Barrister, Attorney

elucidate3D

Royal Standard House

334 New Chester Road

Wirral, CH42 1LE

Grt Britain

© Copyright 2001 Robert Girvan.

First Published in Web Journal of Current Legal Issues in association with Blackstone Press Ltd.

---

Articles previously dealing with this subject have concentrated upon admissibility or the advantages and/or disadvantages of using computer-generated displays in court. This article is intended for the practitioner and academic alike and deals with the current use of the technology in the courtroom. A synopsis of how a typical animation is produced is included to give the reader an insight into the accuracy and efficiency of the current software used for production. Examples of computer animations actually used in court are given from the USA and England, this comparison revealing the latter's far less frequent use of the technology. Some reasons for the difference are suggested. Virtual Reality is briefly covered, including its use in an on-going British inquiry.

Introduction
Synopsis of the Principles of Animation
Current Use of Computer-Generated Displays

U.S.A.
England

Virtual Reality
Possible Reasons for the Slow Progression of Use in the English Courts
Conclusion

Bibliography

---

The USA leads the field in the advancement and application of computer-generated displays, as a result, reference is made to articles and cases from across that nation. In the 1990s the legal profession in the USA took advantage of more affordable three-dimensional animations to present their cases to juries. An ability to create animations on desktop computers combined with falling hardware prices have contributed to a surge of courtroom animations. With affordable computers and a program such as Autodesk's 3-D Studio, even the tightly budgeted prosecutors' offices could afford animations.(Borelli, 1996 p 439). Yet with similar reductions of the cost of hardware and software in England, the use of computer-generated displays in court by comparison appears to be negligible. This article sets out some of the noteworthy uses actually made of this technology in both countries and then offers reasons for the apparent lack of use in English courts.

In this article, the term "computer-generated display" will be used to encompass the result of a computer program that is to be shown to the trier of fact. It must be noted that although the terms are often used interchangeably there is a distinction between computer animation and computer simulation. Computer animation is a series of computer-generated images or pictures with each image in the series slightly altered frame by frame in order to mimic actual movement, the end result being displayed on the screen is the totality of the exhibit. On the other hand, computer simulation involves the input of possibly many sophisticated rules of physics and mathematics which form the parameters within which the facts of a particular scenario operate, and thus become definite versions of an event happening often with the verification of an expert.(O'Flaherty 1996, p 1). In order to give the lawyer (practitioner or academic) a better understanding of the accuracy and of just what can be achieved with computer-generated displays I have included a synopsis of how computer animation is created.

Top | Contents | Bibliography

Normally, we can separate and decipher no more than 10 images per second (or ‘frames’ per second, abbreviated to fps), any increase in the amount of images above this limit and brain sees these discrete images as continuous motion. Motion is perceived from 10-16 fps, but this motion or movement appears to flicker or seem jerky, beyond 16 fps this movement appears smooth and natural. Hence, motion pictures are typically displayed at 24 fps and television are shown as 30 fps, as is most computer animation.

The starting point for a computer animation is the creation, by the 3-D animator of a computerized three dimensional world in which three dimensional objects or models and their spatial interrelationships with other models, whether human beings, vehicles and so on, are accurately portrayed. Having inserted all the relevant physical objects, the lighting characteristics can be added. Suchocki^[1] notes that with the sophisticated control at the animator’s disposal ‘it is even possible to recreate the lighting conditions for a specific geographical location on a particular day of the year and time of day.’

Once the scene has been set in this way, the motion of the models and light sources relative to each other is introduced. This necessitates creating a particular locus of movement for each of the objects, lights etc in the animation and can be achieved in a number of ways. A common technique is ‘keyframing’ in which a particular frame is used to locate and store the precise position and orientation of an object. As the result of the simulation is a three dimensional scene, it can be viewed from any position within this scene and it is thus necessary to decide which perspectives the event should be viewed from, i.e. where the ‘cameras’ should be sited. This might be overhead to enable a good overall view of the incident or e.g. from the perspective of a driver in a vehicle involved in the simulated incident. Given the accuracy with which such scenes can be represented, it is even possible to view the scene from a position which would be completely impracticable in real life. Having placed the ‘cameras’ in strategic positions, it only remains to insert atmospheric effects such as ambient weather conditions which might have a bearing on the way in which the incident occurred.

All of these variables having been defined, the software is then able to convert the descriptions into images and eventually into the final animated sequences which can be recorded in videotape, CD-ROM or LaserDisc. The final product is a precise and accurate rendition of the incident at issue to which, during final editing, can be added descriptive text, labels or even voice transcripts where this is appropriate.

Top | Contents | Bibliography

The technology behind computer animations and simulations has been extensively utilised in everyday science and engineering where computer models, for example, help to design and test ideas before they ever reach the stage of being built. Architects have used such simulations to design buildings enabling them to show their clients the intended finished building from any angle, inside or out, and so revealing far more to their clients than mere paper drafts perspectives could possibly show^[2]. The well-developed nature of the medium has meant that in trials dealing with areas of science, simulations have become extremely popular with the advocate. In the USA, patent cases and cases dealing with medical negligence are usually heard in front of a jury. These cases can be particularly difficult to present orally; for example, the skills of a patent examiner in deciding what is novel and what is an inventive step are built up only after a number of years of experience-how could members of the public easily understand the position of the man 'skilled in the art' unless substantial effort is expended upon simplifying the technology? This effort is now usually carried out not by the lawyer in court trying to educate the jury, but by producing animations showing, for example, how one technical development is inventive and others not.(Leith and Hoey, p 231).

In the USA, patent, personal injury and medical negligence cases have substantial awards made if plaintiffs are successful and initially were the primary areas for the development of computer-generated displays. A large number of civil cases have now been heard using this kind of technology including areas involving vehicle collisions, accident reconstruction, environmental litigation, construction litigation, product liability, structural analysis and manufacturing processes^[3]. One example of the many used in USA civil courts involved the multi-party product liability case that followed the fire at the Dupont Plaza Hotel, San Juan, Puerto Rico on 31 December 1986.

The trial in this case was held in San Juan, Puerto Rico during 1989 in the US Federal District Court for the Commonwealth under a multiple district litigation procedure for complex cases. One of the many complex issues in this case concerned the liability of the manufacturer of portable platforms, (one of the Defendants in the case), that were stored in an area of the hotel that caught fire. The Plaintiffs were the 97 guests and employees who were killed within ten minutes and 146 others who were injured as a result of the fire. The platform manufacturer instructed forensic investigators to produce a computer-generated simulation of the fire. It was understood from the outset that the results of the computer analysis would not only be a critical tool and work product of the expert witnesses, but also would provide the basis for a forensic animation to present their opinions as demonstrative evidence in support of testimony. Investigators specifically analysed the effect of the fire on the combustion behaviour and response of the portable platforms. The key elements investigated were the timing of the involvement of the platforms as the fire spread and any toxic products they produced which resulted in the fatalities.

A fly-through, 3-D reconstruction computer model of the hotel was developed for orientation of the viewers. This computer model also provided a means to effectively illustrate the time-dependent fire development from various viewpoints. This was accomplished by initially showing the progression of a selected isothermal surface through the fire's starting locus. The combination of the field fire modelling with the computer building model very clearly illustrated a significant conclusion: The platforms did not become involved in the fire until after it had spread to another part of the hotel, and therefore, they did not produce smoke or toxic products that contributed to the fatalities. It is important to note that the fire animation did not attempt to depict smoke or flames for which there were no technical data to support their appearance and behaviour at any time. Such inclusion would inevitably have been subject to vigorous and indefensible objections of Motions in Limine.

The Dupont Plaza Fire animation was allowed by the court to be shown to the jury. During the direct presentation of the platform manufacturer's case in chief and just prior to the display of the animation, opposing counsel called for a recess to review the animation again in judge's chambers. Opposing counsel then expressed concern that the animation was very persuasive and would not only be detrimental to their case against the platform manufacturers, but would "poison the jury" for their position against other Defendants yet to come in the months-long trial. As a result, a settlement was reached with the platform manufacturers. As with many instances of the application of computer animation in civil courts in the USA, this example demonstrates how animations have become significant aids in the settlement of disputes^[4].

Computer-generated displays have been used increasingly in criminal cases in the US. For example, New York v McHugh 476 N.Y.S.2d 721 (Sup.Ct.1984) where the Defendant being prosecuted for manslaughter and drunk driving was able to persuade the court that an uncovered manhole on the road caused the accident. In that case the court now famously stated," A computer is not a gimmick and the court should not be shy about its use when proper. Computers are simply mechanical tools-receiving information and acting on instructions at lightening speed ... What is important is that the presentation should be relevant ... that is fairly and accurately reflect the oral testimony offered and that it be an aid to the jury's understanding of the issue."

In Kenneth M.Pierce v State of Florida Case No.93-1302 L.T. the 4th District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to admit a computer-generated animation of a prosecution expert reconstructing the accident which resulted in the death of a 6 year old girl and injuries to two other children. The animation was used as demonstrative evidence in the vehicular homicide trial against the defendant. With the highly emotive subject of the death of a child it would appear that there would be a substantial danger of unfair prejudice outweighing any probative value to the computer-generated display. However, the court stated," the computer animation tape was a fair and accurate depiction of the expert's opinion as to how the accident occurred, and found that the opinion as well as the computer animation, would be helpful to the jury in understanding the issues of the case ... Although evidence in this case indicated a bloody scene with screaming victims, the computer animation videotape depicted no facial expressions. Although same testimony indicated that the truck was traveling up to twice the posted speed limit, the videotape depicted the truck traveling at the posted speed limit." In affirming the trial court's decision to admit the evidence the court reasoned that because the computer animation was offered as a demonstrative exhibit to aid in expert testimony it did not unduly influence the jury's perception of the facts. The court also observed that the opposing party had the opportunity to attack the credibility and accuracy of the exhibit through cross-examination. This, according to the court, was sufficient to alert the jury to the fact that any inaccuracies in the exhibit's generation would render the animation itself inaccurate.

The highly publicised 'Snoop Doggy Dogg' trial of 'gangsta rapper' Calvin Broadus is another example of the successful use of computer-generated displays in court. As a part of his defence complex evidence, which normally would require numerous expert witnesses and hours of testimony, was easily presented in the form of a brief 3-D computer animated video. Computer animators produced a video reconstruction of the shooting that was consistent with both eyewitness statements and the evidence collected from the crime scene. The critical issue for the jury was whether the victim was shot in the back or in the side, since the defendant's defence was self-defence. If the defence could establish that the shots entered the victim's left side after he reached for his gun and turned, then the entry wounds would be consistent with the theory of self-defence. The first portion of the video depicted a series of overhead cross-sections of the victim's body which allowed the jury to see, from all possible angles, the exact entry and exit points of wounds sustained by the victim. Additionally, through the use of slow motion and real-time images, the defence was able to show how the angle and force of the first shot made the victim's body turn slightly, causing the second shot to enter his back. The defence's recreation effectively showed the jurors that the victim must have been close to the vehicle that the defendant was sitting in at the time of the shooting because of the height, angle, and distance of the shots. The animation supported the self-defence theory by illustrating that the further the victim's body moved away from the defendant's vehicle, the less likely it appeared that the shots could have come from the vehicle's passenger window - where the defendant was located. The jury acquitted the defendant on the charges of 1st and 2nd-degree murder and it deadlocked on the lesser offence of voluntary manslaughter.(D'Angelo 1998).

Top | Contents | Bibliography

The above examples are just a few of the hundreds of instances of the use of computer-generated displays in USA courtrooms. However, in England a lawyer has to search really hard in order to find an example of this well-established technology being put to use in any court proceedings. One area that should yield a wealth of examples of computer-generated displays is in the criminal field of serious fraud. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 specifically provided Crown Courts a way to implement new technology into serious fraud cases that were becoming increasingly burdensome and difficult for juries to understand. The Act states at s.31:

"For the purpose of helping members of juries to understand complicated issues of fact or technical terms Crown Court Rules may make provision-

(a) as to the furnishing of evidence in any form, notwithstanding the existence of admissible material from which the evidence to be given in that form would be derived;".

However, it was not until 15th September 1994 that the first instance of computer-generated displays in an English court took place at Oxford Crown Court, in the case of R v Roy Wharton. The case was prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office and the defendant was convicted of fraudulent trading. Over 100 computer-enhanced graphics were shown during the presentation of evidence and video animation was used to illustrate some transaction sequences^[5]. The project manager for the company providing the technology in that case related to the procedural safeguards of the technology as being

"a procedure of checks and balances. It must be constructed from factual data and must serve the purpose of explaining facts. In case of doubt as to the factual basis of the graphics, it must be possible for an expert witness to explain how the graphic is constructed ... Both sides have to agree that a graphic can be used before it can be presented in court. If the other side disagrees, then the question may be submitted to the judge."(Horten, 1994).

Again, a number of years passed until in 1998 the next tentative step in the use of computer-generated displays in court was made in this country, with the use of an animated accident reconstruction in an English courtroom. This was heralded as a significant evidentiary tool;

"Computer graphics animation reconstructions shown in court are cost effective, save valuable time, clearly and simply illustrate complex and technical issues, are realistic and can prove or disprove arguments or theories with reference to the perplexing newtonian physics involved in many accidents: this technology may well revolutionise accident reconstruction, thus enabling prosecution and defence to be more effective in proving their claims."(Hala and Unver, 1998).

In November 1998 at Birmingham Crown Court a 15 second computer simulation was adduced in evidence for the prosecution in the case of R v Ore.

Although a computer simulation was used before this case in the appeal of Private Lee Clegg, the R v Ore case was the first to be used at Crown Court level in front of a jury. In this case the defendant was charged with causing death by dangerous driving and the prosecution, after a voire dire, called their expert P.C. Michael Doyle to give evidence as to the prosecution reconstruction of the accident. As a part of his evidence he produced and displayed by means of a video the computer simulation that he had created using Autodesk's 3-D Studio software. The simulation consisted of two vehicles, representing those driven by the defendant and the victim, colliding and coming to rest in their respective post collision positions. The reconstruction did not show representations of actual drivers. The simulation was based upon all of the calculable information and figures measured and taken from the crash site and not from witness accounts of the accident. The defence did not make use of a computer-generated display, but did have their own expert giving a different account of how the collision occurred. The court viewed the video of the basic, undetailed display through three television sets placed throughout the courtroom. Interestingly, in this instance, the defendant was acquitted of the offence charged.

A further development in the use of computer-generated displays occurred on 21 September 2000 at Walsall Coroner's Court, where the technology allowed the court to view an incident from various perspectives including those of people involved and key witnesses. The case concerned a dual motorcycle fatality. The evidence in the case was displayed by way of digital projection and included all documentary evidence, individual witness statements made into computer-generated animations, 3-D computer models to visualise movement of vehicles and 3-D computer models to visualise the site of the accident. The displays were projected onto a projection screen approximately 6' by 5' at the front of the court for all of the court to see and controlled by one person with a laptop computer.

From the outset of the proceedings, the Coroner made it clear to the advocates, witnesses and family members of the victims that if they objected to the use of the technology either finding the animations unduly distressing, or, unfair in any way then the Court would heed their objection and proceed without using it. It was also made clear that the animations created from witness statements were only as accurate as the witness' account. The West Midlands Police Accident Investigation Unit experts worked with animators to produce a simulation of the accident from data and calculations taken from the scene of the accident. The displays proved to be a helpful aid to the witnesses, enabling them to pinpoint exact locations of theirs and other's vehicles during their testimony by displaying the cursor on the projected display and making use of the different vantage points in the animations, including an aerial view of the locus in quo with the relevant traffic at the time of the accident. None of the animations contained any representation of motorists, so, for example, the two victims of the accident were motorcyclists - the animation depicted only their motorcycles without the riders. The animation also stopped at the point of impact without detailing any of the damage to any of the vehicles.

One of the few reported civil cases involving computer-generated displays in this country can be found in the Admiralty Court decision of the Queens Bench Division; The "Pelopidas" [1999] 2 Lloyd's Law Reports 675. In this case, the court considered the issue of liability for the collision of the two vessels Pelopidas and Concord and the issue of apportionment of liability. In order to aid the Judge, the parties produced computer simulations in the form of illustrative plotting of the tracks of vessels leading up to the collision. The court noted that such illustrations used to be undertaken by Counsel have now become computerized. In the 'Postscript', the court stated, "Various programmes have been created which enable much more accurate reconstructions to be made, influenced by a vast range of parameters. This has resulted in (or certainly encouraged) the parties furnishing computerized plots prepared by experts, accompanied by a substantial amount of explanatory material." Steel J. pointed out that it would be a duplication of evidence, if not a waste of costs, to have both parties in such cases adduce two separate reconstructions. He further pointed out, "For my part, it would appear to be desirable to aim to encourage the use of a selected brand of software, perhaps by a single expert, who will be able to furnish the parties with reconstructions based on their favoured assumptions." So, not only did the court embrace the use of technology in this case, but it also gave helpful guidance for its future use and stated, "... there is a danger of losing sight of the true value of reconstructions. Of course they enable the Court to have a bird's eye view of the events leading up to the collision. But their true probative value is that they may sometimes enable the Court to determine, not what may have happened, but what could not possibly have happened." This is a prime example of how a computer simulation used in English court proceedings aided the court in making its decision even when the trier of fact was a judge and not a jury. An important factor to consider when, unlike the USA, the majority of civil cases in this country are heard without jurors acting as triers of fact.

Top | Contents | Bibliography

Virtual Reality takes computer animations and simulations a step further by taking its audience beyond passive observation and into interactive 3D simulations. This developing technology seeks to actually project the viewer into a separate 'reality'. The computer senses the viewer's movements and readjusts the entire reality to reflect the movement.

The first USA case to allow virtual reality evidence was Stephenson v Honda Motors Ltd., 1992 Case No. 81067 (Cal. Sup. Ct) in which the evidence concerned riding a motorbike across difficult terrain. The evidence was allowed because it was argued that while two-dimensional photographs and videos would certainly help the jury to understand the terrain, a three-dimensional view would be more realistic. The court allowed the evidence, agreeing that this view was more informative, relevant, and probative.(Leith and Hoey 1998, p 232).

Mention must be made of the technology being applied in this country in the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Not only is this inquiry making use of document management systems and real-time transcription services, but also it is making use of virtual reality. A computer model of Londonderry in 1972 has been developed on the basis of historical plans and photographs and by using touch-screen technology, witnesses are able to walk through the streets as they appeared at that time. Virtual reality is proving a powerful tool to help the inquiry to understand as accurately as possible the events that took place 28 years ago.( Susskind, 2000). At the inquiry there are two screens on each desk, one for traditional evidence display such as scanned documents, the other is a video monitor which uses virtual reality software developed specifically for the inquiry. It allows touch-screen techniques to be used so that while evidence is being given, the physical area of Derry as it was at the time of the shootings can be displayed. Video and stills images of a whole range of vantage points in the city have been gathered and put together in software programmes. Access to this virtual reality system is essentially a hi-tech aide memoire. The costs of the use of the technologies may be high, but the inquiry is taking so much evidence it is estimated it will last 18 months. The experts say that if not for the technology, all the evidence involved could not have been included.(Legal IT 2000, p29). For further updated information relating to the inquest visit the website at www.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org.uk.

Top | Contents | Bibliography

One possible reason for the apparent lack of use of computer-generated displays in court is that for some there remains an air of mystery about the computer. Computerization is seen as a magic world, ruled by the wizards who operate the machines. The legal profession is susceptible to this view of computers, mainly because of the misperception of computers as 'science' and because lawyers are generally not highly trained in computer operation. This pigeonholing of computers as strictly 'scientific' means that, at trial, lawyers may be fearful of using computer displays, waiting for other disciplines to set up the 'scientific foundation' of computers for use in the courtroom.(Borelli 1996, p 439). One commentator has noted that the general use of visual aids on screens in court has created a number of problems, including the actual control of the projection system itself, which is far from being clearly covered in courts. At present, in England it is almost unheard for the defence to use this type of facility, the reasons being lack of appropriate skills, or simply tradition.(Collier and Spaul 1994, Chpt.9).

The actual cost of creating the computer-generated display, as pointed out in the introduction, has fallen throughout the 1990s with the cost of computer hardware and software becoming more affordable than ever before. In the early 1990s in the USA the cost of computer-generated animation for use in court was typically $1,500 to $3,000 per second, clearly prohibiting the use in all but the most significant cases. One early example involved the exhibits created in the Delta Airlines case which cost the USA government between $100,000 and $150,000 to produce. But these figures are put into perspective when it is realised that the Delta 191 crash led to a legal battle over who would pay the $150-$200 million of claims for wrongful death, loss of aircraft and other damages. Therefore, the 45 minute computer simulation which was a key factor in convincing the court to rule for the government became an excellent investment. But then came the introduction of the more efficient and powerful Intel 486 microprocessor and software packages like Autodesk's 3-D Studio and suddenly the world of computer-generated animation was opened to a wider market. Today, the cost of a display largely depends upon the complexity of the requested animation. The reconstruction of a typical automobile accident costs somewhere inbetween $3,000 and $7,000, making it a lot more economical to employ these visual aids in cases with as little as $50,000 at stake. In the USA this cost is no more than the cost of an average expert witness. Thus, the technology is showing up in cost-conscious criminal courts such as that described in the Kenneth M.Pierce v State of Florida case which cost $5,000 for the prosecution to produce^[6]. If these figures are translated into pounds and pence then there would appear to be no significant cost deterrent to the use of computer animation in English courts, certainly not for the larger and more complex cases. However, this is difficult to assess as the availability of companies specialising in computer-generated displays for use in court, unlike the USA which has a plethora of them, are limited to say the least^[7].

Costs are always an important factor in a case. As mentioned earlier, in the USA patent, personal injury and medical negligence cases have substantial awards made if the plaintiff is successful and these were initially the primary areas of development for its use in court. A plaintiff is more likely to 'invest' in their case with such persuasive tools as computer-generated displays if the outcome is a substantial award for damages. Although the quantum of damages in England is generally lower than the USA, there has been and will be in the future increases in awards in personal injury cases. The Law Commission (Law Com No 257) has recommended that damages for non-pecuniary loss in serious personal injury cases should be increased. For injuries where the current award for non-pecuniary loss would be over £3,000, the recommendation is for an increase by at least 50% but not more than 100%. The increase in awards for serious personal injury damages in the future may have a direct positive correlation with the increase of use of computer-generated displays.

A corollary of the costs issue is the subject of the courts in this country not having the resources for the use of computer-generated displays. However, after the computer-generated display has been created the final step in the production process is to record the animation on to either videotape or CD-ROM, so the actual medium used to display the computer animations in the USA courts is often video. Therefore, in this country, as with the USA, the court need only have a video cassette recorder and a television in order to play the animation to the trier of fact. These items are already commonplace in courts throughout the country. Moreover, The Woolf Report states in Section 6, chapter 21 at paragraph 8,

"My fifth recommendation was that video recording and viewing facilities should be introduced in appropriate centres to assist with the presentation of expert evidence, the replay of pre-recorded statements and the examination of expert witnesses. I am told that adequate television and video recording facilities are now readily available at most trial centres. The challenge is to integrate this technology with everyday court practice."

However, lawyers may mistakenly believe that in order for computer animations to be used in court a lot more hardware or technology must be involved than simply displaying it as a video.This may have added to their apparent hesitancy to use it as a visual aid in the past.

An obvious difference between the American and English legal systems, certainly in respect of civil cases, is the predominance of juries in American trials. With so many more cases being heard in front of juries this has to be a reason for the American system taking more advantage of the use of technology in court. Effective communication becomes an important factor for an American attorney who has to consider that he/she has to persuade twelve laypersons and not just the judge. Studies support the notion that jurors learn more by seeing evidence than by simply hearing it. The first priority of any good trial attorney is to communicate effectively his/her case to the trier of fact. Therefore, in the USA, more so than a barrister in England, an attorney looks for more exciting and dramatic ways to illustrate their point to the jury. An attorney often must supplement his/her courtroom presence and oratory skills with the aid of demonstrative exhibits in order to keep the jury's attention and communicate their point. Accordingly, the temptation is strong to use computer-generated displays as a means of reaching these goals.( D'Angelo 1998 ). Of course, there are civil and criminal cases in England that have juries as the trier of fact. In these jury cases where the evidence is complex and deals with areas of science then the use of computer animation can only benefit the tribunal's understanding. It seems only a matter of time before these cases will follow the same course as American courts and use of computer animations and simulations will become commonplace. The fact that there are more cases with judges being the trier of fact should not be a bar on the future use of the technology. Indeed, as we have seen in The "Pelopidas", judges are aided just as much in their decision making by viewing computer simulations as are juries.

There have been several commentaries made about the disadvantages of computer-generated displays^[8] and a full analysis of them is beyond the scope of this article, but mention of them has to be made here due to the relevancy of them as being possible reasons for the more cautious approach to computer-generated displays in this country. A legitimate concern offered against computer displays is that the computer will so influence the trier of fact that it becomes prejudicial. The very word 'computer' carries for some people an image of infinitesimal precision. The fear is that the highly communicative nature of the graphics and the myth of the infallible computer will take the decision out of the jury's hands. The old adage 'seeing is believing' may gain extra force in this setting.( Borelli 1996, p 455). However, the reality is that the computer is only capable of doing what a human tells it to do and as a result a principle known as 'GIGO' -an acronym for 'Garbage In, Garbage Out'- has been developed. In other words, if a programmer puts incorrect, false or misleading data into the computer then the computer can only display results constituting 'garbage' and unworthy of displaying to the jury.( Hoenig 1993, p 6).

Another disadvantage that may have contributed to the more cautious approach of using the technology in English courts is the prejudicial effects of not using the technology. One commentator has pointed to studies finding that if there is any juror prejudice relating to the use of advanced graphics it appears directed against the party not using them. In a number of cases where advanced graphics were used by one side, in post-trial interviews the jury praised the use of the video exhibits and criticized the other side for not presenting similar materials. Thus a party opting to present a traditional case will often be prejudiced by the use of computer animated evidence by the other side.(Selbak 1994, p 361). This view has been taken further by one American commentator who points out that in criminal trials where liberty, and sometimes life, hang in the balance the Supreme Court has not yet answered the question whether an indigent defendant is entitled to computer evidence as a part of his defence. There exists an inherent unfairness when the state is permitted to use such powerful evidence against a defendant who cannot afford to do the same. This issue involves constitutional questions surrounding the Sixth Amendment and the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause.(D'Angelo 1998).

Finally, another important reason exists in the subject of the law of evidence. An overview of the differences/similarities between English and American law of evidence as it relates to using computer-generated displays would take a lengthy article in itself. Indeed, within the USA the law of one state may completely differ to the law of its use in another^[9]. However, common to both countries is the issue facing the lawyer concerning the possibility of wasted costs due to the computer-generated display not being admitted into evidence by the court. Several grounds for objecting to the evidence have been used in the USA, including hearsay, relevance, authentication, rules relating to the use of expert opinion testimony and, as with all evidence, the probative/prejudicial balancing test. In some instances these objections have succeeded in preventing some animations from being used in the USA, but as the technology increased in court use so did attorneys' awareness of the displays being admitted by the court. Similar grounds of objection are bound to be argued in English courts. Until recently, a lawyer could not give any precedents of the technology's use in English courts, thus adding to the overall uncertainty of whether it would be admitted by the court. However, as computer-generated displays feature more and more in English litigation so the lawyer will be able to advise the client on a more certain and confident footing.

Top | Contents | Bibliography

The computer has arrived in English litigation. Cheaper and more sophisticated hardware and software are raising the use of computer-generated displays to ever higher levels and future reductions in production costs will likely result in increased use in modern courtrooms. Computer displays have made their mark in trials on both sides of the Atlantic and their power of persuasion, aid to the trier of fact's comprehension and benefit to the advocate in the presentation of arguments to the court are apparent. Indeed, one commentator has stated that given it's highly persuasive tendencies, computer animation is likely to become the single most powerful evidentiary tool to be utilised by trial lawyers in the next century.(D'Angelo, C 1998). It is likely that the use of the technology will follow the pattern established in the USA, with it's initial use being concentrated in cases involving substantial awards, complicated areas of science, high-profile cases and in front of juries in criminal cases. However, as more companies offer the service of computer animation and it becomes more cost effective to use the display, so shall the technology be used in the courtroom on a more regular basis.

Top | Contents

Borelli, M (1996) 'The computer as Advocate:An Approach to Computer-Generated Displays in the Courtroom' 71 Indiana Law Journal 439.

Collier, P and Spaul, B (1994) ' A Forensic Methodology for Countering Computer Crime'. Taken from I.Carr and K. Williams (1994) Computers and Law (Oxford:Intellect) Chapter 9.

D'Angelo, C (1998) ' The Snoop Doggy Dogg Trial: A Look At How Computer Animation Will Impact In The Next Century' University of San Francisco Law Review 561.

Hala, A and Unver, E (1998) 'Animated Reconstruction' Solicitors Journal 17/7/98 p 24 (Supplement).

Hoenig, M (1993) 'Computer Simulations and Other Weapons' New York Law Journal 3.

Horten, M (1994) 'Graphic Evidence' Solicitors Journal 1289.

Law Commission Report 257 (1999) Damages for Personal Injury: Non-Pecuniary Loss (London:HMSO),or viewed at <http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/library/lc257/lc257sum.html>.

Leith, P and Hoey, A (1998) The Computerised Lawyer, 2nd ed (London: Springer).

O'Flaherty, D (1996) 'Computer-Generated Displays in the Courtroom: For better or Worse?' 4 Web Journal of Current Legal Issues or viewed at <http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/1996/issue4/oflah4.html>.

Phillips Mahoney, D (1996) 'A 3D Computer Simulation Helps A Construction Company Defend It's Work' 19 Computer Graphics World issue 5.

Selbak, J (1994) 'Digital Litigation: The Prejudicial Effects of Computer-Generated Animation in the Courtroom' 9 High Technology Law Journal 337.

Susskind, R (2000) 'The Number's Up for the Internet' The Times 01/08/2000, p 9.(Law Supplement).

The Law Society's Directory of Expert Witnesses (1999) (London: Sweet ant Maxwell).

Unnamed (2000) 'Judges on the Case' Legal IT May/June 2000 Vol.1 No.2 p 29.

Unnamed (1995) ''What a Picture' The Lawyer 21/11/1995 or viewed at <http://www.thelawyer.co.uk>.

Woolf Report (1996) Access to Justice: Final Report (London: HMSO) or viewed at <http://www.open.gov.uk/lcd/civil/final/>.

^[1] For information on creating animations see Suchocki, J 'Forensic Animation The 21st Century Eyewitness' at http://www.eyewitnessanimations.com/Articles htm. For a further description of the animation production process see Sandstrom, S (1997) 'Computer Animation - What do you see?' at <http://www.ncsc.dni.us/NCSC/TIS/CTC5/107.HTM>.

^[2] The internet has examples of businesses advertising services for 3D animations for architects in both Britain and the USA.

^[3] For a reported example see Phillips Mahoney, D (1996) 'A 3D Computer Simulation Helps A Construction Company Defend It's Work' Volume 19 Computer Graphics World issue 5.

^[4] . The Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire example is taken from notes made by Joseph R.Reynolds, P.E., MEWI of FTI Consulting, Inc. for the first annual conference of Forensic Techniques for the 21st Century.

^[5] See the anonymous article 'What a Picture' of 21/11/95, The Lawyer or at <http://www.thelawyer.co.uk>.

^[6] The figure of $5,000 is taken from Suchocki, J 'Forensic Animation The 21st Century Eyewitness' at http://www.eyewitnessanimations.com/Articles.htm, Suchocki being the president of the animation company that created the display and was called as an expert witness in Kenneth M.Pierce v State of Florida.

^[7] For example, The Law Society's Directory of Expert Witnesses 1999 contained only 5 expert witness firms that provided any service for 'computer 3D reconstruction' out of over three thousand listed experts. No advertisements for an actual company specialising in computer-generated displays for court has been found in any of the major law journals.

^[8] For example, see Hoenig, M (1993) p 3; Borelli, M (1996) p 455; D'Angelo, C (1998); Selbak, J (1994); O'Flaherty (1996) pp 6-8.

^[9] For an example of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, case law and foundation requirements for that state and a proposed sample examination of an expert witness, see Bos, C (1999) 'Computer Animations' at <http://www.bosglazier.com/animate.htm>. For an example of Pennsylvania's law on the subject see Hankin, A 'Using Computer-Generated Visual Evidence in Pennsylvania Courts' at <http://www.lpba.org/vbeach97.html>.