Judge removes slides that state expert's opinion in writing, allows general research slides

Judge Stephanie Boyd on Wednesday reviewed a defense PowerPoint and ordered several slides removed after prosecutors objected that the slides presented the witness's testimony in writing rather than as demonstrative material.

The court said some slides appeared "to be specific testimony about your client," and sustained objections to those slides, ordering they be removed from the jury presentation while allowing the witness to orally testify to the same points. "Objections that people made or did not make to other sides, that's not a factor in my consideration," Judge Boyd said during the hearing.

Why it matters: The ruling draws a legal line between demonstratives that summarize general research and those that present a witness's factual opinions as prepackaged statements for the jury to read. The judge said general slides about research or treatises could remain, but slides that listed conclusions tied directly to the defendant were testimonial and could not be given to jurors as slides.

Key details: The witness, John Matthew Fabian, a forensic psychologist appearing by Zoom, had prepared roughly 45 slides. The court allowed a number of slides that discussed general research (for example, brain development and treatise-based material) but removed slides the judge determined were direct statements of the witness's impressions about the defendant. The court specifically ordered removal of slide 4 and other numbered slides the parties discussed; defense counsel was directed to remove the marked slides from the deck and proceed by asking the witness oral questions about the same subjects.

Court reasoning and procedure: The judge explained that a slide that "just puts down his testimony in writing" risks becoming hearsay and is not allowed as a demonstrative if it asserts the witness's conclusions about this defendant. The court also said conditional or background research slides (for example, materials from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) could remain when used to illustrate general points, and that some items could be admitted as learned treatises.

What remains unresolved: The parties disagreed at points about particular slide numbers and whether certain slides were repetitive or cumulative; the judge instructed the defense to remove the specific slides identified and told counsel the witness could testify orally about those topics. The court's orders were procedural and limited to whether the slides themselves could be shown to the jury as demonstratives.

Ending: The judge's rulings left the parties able to question the expert on the same topics at the hearing and preserved the trial record about what was and was not shown to jurors.