 Welcome to everybody who is here, particularly to Professor Richard Shaw, who I am as ignorant about his work as many of you in the room, because as I have been explaining to him, those of us who have been teaching law and Cambridge for many years often do it in a very boring way, and we don't know any of these new interesting ways of thinking about law. And we are going to be, I think, instructive. The audience, you are a really interesting cross-section of people, I think, from undergraduates to postgraduates to academics to all sorts of people I don't even recognise. So at the end when we get into questions discussion, it may well be useful if you are happy enough to say who you are, because Richard is very interested in knowing who you are when you respond to what he is going to say. I'm not going to introduce him in any detail, except to say that he's here because of Shubh Amukji, who has a very interesting project going at the moment, which is interdisciplinary in a really interesting way, and it's crossroads of knowledge in the early model, something like that. Do you know what the project is? Yes, of course. And it's interdisciplinary, and Richard is here talking interdisciplinary, professing people within the English faculty. Again, I don't think we do as much of that as we should. You know, it's quite exciting for people in the law faculty to talk to the Institute of Criminology, let alone the English faculty, so anything we can do to break down some of our barriers. Visualising law is one of your books, and you might tell us a bit more about that later. Professor Sherwin, as you know from the blurb, is Wallace Stephens Professor of Law and Dean for Faculty Scholarship, Director of the Visual Persuasion Project at New York Law School, and I'm going to sit down and you're going to talk. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks so much, Nicky. Thanks for the invitation to come speak to you. It's wonderful to be here in Cambridge. I consider this place a kind of intellectual oasis, and in these challenging times that's no small thing. This approach that I'm bringing to my teaching actually is rather marginal in the States as well, but not in practice. The premise of my talk is that the way law today is being practiced in the courtroom and in law offices has been transformed by new forms of visual technology. What that means essentially is that words are giving the stage of law a new kind of context, the meaning of images, the way images convey different kinds of expressions. Sorry, I'm losing my thought. Let me start with this. The idea of the adversarial context in which law pursues truth as a kind of, shall we say, a cauldron of opposing narratives is something that hasn't really been explored in the context of visual images. How does the truth-testing methodology that we've inherited in the Anglo-American tradition, how does it operate when we shift from the traditional word-based mode of communication to screens? This really hasn't been studied in law school. It's just beginning to be written about, but it raises a lot of really interesting questions. For example, when you think about visual evidence or watching images as the basis of truth in the search for truth in a given case, what exactly are we looking at when you think about it, when one watches an evidentiary image, who exactly is testifying? Is it the person or the object or the scene that's being depicted? Is it the image or the image maker who frames what we see? Is it the digital program that is used in post-production to frame the image? What does it mean to cross-examine an image in court? These are not simple matters. In fact, over the years I've found that the more one considers the issues involved, the trickier it becomes. I want to advocate today in favour of training jurists to become more visually literate so that the adversarial tradition may flourish under new technological conditions. To attain that in the face of these changing visual technologies, I think we have to realise what is at stake. We need to learn new methods of inquiry, new forms of knowledge, new aesthetic codes so that the integrity of the truth seeking process may be preserved. The thing that I'm going to talk about today has to do with what happens when images migrate to the screen. What we note is that images live on the screen the way other images do in various cultural contexts. That means essentially that the logic of visual association and affective engagement have now become part and parcel of the legal reasoning process. In law school the word-based epistemology of law is linear and logical. The syllogism is the main tool. But images do not function that way. They don't function as propositions. They function in the way of visual association conjuring associated images and memories that are saturated with affect. The question is how do we know how to assess the impact of these kinds of new forms of visual communication in the truth seeking process? How do we know, for example, when affect has become more prejudicial and probative in a given case? How do we speak about this as legal advocates? In my seminar on visual persuasion, I believe I would deem it a success if my students knew how to stand up and say, I object to red, Your Honor. I object to red. Why? What is it about this particular focus, a crime scene, a pool of blood dwelling somewhere? Is it more prejudicial than probative? What is it conjuring? So these are the kinds of things, the kinds of questions and controversies that I want to engage. And I think the place to begin is with storytelling. That's another thing that I never really learned much about in law school, although when I became a prosecutor in New York I rapidly realized that the more lectured the jurors about rules, the less contact I made. And that, as studies have shown, jurors tend to construct meaning with narrative. Facts are made to cohere on the basis of the stories that are told in court. And the best lawyers that I've seen in court are the ones who know which particular story type is optimal for a particular case. So, for example, prosecutors are rather fond of telling who done it stories, adding up clues that solve the mystery of the crime in a criminal case. Well, here's an example of a visual version of a who done it that's taken from prosecutors Marsha Clarke's summation in the OJ Simpson double murder trial in 1984. There he is. So this is the visual equivalent of solving a mystery. The puzzles snap into place each puzzle piece, a clue, a bit of evidence that's been submitted in the course of the trial. And you have the mystery solved in the end. Here's another one, a graphic I'm rather fond of that was created by Christopher Ritter. Very simple, very expensive, and very interesting. I'd ask you, I'm going to play this, and I'd ask you to tell me what genre do you think is being exploited, what narrative genre is being exploited with this visual. It was used in the Timothy McVeigh murder trial in 1997. This was a terrorist, domestic terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Federal Murr building was bombed, hundreds of people died. And the graphic is just this clock face and an audio, an audio of a very boring administrative law meeting that was taking place at exactly the time of the blast. And it's important to know, as you look at this, that the explosion on April 19, 1995 occurred at precisely 9.02 a.m. Let's see if you can identify the narrative genre this is using. Basically what happens is we'll present evidence here, evidence from the applicants, ask questions here from the protestants with regard to why the application shouldn't be granted. And I take all that information under advisement and draft up what's called a findings of fact, conclusions of law and a proposed order, which will be nailed to all the parties about 15 days before the Oklahoma Water Resources Board meets. They actually, they sit in this room and discuss the application and vote whether to approve or deny the application, so they're the decision makers. And you'll receive a copy of my proposed recommendation and can attend that board meeting and present your information directly to them or arguments directly to the nine member board. They generally meet the second Tuesday of every month. So you'll be advised that with regard to this proceeding, basically there are four elements that I have to receive information regarding. So let me ask you, what do you think? Is there a recognizable genre here? Why the second hand? What's the importance of having that second hand going around that clock? Suspence. Suspence. Why suspense? Why, why, what is, what's the utility or the power of that narrative genre in this context? How suspense? It makes the story. It is a story, but what is it doing? What's its function? It fills you with dread. Dread? Why does it fill you with dread? And how do we know that? When we talk about suspense, it's like who's the master of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. And what does Alfred Hitchcock do in his films? The guy with the knife is already in the show. But the victim, the woman who's prepared to use the show doesn't see it, but we see it. The audience sees it. Everyone but the victim knows what is going to happen, what is inevitable. And the exquisite suspension of that end point, which must come, is the intensification of how. That's what suspense does. It's an, it's an intensifier of emotion. What has, what we are looking at in this tape has already happened. Everyone knows it has to happen. It's the future perfect. There is no escaping it. And so the anticipation is precisely what is being used to magnify that, that emotional intensity, anticipatory heart. No one objects to this. No one is even registering what is going on. There is no intellectual analysis for this kind of thing when it's shown in court. It just unfolds. Part of my point here is to say, if this is an adversarial contest in the search for truth. Where's the contest? When screens go on, lawyers tend to sit down and watch. What happened to that truth safeguarding function? Here's a famous example, an early one, maybe one of the first videos I saw. Where George Holliday bought a new video recorder in 1991 and walked onto his terrace and turned it on. And by sheer happenstance recorded four Los Angeles police officers beating motorist Rodney King. They had just chased him on the highway, stopped him, and they were furiously beating him. And this videotape became the centerpiece of the state's assault case against the four officers. This was highly publicized. There's a tremendous sense of public outrage about excessive force. What the defense for the officers did was digitize the analog video, which gave them tremendous power over the frame by frame sequencing of the images. And what they in fact did was choreograph the sequence of images to suit the narrative that the defense wanted to tell. What was that narrative? These are professionals. What's their job? They understand the escalation and de-escalation of force. They know how to respond to circumstances that require violence sometimes. And they were professionals. They did exactly what they were trained to do. So in the digital version, I'll show you this and first you'll see the analog and then you'll switch to the defense digital version. What the defense managed to do was to tell a completely different story that was based on the construction of causation. You have to read David Hume about causation. That causation is like a fiction, what the eye creates in the close juxtaposition of two events. It was a famous psych experiment that harbored in the 50s where people sat down in front of a screen in the oscilloscope screen. They saw two balls coming together on the screen and one moving away. And when asked what did you see, it said there was a collision and one caused the other to move off to the right. Causation was a constant. So what the digital version of the images constructed was a narrative that said every time Ragnie King obeyed police orders to lie prone on the ground, the batons were up in the air. But when he raised up on his functions in resistance to the police authority, the batons came down. And this is what you'll see. He goes down, the batons go up, he comes up, the batons go down. The construction of causation, which might explain why many of the juries who acquitted the police officers in this case told the press, Ragnie King was in charge of the situation. He caused the police to be here. The construction of causation. Here's what it looked like. The regular version, the defense. The police are afraid. You watched the original version and the defense is the police are afraid. He's not going into compliance mode. He's rising up. And this story was compelling to the jury. So let's switch to other ways in which visuals are used these days in court. Today, everyday events, which might otherwise escape documentation, are being captured on a variety of different recording devices. Police surveillance cameras, dashboard mounted cameras in patrol cars. There's a movement now to use remote mini cameras worn by police officers. Smartphones. There's been a spate of police shootings across the United States that have been captured on smartphone devices, videotape, because everyone has a camera in their pocket now. Consider this smartphone video that flatly contradicted a police report by the arresting officer who claimed that a bicyclist drove to the police. He went directly into the officer and he was being charged with assaulting an officer. But this is what the smartphone showed. He was looking at all of a sudden the one and put up his arms and like a body check. This kid off his bicycle. I mean so hard at the kid that actually left the lane and onto the sidewalk. But minutes later, it's the cyclist who's arrested, charged with attempted assault, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. The officer is assigned to the victim's south precinct and is identified today as Patrick Poe. Are looking with barely six months on the NYPD who insisted that the cyclist tried to run him over. The defendant steered the defendant's bicycle in the direction of Officer Poe and drove the defendant's bicycle directly into his body, causing the officer to suffer lacerations on his forearms. End quote. But watched in slow motion, the video seems to contradict that. The NYPD and critical mass protesters have been at odds for years. Hundreds were arrested for stopping traffic at the Republican convention here in 2004 and monthly demonstrations have continued ever since. With police insisting he's a disruption and a danger. And cyclists insisting it's their right. And if a young model on the traffic, they should be ticketed. But that doesn't mean they should be pushed off their bicycle and slammed onto the curb. He also has been placed tonight on modified assignment that needs to be strengthened from his gone and his badge. And yes, he is off the street tonight. The cyclist is identified as 29-year-old Christopher Lawn of Hobo in New Jersey. He was not seriously injured, although he couldn't fit. His lawyer refused to comment the same video. OK, so this is a bicycle when the stakes involve shooting someone who is accused of a crime. Obviously the stakes are much higher. This has lately caused a movement toward more and more use of police minicans, both worn and on police cars. Which, in his hope, will make it more difficult to file false police claims. Although I've been reading lately, increasingly the police are adapting their behavior to the visual medium and narrating what is going on as they're doing it. Stop pushing me. Look over that knife, which may or may not exist. They are creating the narrative knowing they're being filmed. And some have said, which is the theme that I love, this is the life-imitating art theme, that they've assumed the performance of well-known figures in various police dramas. They perform themselves, as police officers, in order to gain control of the visual narrative. So it's always a question of adaptation. Here's another thing I've lately been seeing more of, crime re-enactments. Where you go to the scene of the crime and there's a walk-through and a re-enactment, a video reconstruction. We saw this fairly recently in 2012, George Zimmerman possessed a handgun. He was working as a volunteer security guard in Florida in a gated community, allegedly not especially friendly to outsiders. In this case, the victim was black and there's a lot of racial overtones to this story. And Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin and killed him. It's not clear what the circumstances were, who was the aggressor, and the scene was recreated a day or two after the shooting took place. Now I ask you to watch this and think what is a jury scene when they look at a reconstruction like this? When they look at someone like Zimmerman calmly and politely interacting with police officers at the scene of the crime, calmly talking through, giving essentially his version, his partial version of the story, the defense in effect. And the police are obviously not challenging him, nor is the prosecution challenging this reconstruction. Can you hear? He's very calm, seems very contrived, seems not aggressive in any way. And the question is, what are we watching here? What kind of a performance is this? Who is Zimmerman playing in the scene? And when this is played in court, what's the proper response to it? How do we cross-examine what we see here? Is it even being decoded sufficiently for it to warrant some kind of confrontation in court? Here's another dimension to the notion of crime or accident reconstructions. Digital animation, simulations based upon testimony and physical evidence that are used to picture what had presumably taken place. This is sometimes used as demonstrative evidence to help a jury understand a witness's testimony, and sometimes it's used in an attorney's summation. In this instance, in the Zimmerman case, it was played in the defense's closing argument. These are digital simulations of what must have occurred, so argues the defense, based upon testimony heard in court together with physical evidence like 911 audios and other evidence taken together. Now, because it's based upon testimony, it builds upon evidence that includes a lot of assumptions or inferences. It can only be as good as what it is during its evidentiary claims from, and it tends to fill in gaps in its representation. Take a look. The first shot to the nose, we can tell you. Number one right there is where the flashlight is found, George's small flashlight is seen. I didn't have any movement except to get into the spot of the eventual shooting because we don't really know what happened over George's. He certainly did say that he tried to push him off and try to push him away, I think in the video, in a moving point. The third position is when John Beard, as he was leading, sort of came down the way. So it's almost like a soundtrack. The 911 tape is almost like a soundtrack that the digital simulation is tracking, illustrating it, or so that's the claim. What was the exact position of Trayvon as he straddled Zimmerman? How did he punch him? How did he hit his head against the pavement? No one knows with any great certainty, certainly not with any great detail, and yet these images would have you believe that this is what it looked like, so that we slip into the mentality of a kind of documentary film, rather than a testimonial version of the truth, which then carries with it all of the authority of the documentary genre. That's what's being elicited. How are these things cross-examined? How are these things worked through? How are they challenged is my question. Now it's true also that animation is very powerful, and it allows us to learn things we might not otherwise be privy to. We can go places you couldn't ordinarily go, like inside technical equipment, and take a look at microscopic elements in a computer, let's say, and see exactly what it is that's contested. Or you can go inside the body and see whether or not the claim that plaque was accumulating in an artery requiring some kind of bypass surgery. You can look at these things and understand the procedure in a way that words might not allow. This is a great strength of this technology. But then you have other things. I don't know if we have to look at neuroscience journals. The neuroscience journals love illustrations. There's a large use of functional magnetic imaging, FMRIs, which are very dramatic like this brain, this brain lighting up, shall we say. What do you mean this brain lining up? It's not a brain. I mean an FMRI is not a picture of a brain. It's not an x-ray, and I think juries really understand what it is that they're looking at. It's an FMRI image is essentially an algorithm that takes general statistics of blood flow from some normal population and then compares it to the blood flow in a particular individual and then draws certain inferences from that. And the algorithm constructs something that looks like a brain, but of course brains don't light up in nature. They don't turn red and blue, and the algorithm decides what's red and what's blue. I object to red, your honor. Maybe that ought to be said in some of these situations. This is known as the Christmas tree effect, that people are drawn to the drama of these luminous FMRI images. The other thing that animations can do, digital animations, is that they can combine different media and as a result extract credibility from multiple sources. And it's a kind of bootstrapping operation where the more credible sources bolster the less credible sources. So I'll give you an example of this. This is an animation that was made about the forced landing of a US airways flight that actually landed on the Hudson River just off Midtown Manhattan on January 15, 2009. The pilot reported double engine failure when a flock of geese inadvertently collided with the plane and caused the engines to stall. Of course no one saw that collision, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be digitally reconstructed. Note all the elements that are in play here. Woops. Time to stop you to pause, you've got an emergency returning. I believe it's 15.90, he first crashed, he lost all engines, he lost the thrust in the engines, he's returning to the main project. It's 15.99, in which engines? He lost thrust in both engines he said. Got it. I think it's 15.99, cooking Genesis, you want to talk away in 1.13? We're unable, we've been in the process. I object to 15.50, left traffic runway 31. Unable. Okay, what do you need to land? Do you want to try to go to Cedarborough? Cedarborough, um... Ampar. Actually, we're going to park, I'm very keen back. Thank you. Cactate 15.29 will be short watching first. I want to go to the airport right now. I'm sure I'll, I'll check if you need assistance. Ah, yes, the I was the first. Can I get a name for runway 1? runway 1, I said Cactate 15.29, it's been like 2.80 if you land runway 1 at Cedarborough. I can't do it. Okay, which runway would you like at Cedarborough? We're going to that one. I'm sorry, Cactate 15.29, intercontacted, but you also got new at the airport at C2Coppen.cmount. You got 5.718, I don't think 210. I want to, uh, 417.18, uh, I think you said you was going about it. Cactate 15.9, you told me. So this is an impressive piece of work when you think about it. Some of the metrics that are incorporated into this visual are documented. The audio with the flight tower is real. This is occurring presumably in real time. We can map out exactly where the plane was in altitude and in space at a given moment. All of this seems to be a fairly credible metric. And then we have the geese, and then we have the people who are out on the wing of the plane. Did you notice how it feeds into a photograph at the end, as if to say we can retroactively project photorealism into everything that preceded that moment? That's how realistic it all is because it is a photograph. Of course it's not. It's a digital simulation that closed in on the photograph they used at the end. So what's the effect of the credibility of some of the elements in that visual? So bootstrapping the fictive quality of other elements. And who is actually astute enough to make the overall assessment of what's persuading them as they watch. There are interesting implications to this, and sometimes I worry about them. It makes you wonder what you're looking at sometimes. I had that feeling recently when I watched a visual that was given to the news media by the Egyptian government. Egyptian officials claimed that it was an infrared video of armed protesters shooting at the police. And if that's accurate, that would be the kind of provocation that could justify the Egyptian security force fatally shooting over 200 supporters of the deposed Muslim brotherhood president Mohammed Mercy. But is this a video really, or is it something else? It looks more like a video game. I don't know. It makes me think this blurring of the line to reality and digital simulation led me to come up with this phrase, the digital baroque. The recent book that I wrote explores the implications of this funny confusion between what's real and what's not real. We see this a lot in contemporary culture. The matrix effect, where you can see the Wachowsky's matrix series, we're living in a video game essentially, a digital simulation, a refresher like recollection. But you can smell, you can taste, and see that really simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain. This is the world that you know. The world as it was at the end of the 20th century. It exists now only as part of a neural interactive simulation that we call the matrix. Even living in a dream world now, this is the world as it exists today. I call it a sense of metaphysical anxiety that these pop cultural films, which we see a good deal of today, play out this theme. Do we really know what reality is? Is it the baroque theme of dreams within dreams? We don't really know what we're waking up to. It's all a bohaz-like entangled series of dream worlds. There's another thing that we have to really think hard about. And this has to do with the affective component that I talk about when images are playing in court. For example, something called a victim impact statement. This is the offshoot of a Supreme Court decision, Payne v. Tennessee, 1991. The Supreme Court said that in homicide cases, it was constitutionally permissible for this state to offer what it called a quick glimpse into the decedent's life in order to show decision makers what was lost, what the loss of this individual meant to family members and friends and maybe to society. But what exactly the court meant by a quick glimpse has never really been clarified. It's kind of been interpreted broadly. And this is certainly the case when it comes to these victim impact videos that try to convey the worth of a life. So here's an example of one from a case, Kelly v. California, in which the state, the judge in this homicide case, allowed prosecutors in the sentencing phase of the trial to submit an 18.5 minute video that was essentially a documentary, a mini documentary about the victim's life. Starting with baby pictures on through her 18th birthday celebration, the year she was killed, with the mother narrating. And none of us are the mother narrating this, but they had a soundtrack. You know the Canadian music artist Enya? Well, I'll play this for you. You'll hear Enya. One of the things that were argued on appeal just went all the way up to the Supreme Court of California and said, Enya is prejudicial. And you have to scratch your head when you read his opinions. And the court said no, Enya is not unduly prejudicial. If it was Celine D'Aure, they said, maybe that would be different. Why? It's also curious how no objections were made when the homicide victim is seen riding off into the Canadian Rockies at the end on horseback just made of America into her ancestral homeland. What? Where did that come from? That's somebody's fantasy. And yet it was admitted. Here's what it looked like. I'm going to just shoot through this. It's too long. Enya, that she is riding off. And I just had this curious feeling about what the court actually talks about Celine D'Aure. And what would it look like if it had used Celine D'Aure? It would sound like this. Could it? So that's unduly prejudicial according to the court. Is that because maybe it would remind jurors of the soundtrack from the Titanic and they might make the emotional association from the song? That's precisely what you want to do. You want to import the kinds of emotional associations or memories that are unconsciously undertaken by simply listening. This is an invisible kind of a thing, hard to elicit and hard to attack because it's implicit. This is my last illustration. It points to this kind of thing at a more sophisticated level. I'm curious to hear what you think about this because I think maybe this is a new form of visual elbows. And we shouldn't really worry about it as long as somebody is smart enough to be tested on its own terms. But this is an example, again, of multimedia coming into play. Multiple sources playing out at the same time. This is a murder trial that was very difficult to prosecute. The murder occurred in 1975. Martha Moxley was murdered. Michael Skakel, a cousin to the Kennedy family, was accused of the murder. And what the prosecution did in their summation was to integrate images from the crime scene, which was 1975, a recording that for some reason Skakel made as a kind of a boarded autobiography, but they got the audio as part of the discovery process. And they played that at the trial in the courtroom in 2002. So we have this vast discrepancy in the time periods of all these different things that are playing together. But the digital intermediation of all of these sources creates a kind of collapse of time, as if it's all happening in the now time of the courtroom, which kind of makes me think of sort of a strange Proustian moment almost, where you have this sudden gestalt that it's all taking place at the same time. And I want you to look at this and pay attention, if you will, to the juxtaposition between certain images and the words that are uttered by Skakel. Because the montage is telling you why he is saying these words, as if perhaps you're actually in his head understanding his own motivation. Take a look. I woke up once first when I woke up and then it was Michael saying, Michael, have you seen Mark? Mark? And I was like, still hot when I was four, a little drunk when I was one. I was like, oh my God, did I see you last night? And I'm like, fine now. And I remember just about a few minutes ago, oh shit. And now, like my worry about what I was saying last night. I got a feeling of panic. Panic. I had a feeling of panic. And do you know every time he says there were panic, Martha Moxley's mutilated figure is suddenly shown inside this box in court, as if to say that's what he was thinking of when he said he was experiencing panic. He was experiencing panic because the image of his victim came to his mind. How can we know that he was thinking of Martha Moxley when he uttered the word panic? How can you get inside someone's mind in this way? And yet the communication is operating, the argument that this is what explains his use of the word panic or it's on a fairly subliminal level and it's an unconscious visual association. And that's my concern. That's what I'm trying to convey to you. Are these kinds of techniques of association properly recognized for the work that they're doing? Is it being properly cross-examined? How can you know this? Is it being deconstructed for the jury so that they understand what exactly is being done, the manipulation of the elements that the state is attempting to perform in court? So here's my summary that shifts in the media, shifts in visual technology result in shifts in epistemology and aesthetics. Aesthetic registers operate, different forms of knowledge, and moving away from words as a kind of propositional assertion to something that's associative and effective. So we're awash in images everywhere we look, but as part of this visual turn in the digital simulation part in particular, which gives us the power to represent almost anything we can imagine, this tremendous control, it carries a certain anxiety. What are we looking at? Is it real? What's the difference between the geese and the people on the wing of the plane? How can we be certain what's real, what's illusion? This metaphysical anxiety has to be addressed. So what I argue is that if we're going to judge images, we have to understand what aesthetic register, what epistemology those images are operating in. We have to know if we're testing a metric, like whether the plane really was at that altitude. That's one form of objective assessment. Or are we dealing with something more like an emotional performance? Is the affect overstated? Is it distorted? Is it based upon an impermissible association, which would make it unduly prejudicial? This is what I mean by literacy, knowing what the image is doing, what register it's operating in, and how are we going to contest it in the grand tradition of the adversarial truth testing process? If we can't identify it, if we can't describe it, if we can't understand its prejudicial aspect, then we can't achieve the truth testing process that has preserved the search for truth in this long common law tradition. So that's why I argue that visual literacy is absolutely necessary to preserve that tradition. We need to know how to assess both aesthetically and also in terms of the knowledge base that's being claimed so that our judgments are reliable. That's what I write about in visualizing law on the age of digital broken. If you want to see many more examples of how images are being used in the courtroom, Google visual persuasion, my website, the visual persuasion project website will come up and you can see more of these kinds of illustrative visuals. Thank you.