 |
Home:
Litigation Animation & Admissibility
By Kenneth J. Lopez, J.D. President & CEO Animators
at Law, Inc
When you think about using litigation animation, think admissibility
at the same time. If you plan your litigation animation and plan
the foundation for admissibility properly, your litigation animation
will be admitted. Our attorney owned and operated firm
follows a standard procedure that closely mirrors the Federal Rules
of Evidence, and we have a 100% record of admissibility. This article
describes that methodology in a six easy steps.
Let's start by looking at what can go wrong. In the reported case Somervold
v. Grevlos where one bicyclist sued another for negligence, the
defendant attempted to use litigation animation to illustrate the accident
reconstruction expert's opinion. The judge did not admit the it based
upon a number of mistakes that were easily avoidable. For example, the
litigation animation was constructed using an assumption that both cyclists
were traveling at 25 miles per hour when in fact other evidence suggested
that the rider's speeds varied between 28 to 40 miles per hour. The
illumination from a streetlight was inaccurately depicted as being in
the shape of a circle rather than an ellipse. Also, the exhibit placed
the cyclists in a spot that was west of the true location of the accident
and erroneously depicted the injuries sustained by the bicyclists. This
result could easily have been avoided.
Litigation animation, like other forms of demonstrative evidence, must
pass muster under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Most state rules are
very similar as they apply to animated presentations, but you will want
to review your local procedures. When discussing the admissibility of
computer animated presentations, one must begin by distinguishing litigation
animations from simulations. A computer simulation is a prediction or
calculation about what will happen in the future given known facts.
An example would be the use of known rates of fluid absorption to predict
how a certain toxin will spread through the environment. The standard
of admissibility is very strict for simulations because of their substantive
nature.
If your expert suggests the use of a simulation, you should consider
carefully whether it is necessary. The foundation for a simulation requires
that one qualify some type of industry accepted software that is used
to convert the data into the simulation, as well as all of the other
steps applicable to animated presentations hereafter described.
Rather than predicting events, an animated presentation is normally
a short computer-generated movie illustrating a person's opinion. In
the spectrum of the admissibility of demonstrative evidence, this type
of presentation rests in the middle ground. It is more difficult to
qualify than an engineering drawing, but easier to qualify than a simulation.
An animated presentation does not attempt to reach conclusions of its
own, as a simulation does. It simply illustrates or supports the testimony
of a witness, usually an expert. Since every aspect of the animated
presentation is supported by either testimony or fact, it is much more
likely to survive intense cross examination and evidentiary challenges.
The first step in ensuring that your presentation is
admitted is to engage a good expert whose testimony the animated presentation
will support. . . .
To learn more about our demonstrative
evidence techniques, to have a presentation made to your firm on these
and other subjects, to request a proposal for upcoming trial or to
discuss another visual presentation, please contact:
Tanya S. Cunningham, JD
sales@animators.com
1.800.337.7697 ext 122
703.548.1799 ext 122
703.548.5450 (fax)
Animators at Law is the nation's leading attorney owned and operated
producer of trial graphics, jury research and trial technology. To
date, Animators has consulted on hundreds of significant national
cases with cumulative favorable decisions exceeding one trillion dollars.
Our clients include more than three quarters of the nation's top law
firms and hundreds of others. While most of our team is based in our
Washington, DC headquarters, local offices and relationships allow
us to easily work in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco,
Texas, Florida & Philadelphia.
|
|
 |
