How to Get Forensic Trial Animation Admitted

With continuing technological advancements, no longer must attorneys rely on traditional forms of evidence in order to prove, defend or prosecute a case. The use of forensic computer animation used as evidence has exploded, bringing with it challenges to traditional principles of evidence admissibility. As offered, these computer created animations purport to demonstrate how a certain event did or did not occur. The unique characteristic of these animations is that they act as a means to synthesize all the evidence presented at trial into one visual representation. Their use can be either greatly effective or unfairly prejudicial. Animations allegedly demonstrating how an act did or did not occur can have tremendous persuasive value in the minds of the jury. Instead of forcing the jury to integrate every theory and piece of evidence into one seamless mental thought, a forensic animation seemingly combines all pertinent facts into a visualized theory of the truth. While these animations are merely representations of theories, the jury will often accept them as the truth of the matter due to their highly persuasive and prejudicial value. In one key study, 82% of trials where animation has been introduced as evidence has led to victory for the moving party.

The key to arguing for or against the admissibility of computer forensic animation lies in the attorney’s ability to understand the standards of admissibility applied to such evidence. Computer animation can generally be broken down into two differing classes of evidence, each with its own standard of admissibility:

Computer generated evidence as demonstrative evidence:

When arguing in favor of the admissibility of computer generated evidence, the best argument to make is that the evidence is merely demonstrative. Demonstrative evidence inherently carries no independent probative value and is used for five general purposes: (1) to educate your audience; (2) to explain something; (3) to persuade your audience of something; (4) to dissuade your audience of something; and (5) to reinforce something your audience already believes.

Arguing that your computer generated evidence is merely demonstrative evidence directs the judge to use the low relevance standard in determining its admissibility. After categorizing the evidence as demonstrative evidence, the judge will then ask the following questions in order to determine its admissibility:

1. Is it relevant? Does it have a tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence? .” F.R.E. 401 (2006).



2. Does it aid the trier of fact in understanding pertinent information?



3. Does it accurately reflect the elements of the situation it is portraying?

1. Is the underlying scientific principle valid? Considering whether the principle has been tested, its error rates, and the degree of the principle’s acceptance in that particular scientific community .” F.R.E. 401



2. Is the technique applying the scientific principle valid?



3. Was the technique applied properly on this particular occasion?

Article Source: http://www.content.onlypunjab.com

This article was written by Nicholas J. Deleault, Pierce Law Center ‘07. Nicholas writes select legal articles for the Law Firm of Goldstien and Clegg, a Massachusetts cyberlaw firm.

Please Rate this Article

5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 

Not yet Rated