By: Ryan S. Perlin

Article from Trial Reporter Spring 2023 Issue

In the third of his famous “Clarke’s Three Laws,” futurist Arthur C. Clarke opined that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Computerized courtroom presentations may now be considered commonplace, but as any trial lawyer would confirm, getting technology to function smoothly in the courtroom can feel like magic. 

Unfortunately, the procedures that govern the use of such technology in Maryland courts are not unified.  The Circuit and federal courts vary in terms of the technology available, and the rules and policies for using such technology differ widely.   

As a resource for trial lawyers, the Maryland Association for Justice has updated an easy-to-reference resource listing important information about the procedures for the use of technology in the Maryland Circuit Courts and the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.   

Titled, “An Updated Overview of Courtroom Technology Equipment,” this document was originally published in the MSBA Litigation Section’s newsletter, The Litigator, in 2018. It has now been updated to include the following timely information for each Maryland Circuit Court and the U.S. District Courts: 

Each Court’s technology contact information; 

A description of technological equipment available in each courthouse; 

A list of technological equipment litigators can borrow for trial; 

The type of presentation screen(s) available for use in the courtrooms;  

Court-specific rules and procedures for bringing or borrowing technology equipment for use in trial; and 

Resources (such as rental information) for each court. 

As the Updated Overview demonstrates, the technology available in the courts varies widely from one Circuit to another.  While some Circuit Courts have very limited courtroom presentation equipment, others have comprehensive, fully integrated evidence presentation systems.  The Updated Overview will clarify what is available and what you will need to bring yourself. 

Perhaps the most valuable details in the Updated Overview are the court-specific procedures litigants must follow in order to utilize technology for courtroom presentation.  Though many courts have lenient policies, other courts have strict, mandatory guidelines. In Harford County Circuit Court, for example, litigants who wish to bring trial presentation equipment must request permission in writing in advance of trial. That request must then be authorized by a judge, who will coordinate with security. In Prince George’s County Circuit Court, parties may not bring their own presentation equipment (other than laptops or tablets) and must complete a mandatory training session at least three days before trial in order to use the Court’s equipment.   

These variations are the reason the MSBA Litigation Section initially undertook this project, and why MAJ has updated it.  The trial process presents endless challenges to litigants.  We hope that by providing this resource, we can reduce trial pressure that comes with using technology in the courtroom.  Bookmark it.  Print it.  Come back to it when you need it.  

One final caveat is necessary. Technology is fluid, of course.  What was “magic” just a few years ago is routine today.  The policies set forth in this resource will change.  We will endeavor to update the Overview as new information becomes available, so check back before your next trial.  The best way to ensure that you are prepared for a particular court’s technology practices, though, is to contact the Court sufficiently in advance of trial.  As in all trial-related matters, preparation beats even the best magic.

Biography

Ryan Perlin is a partner of Bekman, Marder, Hopper, Malarkey & Perlin, L.L.C. He tries medical malpractice and other catastrophic injury cases in Circuit Courts throughout the state and in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. He wishes to extend a very special thank you to Madison DeRegis and Margaret Tippett, students at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law and law clerks at Mr. Perlin’s law firm, who provided tremendous assistance in communicating with the various courts and compiling the information contained in the Supplement to this article. He also thanks Laurie Weeks, of his law firm, who assisted with the creation of the original version of the Supplement in 2018.