Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | T | Trial

Is forensic animation right for your case? As the capabilities of computer animation grow, so does their use at trial. Here's how to determine whether this tool can enhance your case presentation.

Article Excerpt
Multimedia presentations are increasingly popular, and many attorneys are considering using forensic computer animation for the first time. Forensic animation is evidence that is presented to the jury through the use of moving pictures, typically on a television monitor or projection screen. What distinguishes forensic animation from other forms of computer animation is its content. Most lawyers want to know: Is forensic animation admissible? Does it work? How are the animations made? How much do they cost?

There are, of course, no absolute answers to most of these questions. Admissibility issues may appear clear-cut in the abstract, but they often become clouded in real-world practice, especially when judicial discretion is brought into play. While forensic animation is often portrayed as a "silver bullet" that can turn every difficult-to-try case into an easy win, empirical research into its effectiveness with juries has yielded mixed results. And while advances in computer technology have made forensic animation more affordable to more attorneys, there is no easy formula to determine the eventual cost of a trial-ready presentation.

Forensic animation can often be used effectively if it is incorporated into your trial strategy. Consider admissibility issues, production techniques, and animation capabilities to determine whether it can be used to your advantage in a particular case.

Admissibility

As forensic animation gains acceptance in courtrooms throughout the nation, a general consensus on its appropriate use as demonstrative evidence is emerging. Before you use an animation for the first time, you may want to review the guidelines given by the South Carolina Supreme Court in Clark v. Cantrell, (1) a case often cited regarding admissibility.

In Clark, the court reviewed whether it was appropriate for a trial judge to refuse to admit the defendant's forensic animation of a drag-racing accident. The plaintiffs claimed that the animation did not accurately represent the testimony of either the witnesses or the accident reconstruction experts, and the court eventually modified the appeals court's guidelines for admitting forensic animation as demonstrative evidence.

First, the animation must be authentic. The Clark court suggested that this can be shown by "offering testimony from a witness familiar with the preparation of the animation and the data on which it is based." In this case, the authenticity requirement was met by testimony from the expert who prepared the underlying data and the computer technician who used those data to create the animation. (2)

Second, the animation should be relevant to the event or opinion being illustrated. This can be established by showing that it is related to other material evidence and that using it will help the jury understand the related evidence. This argument can be particularly strong when the animation is being used to illustrate technical information or complex expert-witness testimony that might otherwise be beyond the jury's...