As the wheel of technological progress continues to spin, it has become evident that our legal mechanisms must adapt in stride. By welcoming cutting-edge technologies like Virtual Reality (VR) into the legal landscape, we can reshape how we interact with and experience the judicial system. This transformation potentially fosters a more inclusive and dynamic law system, propelling forward how we engage in legal battles.

Diversity, efficiency, and shared comprehension become real advantages through the VR lens. The American Bar Association highlights that diversity within the legal profession cultivates a cognitively and culturally superior system, ultimately more productive and just. Research reveals that juries with a mix of racial backgrounds spend more time deliberating, exhibit a higher factual accuracy, and engage more openly in discussing racial factors in the case.

By harnessing VR, we can heighten participation by addressing the needs of one in four adults in the US living with a disability. For instance, VR’s high color contrast and intense magnification features have dramatically enhanced the visual experience of individuals with low vision. An example to underline this point is a man whose reality was an indecipherable blur, who found he could see and interact in a virtual world through VR.

The technology also presents solutions for language barriers via instantaneous foreign language translation and for hearing or cognitive challenges through automated closed captioning. Automatic definitions for complex legal terms can also enhance comprehension.

By streamlining procedures and reducing legal fees, VR can increase access to legal services, especially for those in lower income brackets and from communities of color. More cases can be handled, addressing the backlog in critical areas such as sexual assault or immigration cases that the Covid pandemic has aggravated. Additionally, VR can serve as a memory vault, storing testimonies for later reference, thus reducing reliance on imperfect human recollection.

The VR Effect: Revamping the Litigation Experience

From preparation to verdict, VR has enormous potential to revolutionize litigation. A parallel can be drawn from a 2019 UCLA study where doctors who used VR for surgical training outperformed their counterparts by a staggering 230%. If this effect can be mirrored in the legal arena, parties, counsel, and witnesses can benefit from realistic, immersive preparation environments. Ultimately equipping lawyers with a more comprehensive arsenal for client advocacy.

VR can also streamline processes like depositions, saving clients substantial legal fees during fact-finding. Lawyers can replay life-like versions of these depositions in court instead of reading them out loud.

During jury selection (voir dire), VR can foster greater lawyer participation, allowing private opinion sharing among a team while one lawyer leads the process. Counsel from different states can contribute real-time observations and fact-checking. Potential travel cost savings and the ability to cater to various disabilities can expand the pool for jury selection and witnesses.

The technology can also bring crime scenes or hazardous environments into the courtroom for juries to explore, thus allowing more informed deliberations virtually. Think of a workers’ comp case where understanding the precise environment of an injury could be crucial. Similarly, preserving evidence and crime scenes through VR could become standard practice.

Even beyond the trial, VR can continue to impact the learning experience for law students, allowing them to virtually step into the courtroom instead of just consuming volumes of case law. Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin, VR engages students in the learning process, making it more interactive, engaging and fostering critical thinking in a dynamic environment.

Legal Quandaries Surrounding VR Use in Litigation

With novel technology come new legal challenges. The Confrontation Clause ensures the accused in a criminal prosecution the right to face their accusers, underpinned by three key elements: the witness being under oath, the opportunity for cross-examination, and the court’s ability to assess the witness’s credibility. The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether VR testimony satisfies these elements.

However, some indications can be gleaned from decisions concerning two-way video systems like Zoom. There is currently a divide in court rulings. Some circuits, like the seventh and second, consider two-way video systems to comply with the Confrontation Clause, as they enable observation, cross-examination, and the assessment of the witness’s demeanor. They argue that this virtual face-to-face interaction maintains the symbolic essence of the clause.

On the other hand, courts like the Missouri Supreme Court have ruled against such systems. The Supreme Court’s denial in Wrotten v. New York suggests that a defendant’s confrontation right could be upheld through two-way video systems if sufficient interaction between the courtroom, the defendant, and the witnesses is maintained. The opinion suggests that if VR can replicate this level of interaction, it may not infringe upon the Confrontation Clause.

As laws have adapted to consider electronic documents and communications in evidence rules, VR should receive a similarly modern interpretation.

In Conclusion

The integration of VR technology could usher in a new era in the legal industry by boosting efficiency, inclusivity, and accessibility while simultaneously reducing costs. VR is a pioneering force, ready to diversify the law and engender profound transformations in the litigation experience at every stage.