In the ongoing wrongful death civil trial against Merck involving its pain reliever drug Vioxx, the mainstream media tends to focus on seemingly important expert testimony such as that described in this article.
Being more a student of the courtroom, however, I tend to focus in such trials on jury dynamics, such as those described in this Fortune Magazine article:

Speaking in state court in Angleton, Texas, without notes and in gloriously plain English, and accompanying nearly every point with imaginative, easily understood (if often hokey) slides and overhead projections, (plaintiff’s lawyer Mark) Lanier, a part-time Baptist preacher, took on Merck and its former CEO Ray Gilmartin with merciless, spellbinding savagery . . .
But in contrast to Lanier . . . (Merck defense lawyer David Kiernan) seemed to read much of his presentation and illustrated it only with stodgy, corporate headshots of Merck officials or hard-to-read excerpts from documents whose meaning was shrouded in medical jargon . . .
The trial offers jurors a stark choice between accepting Lanier’s invitation to believe simple, alluring and emotionally cathartic stories versus Merck’s appeals to colorless, heavy-going, soporific Reason.

H’mm. On one hand, an interesting story told through a lively presentation given without notes using colorful images. On the other hand, a bland recitation of prepared remarks given with boring images of hard-to-read text in documents.
Translated: This is not looking good for Merck.