Introduction

This feature consists of a structured set of "problems" designed to show how the "art of advocacy" can be --and often is-- exercised in constructing graphical exhibits for use in the courtroom. None of the examples presented is, in the strictest sense, "innacurate" if the standard is only whether the graphic correctly portrays the underlying facts. As with most other evidence presented in a court of law, however, there is more than one way to present the same facts. What constitutes objectionable "distortion" and what is just the legitimate use of advocacy to put the best face on one's case?

This feature will be provided in "installments" over the course of several months. Future installments will include the use of colors, perspective, etc., to influence a jury's perception of the facts presented.

Each of the problems to be presented is based on Goetz, Modern Methods of Proof, an unpublished textbook-in-progress. The unfinished manuscript version of this book is used as the principal text in Prof. Goetz's course, Methods of Proof in Modern Litigation, taught at the University of Virginia School of Law. All rights in the problems and the illustrative graphics are reserved by the author.

Part I: Zeeco's Lost Profits. Line graphs can make info "look" the way you want.

Part II: Bar Graphs. So simple that they could never be deceptive. True???

Part III: Pie Graphs.Slice it and dice it, flavor it and color it.

Parts IV et seq. are Under Construction. (Future Parts Will Appear Here.)