This is a case involving a collision between an ambulance (running with emergency lights and siren) and a light rail train, which caused the train to derail and collide into a building. The lawyers are using many photographs of the area and the vehicles, taken right after the accident, as well as several dates thereafter. The intersection where the collision occurred was in the midst of significant construction at the time of the collision, and has changed quite a bit since that time. One of the central issues in the case is the visibility of certain things at the scene: whether the ambulance driver could see the light rail train, and vice-versa, as well as the vantage points of various witnesses. Although the lawyers are inundating the jury with photographs, none of the photographs adequately depict the line of sight at critical points in the action. Witnesses are almost always saying that the photographs do not accurately set out what they could, or could not, see.

Moral? Think about whether the photographs you have are sufficient to show the jury what you want them to see, or whether their use confuses the jury. Photographs carry with them a great amount of authenticity and credibility, but only if they are not confusing. Lawyers do not always have the luxury of having photographs taken at their direction immediately after an event – instead, we rely on law enforcement or investigators to take sufficient photographs for their needs. Don’t try to force a photograph to be more than it is – thus adding confusion to the trial. If a photograph doesn’t do the trick, consider using drawings based upon testimony, and explain why no photograph shows that unique vantage point. Or better yet, consider using a technology such as Trial Director or Case Map, and asking witnesses to draw on the photograph to enhance the accuracy and applicability to your case. Do not simply use a large number of photographs that do not clarify the witness’ testimony – use a visual aid, but make it the correct visual aid.