressing concern over her health and her relationship with a fellow resident, Jack Carlson. Leslie had been giving Jack large amounts of money and considered revising her will to include him. She had also shown symptoms of deteriorating mental health, which may have been caused by her use of the prescription drug Ambien. Litigants, witnesses and the jury included numerous volunteers from Williamsburg Landing. Each juror was provided with an individual computer screen on which evidence was displayed, and enhanced hearing and vision devices were made available for jurors with special needs. William and Mary law students served as the trial lawyers. As a student, McNeill was pleased with the opportunities the trial presented. “The lab trial is a great chance not just to see the ways technology can be helpful, or useful, but also the way technology can create challenges,” she said. “By facing these challenges and experiencing them in a lab situation, we are better prepared to adapt when we are using the technology in a real trial.” This year’s lab trial is one of many ways the CLCT is working in partnership with the American Foundation for the Blind to make the legal system more available to those who have trouble seeing, hearing, and moving. In Re Leslie Lyndon built on information gathered in a 2006 state-of-the-art CLCT lab trial that tested the ability of assistive technology to provide equal courtroom access to judges, lawyers, witnesses, and jurors with a variety of disabilities. The CLCT is a non-profit research, education, and consulting public service organization committed to improving the judicial process through the appropriate use of technology. It is a joint initiative of William & Mary Law School and the National Center for State Courts. For further information, contact Nancy Archibald, associate director for operations and administration, at 757-221-2494 or clct@wm.edu.
2006 Lab Trial
On Saturday, April 1, 2006 the Courtroom 21 Project conducted a pioneering experimental assistive technology trial designed to provide equal access to the courts for persons with disabilities. The case was notably significant in light of our aging population. Many of the case’s participants – judge, counsel, witnesses and jurors -- had special needs.
The simulated case, United States v. Culinary Enterprise of America d/b/a Mom’s Place, was a case brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against a fictional fast food restaurant chain. The trial was designed to test how assistive technology can be used in giving equal access to justice for judges, lawyers, witnesses, and jurors who have special needs in the areas of mobility, sight, and hearing.
The case stems from wheelchair bound Frank Horton attempting to take his blind daughter, Jesse, to dinner at Mom’s Place. In addition to the wheelchair, Frank has Ben, a service dog, to warn him of pending grand mal seizures. When they arrive at the fast food chain, he discovers that it is almost impossible to enter the restaurant and get to the order counter. The staff refuses entry to Ben after discovering that he is not a “seeing-eye” dog and Jesse discovers that there are no Braille menus. Subsequent inquiries to the corporate headquarters prove the chain purposely neglects to accommodate the needs of some patrons with disabilities, considering it too expensive and time-intensive for staff and disruptive to other customers. After the Hortons filed suit, the Attorney General of the United States intervened pursuant to the ADA and took over the case. The trial will be conducted as if it were being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The Courtroom 21 Project experimented with different types of technology intended to assist the participants during the trial. Although based on fictional elements, the case was tried realistically with many participants having a variety of disabilities that would make their involvement in a trial or hearing difficult. For example, the trial judge, the Honorable Lynn J. Karowsky of Weld County Court in Colorado, was losing his sight due to macular degeneration. Also integrated was the first known use of a Segway Transporter to allow counsel with mobility limitations to travel about the courtroom and argue the case to the jury. This experiment was conducted with the support of numerous companies and organizations including the Disability Rights Section of the Department of Justice, The American Foundation for the Blind, and the WGBH Media Access Group.
The trial was held in the world-renowned Courtroom 21 Project’s McGlothlin Courtroom—the world’s most technologically advanced trial and appellate courtroom. The Project—a joint initiative of William & Mary Law School and the National Center for State Courts--is an ongoing international demonstration and experimental effort which seeks to determine how technology can best improve all components of the legal system.
You are invited to watch the Mediasite webstream of the event.
Presentation Details:
Title: Courtroom 21 Lab Trial 2006
Description: Courtroom 21 Lab Trial 2006
Username: CLCT
Password: Just1ce4All
View Lab Trial
2005 Lab Trial: In re Blossom & Blossom
In April 2005, the Courtroom 21 Project developed and tested a cutting-edge technological solution to help courts in different nations jointly resolve many of the difficult international child abduction cases that take place every year.
Courtroom 21 tested its solution Saturday morning, April 2nd during an experimental Courtroom 21 Laboratory Trial. In re Blossom & Blossom concerned a married couple—the wife a citizen of Mexico—whose marriage has failed. Mrs. Blossom returns home to Monterrey with her young daughter, leaving her husband and son in their Williamsburg, Virginia home. Both parents sought custody of the children by retaining lawyers and bringing suit in their local courts in Williamsburg and Monterrey. The first case was filed in the United States in Williamsburg, making the simulated Williamsburg Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court the initial court to take action. Mr. Blossom attempted to use the Hague Convention, which applies to both the U.S. and Mexico, to obtain the speedy return of his daughter. However, in light of allegations of spousal and child abuse by Mrs. Blossom, the Monterrey Court refused to return the Blossoms’ daughter to the United States and instead scheduled a full hearing on the issues of custody and parental access.
With the assistance of Monterrey, Mexico, in this simulated case, Courtroom 21 used modern videoconferencing technology to permit the Virginia and Mexico courts to hold joint hearings, meet together, and to issue joint or parallel court orders to resolve the custody and access issues. In doing so, Courtroom 21 pioneered an approach for use in other forms of multi-jurisdiction cases. Ordinarily, cases are heard by a single court. When multiple courts try to deal with cases that cross boundaries, they are limited by the simple fact that the power of any single court is limited by its jurisdictional limits. This is especially true in international child abduction cases said Professor Fred Lederer, Director of CLCT and The Courtroom 21 Project. “With spouses often at war with each other and children sheltered by the courts of one nation while immune from judicial action in the other, resolution of such cases often is enormously difficult,” states Lederer.
While many nations are signatories of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which mandates return of abducted children, allegations of abuse and other matters can limit the application of the Convention’s remedies. In such a case, a court in one country, Lederer explains, has no meaningful way to communicate with a court in another and no useful way to jointly reach a custodial resolution that can be enforced in both nations. Courtroom 21 believes that its state-of-the art technology may provide a new procedural solution for some of these demanding cases.
Courtroom 21 had the assistance of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues. The U.S. portion of the hearing was presided over by the Honorable John J. Specia, Jr., of the 224th Civil District Court of Bexar County, Texas. Specia participated from Courtroom 21’s McGlothlin Courtroom in the William and Mary Law School. The Courtroom connected through videoconferencing with participants in Mexico. All documentary evidence was made available on the Internet.
2004 Lab Trial: In re Bab el-Whastani Hotel
This year's laboratory trial was a proof-of-concept high-technology alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The ADR dealt with a multi-party construction contract between the fictional Global Hospitality Enterprises and various international companies to build a new luxury hotel in Baghdad. Heightened security concerns and supplier difficulties imperil the construction and result in a mediation and arbitration.
The alternative dispute resolution was held in the world-renowned Courtroom 21 Project's McGlothlin Courtroom—the world's most technologically advanced trial and appellate courtroom.
Given the small amount of time available for the mock ADR, the goal of the mediation was not to resolve the case but rather to experiment with the technology necessary to assist the ADR process. The arbitration portion, however, went to completion. The mediation involved participants from Australia, the United Kingdom and Norway appearing via videoconferencing in Williamsburg, Virginia where Global's representative were. The arbitration involved three arbitrators of whom one appeared remotely. Documents were made available during the proceedings via the Internet, courtesy of the United Kingdom's “Custodian” program.
2003 Lab Trial: United States v. Stanhope
The Courtroom 21 Project held it’s annual high-technology experimental trial on Saturday, April 5, 2003 in the McGlothlin Courtroom at the College of William & Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia. This year’s case, United States v. Stanhope, was a prosecution of a U.S. citizen who attempts to fund an Al Qaeda terrorist strike in the Hampton Roads, Virginia area using in part the ancient, virtually untraceable hawala money transfer system. Defendant Stanhope was charged under 18 U.S.C. 2339B, "Providing Material Support or Resources to Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations," with converting a valuable painting to gold for terrorist use. After claiming the painting was stolen from her home during a burglary, Stanhope’s boyfriend carried the painting to Dubai where it was sold for gold. Using the hawala system, the gold was transferred through Beirut to a charity in London. The funds were then transferred to the charity’s Berlin office, which then helped finance a company whose executives used the funds to hire and support two men who planned to buy and use demolitions in Hampton Roads, Virginia. The case was presided over by the Honorable James Spencer, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The trial was a part of the Courtroom 21 Project’s ongoing experimental efforts and featured courtroom technology at its highest level. The trial included several pieces of digital evidence; witnesses who testified from both inside the courtroom and from remote locations, via videoconferencing; and counsel who used wireless instant messaging to communicate with the court and their assistants working outside the courtroom. United States v. Stanhope also featured the first ever three-continent judicial proceeding in which judges from the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom ruled upon the attorney-client privilege as an interlocutory matter in the midst of the trial. Courtroom 21 published the trial and the most comprehensive court record now available contemporaneously to the public via the World Wide Web.
After the jury heard closing arguments and deliberation instructions, they proceeded into the jury room, where they viewed the evidence again electronically via the jury room technology. After over an hour of deliberation, the jury returned a “not guilty” verdict. Because this was not an actual trial, but an experimental, educational effort, the court has a chance to ask the jury why they decided on their verdict. The opinion of the jury was that the case had too much circumstantial evidence that did not actually show that the defendant KNOWINGLY gave the painting away to fund the terrorist activities. The jury also gave their opinions on how they felt the technology affected the trial. These opinions will be used in Courtroom 21’s continuing effort to test the desirability of its use in the day-to-day search for justice.
2002 Lab Trial: United States v. New Life MedTech
In 1999, New Life MedTech, a high technology "start-up" company, invented the "New Life Stent," a device that when inserted appropriately in an artery would cleanse the bloodstream of cholesterol. The unique chemical composition of the stent would leach a cholesterol-nullifying chemical into the blood; the same chemical would dissolve hardened cholesterol "plaque" that blocks arteries. The latter quality of the stent was problematic as insertion of the stent too near a major plaque deposit could loosen it, potentially blocking a narrower portion of the circulatory system. After functioning successfully, the stent would dissolve completely. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the device.
Subsequent to FDA approval, New Life MedTech’s scientists developed an alternative material from which to make the stent. The new material was substantially cheaper to make and would permit New Life MedTech to lower the device’s price by 50 percent. The Company chose not to resubmit the stent to the FDA, relying, instead, on a number of lab tests, none of which included in vitro tests in human beings.
On Wednesday, February 13, 2002, a NewLife Stent was inserted in Staff Sergeant Terrence Dillon, U.S. Army, at the military hospital at Fort Eustis, Virginia. Doctor Hugh Nolan implanted the device during surgery to the patient’s thorax, during which the stent was placed in the aorta between the lower border of the heart and the diaphragm. His insertion tool permitted Dr. Nolan to place the stent at the precise location desired. This was the first stent to be used in an ordinary patient and was part of an effort by NewLife MedTech to capture the military medical market.
On March 2, Sergeant Dillon died as a result of a stroke. An autopsy determined that the cause of death was arterial blockage due to a cholesterol plaque deposit, which ordinarily would have been attached to the arterial wall. Further investigation led to the conclusion that the modified stent material was more powerful than was safe and had loosened the plaque deposit. The stent could not be found and was assumed to have dissolved. A plaque deposit had been known to exist in the artery near the stent’s location. According to NewLife MedTech’s instructions, the stent, had it functioned as approved by the FDA, would have operated safely in that location. NewLife MedTech was indicted for manslaughter.
Part of the Courtroom 21 Project’s ongoing experimental efforts, United States v. NewLife MedTech pushed the use of legal technology to its frontiers and, perhaps, beyond. The prosecution’s case included Eunice Dillon, wife of the deceased, Dr. Hugh Nolan, the surgeon who installed the stent, CEO of NewLife MedTech Gail Perkins, and Kerrin Schaffer, a NewLife MedTech research scientist. Two other witnesses submitted remote testimony from outside the courtroom- FDA Devices and Radiological Health Director, Mr. Don Nesson (played by Professor Don Tortorice) submitted testimony through multimedia deposition, and Dr. Anthony King, the forensic pathologist, testified via videoconference. Holographic medical evidence was presented in the form of a holographic heart that was used by both prosecution and defense. This allowed the doctors to show how to insert the stent both correctly (or incorrectly) and aided testimony for the nurses who were eyewitnesses to the surgery.
The jury made the first use of immersive virtual reality in a courtroom. Wearing special goggles, jurors were able to be in a virtual operating theater to view the location of key participants and to see what they could see. Counsel used wireless instant messaging to communicate with the court and assistants working outside the courtroom while the court published the most comprehensive court record then available contemporaneously to the public through the Web. After viewing the evidence electronically, the jury determined its verdict while using deliberation room technology.
United States District Judge Nancy Gertner, District of Massachusetts, presided over this jury trial heard in the Courtroom 21 Project’s McGlothlin Courtroom.
2001 Lab Trial: United States v. Linsor
The Courtroom 21 Project tested the cybercourt concept with the case of United States v. Linsor. Linsor involved a defendant whose accomplice placed a bomb aboard a United States military aircraft in England. The resulting explosion killed the pilots and caused the aircraft to collide with a civilian jetliner over London, causing numerous fatalities. Witnesses testified live from Australia, India, and the United Kingdom. A British barrister conducted a witness examination live from England. The trial was published live to the Web complete with audio, video, text, and documentary evidence.
The Honorable James Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, presided over the trial which took place in William & Mary’s McGlothlin Courtroom. The case used an enormous range of technology options including high technology court record, technology enhanced evidence presentation, technology augmented foreign language interpretation, jury room deliberation technology, and assistive technologies. A blind witness testified with the assistance of scanned documents printed in braille. A number of experiments were conducted as part of the trial, including a comparative analysis of different ways to present deposition evidence.
2000 Lab Trial: Nolan v. Engineering International
On Saturday, April 8, 2000, The Courtroom 21 Project held its fourth annual Laboratory Trial. The local setting was the McGlothlin Courtroom at William & Mary’s Law School, yet interested parties from all over the world were able to see, hear and read the real-time transcript as it happened, via the Internet.
The fictional case, Nolan v. Engineering International, was based on an air crash that resulted in one of the surviving passengers suing the manufacturer of the jet engine in strict liability and negligence. The Honorable Garr King, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, presided; law students played the roles of counsel, while witnesses were portrayed by law students and staff members of one of Courtroom 21 participating companies, FTI Consulting, Inc. One of approximately 80 companies that provide support for the Courtroom 21 Project in the form of hardware or software loans, FTI produced the key piece of evidence for the case - a computer animation of the crash complete with audio recordings of cockpit conversations. Students in William & Mary’s Legal Technology seminar, taught by Chancellor Professor of Law & Courtroom 21 Director, Fred Lederer, recruited a community jury who played the critical role of providing feedback on how the technology used in trying the case affected their deliberations and ultimately, their verdict.
“Just because we can do something does not necessarily mean we should do it”, says Professor Lederer. “The annual Lab Trial is designed to give us hands-on experience with many of the technologies commercially available to the courts today. We can experiment here at the Law School and hopefully help our colleagues in the legal professions to find solutions to their particular problems by utilizing appropriate technologies. The feedback from our community jury always proves invaluable in directing our research for the coming year. We are consistently surprised and pleased by the information they provide.”
Defense and Plaintiff’s counsel utilized a number of different technologies for evidence display and argument, including computer-based presentation software like Trial Director® and Microsoft PowerPoint®, an electronic brief prepared by RealLegal, and multi-media depositions which present the audio, video, and transcript portions of a deposition in one screen, using DepoSync software. In addition, one of the attorneys used videoconferencing technology supplied by Tandberg to appear from a remote location during early motion arguments.
Participants and observers had many options when it came to viewing the materials presented; display options included a document camera from WolfVision, a SMART Board™ with annotation capabilities from SMART Technologies; TVs and monitors from Mitsubishi and Sony; and two Pioneer plasma screens, one with a SMART Matisse overlay for annotation. Jurors, who were allowed to use the WolfVision document camera & the 40 inch Pioneer plasma screen in the jury room during deliberations, overwhelmingly responded positively to having the technology at their disposal, considering it especially useful when reviewing the judge’s jury interrogatories.
As emerging technologies help bring us together as a global community, it was fitting that the trial incorporated a number of international elements. One FTI Consulting expert witness appeared by two-way videoconferencing from London, while consecutive foreign language translation for another witness, a native speaker of Russian, was provided over Polycom® speaker phone by Language Line®.
Observers in Australia and the United Kingdom tuned in to the proceedings using only their personal computers, web browser, and password access provided by Courtroom 21. Australian-based software developers for the legal and justice markets, Ringtail Solutions, used their browser-based CourtBook software as the environment to bring together all of the elements of the trial and broadcast it live over the Internet. Observers from as nearby as second floor offices in the Law School and as far away as Australia received streamed video and audio feeds from the courtroom as well as the concurrent real-time transcript being produced by the court reporter and images of the exhibits as they were entered into the record.