Laser Disc Evidence Display System Also on Trial in Suit : Courts: The innovative device that allows lawyers instant retrieval of materials has proven a time-saver elsewhere, but its use raises complex legal questions.

When jurors hear a civil suit involving Upper Deck Co.--the company that revolutionized the baseball card industry with four-color, holographic images that seem to jump off the cardboard--they may benefit from the latest in legal technology.

The irony is that the innovative courtroom display system--composed of a bar code scanner wand, three simultaneously operated laser disc players and four television screens--would be used against the Carlsbad-based company in an upcoming case in Orange County Superior Court.

Utilizing the laser disc system, attorneys for Anthony J. Passante Jr. and Andrew J. Prendiville, who claim a disputed 3% interest in Upper Deck, say they will be able to call up thousands of images in an instant: documents, diagrams, photos and, yes, baseball cards.

Rather than dealing with poster boards, typewritten transcripts, charts, slide and overhead projectors and snapshots, C. Brant Noziska, a San Diego attorney who represents the two plaintiffs, said in an interview he will rely on the single integrated system to illustrate his evidence.

The cutting edge laser disc system promises to dramatically reduce the length of complex trials and make them more compelling to jurors, but raises questions of fairness because attorneys facing the system could be at a significant technical disadvantage.

“You can bounce all over the disc,” Noziska said, without shuffling through papers and charts, loose-leaf notebooks, dimming the lights or running through slides. “This allows you to control exactly what the jury is looking at.”

But normally, any exhibit shown to jurors by one side in a trial must be made available to the other side. However, once the image vanishes from the screen, said opposing lawyer John A. Barclay, it is useless to the opposition unless the judge who hears the case orders Noziska to make it available to the other side.

“There’s no law on any of this,” Barclay said. “What constitutes fair play in presenting a fair trial?”

In addition to Upper Deck, defendants in the suit include company President Richard P. McWilliam--a graduate of Anaheim’s Servite High School who gave up a career in accounting to join the young baseball card company then located in Yorba Linda--and another investor, Boris Korbel. McWilliam denies that Passante and Prendiville, both Orange County attorneys who were friends of his at Servite, have an interest in the privately held company.

Barclay, who represents Korbel, would not say whether he would attempt to use the system for his client or whether he would challenge its use by Noziska. If he does, the judge is expected to rule on the fairness question before testimony begins.

A similar version of the laser disc system, developed by the Cardomon Group of Santa Ana, is being used by defendants in a product safety suit now being tried here. In that case, Judge Byron K. McMillan ruled that attorneys could not use it during their opening statements to the jury, but could use it during the trial as evidence was introduced and in closing arguments.

William B. Stremel, the plaintiffs’ attorney in that case, who is not using the system, said he was “not so sure how effective” it is.

A number of companies around the country have developed versions of the laser disc system, which got its first major showcase in a lengthy, complex San Diego construction defect case that Noziska tried. That version was developed by a high-tech company, Creative Laser Concepts, after inventors watched attorneys fumbling with exhibits at the William Kennedy Smith rape trial in Florida.

“They were using 19th- and 20th-Century technology at the rape trial, and the adaptation of bar code and laser technology has the lawyers employing 21st-Century technology,” Noziska said.

In the San Diego case, the jury returned after three days with a $6.75-million judgment for Noziska’s client. When he talked with jurors after the verdict, he said, they told him “they were all impressed by the technology, but they weren’t awed by it.”

While the system may save time--about 10% to 15%, Noziska estimated--it doesn’t save money, and in fact boosts the cost of preparation as compared to manual exhibits. With complicated cases involving thousands of exhibits, he said, “there’s an enormous cost, any way you cut it,” adding that he expected the cost of the laser system to come down as it is used more often.

William P. Volk, who represented the defendants in the San Diego case, is a convert to the system, calling it “the wave of the future. . . . It made understanding the issues very easy for the jury.”

Volk credited the system with shortening the length of the trial by two-thirds, noting that several judges and lawyers dropped in to watch it in action or, during breaks, operate it themselves.

His only criticism, Volk said, was that the system enabled Noziska to “overemphasize issues I thought were non-issues,” which were “magnified and enhanced. Because they were presented on a TV screen it held their attention. It made it look as if it had great weight because of the way it was presented. . . . The video technology grabs the jury.”

The issue of fairness also came up in the San Diego trial. Superior Court Judge Kevin W. Midlam ordered Noziska to allow Volk to call up some images from Noziska’s disc, and even allowed Volk to code some exhibits of his own onto the system.

By the end of the case, Midlam was impressed, saying the system shaved at least seven days off the length of the trial. If both sides in a similarly complex trial were to use it, he said in an interview, two-thirds of the trial time could be saved.

Normally when lawyers in a complicated civil case roll into court with 20 or 30 loose-leaf notebooks and boxes of exhibits, Midlam said, “the poor jurors break out into a cold sweat.”

Some of the 1,400 documents were more than 20 years old, but they were enhanced on the disc, with relevant passages highlighted in boldface.

James R. Milliken, assistant presiding judge of San Diego County Superior Court, said the system effectively combined supermarket and compact disc technology.

Milliken agreed with Midlam that segments from taped depositions, called up during cross-examination of witnesses, can be particularly effective with jurors in impeaching testimony, providing not only contradictory statements but nuance and body language as well.

“It beats standing there reading a cold transcript,” Midlam said.

When the attorneys using the system are properly prepared and properly organized, Milliken said, “the trial goes like a dream,” potentially reducing trial time by as much as 20%. Even before a jury is selected, the judge said, evidentiary matters can be decided ahead of time, or, while the trial is in progress, with far fewer delays.

Barclay, who may be facing the laser disc system soon, is not taking any chances. Last week, he moderated a panel on the system, with a demonstration by the Cardomon Group, before lawyers and judges who belong to the local chapter of the national bar organization, Inns of Court.