|
Computer animation, enhancement, or simulation
Some commentators and courts divide computer generated demonstrative
evidence into two distinct categories of evidence: simulations and animations.
In a simulation, data is entered into a computer which is programmed to
analyze the information and perform calculations by applying mathematical
models, laws of physics and scientific principles in order to draw conclusions
and recreate an incident. An animation does not perform any scientific
calculations but is only a graphic depiction of the testimony in the case.
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Serge, 58 Pa. D. & C.4th 52, 68-69
(2001). A third category, computer enhancement of photos or other physical
items is sometimes encountered. See., e.g., in State v. Swinton, 268
Conn. 781, 847 A.2d 921 (Conn. 2004). Although some courts have defined
different standard foundations, (dependent on whether the computer generated
demonstrative exhibit is an animation, enhancement, or simulation): "there is
a developing consensus... which agrees on how the accuracy of
computer-generated evidence can be established and gives a trial court
sufficient parameters to exercise its discretion in this area without the need
for a precise formula." Bray v. Bi-State Development Corp., 949 S.W.2d
93, 97 (Mo. App. 1997).
The following foundation will generally work for computer generated
demonstrative evidence, whether it be a computer animation, enhancement, or
simulation. Here are the bullet points:
The computer equipment is accepted as standard and was in good order.
Qualified computer operators did the work and are available for
cross-examination.
Proper procedures were followed in connection with the input of
information.
The input data is qualified as accurate by establishing:
the source of the data;
how data accuracy was checked;
how data was physically input; and
what assumptions were input into the computer;
A reliable software program was utilized, one generally accepted by the
relevant community.
The equipment was programmed and operated correctly.
The exhibit is identified as the output in question.
The exhibit will aid the trier of fact in understanding or evaluating
testimony.
The exhibit will help the witness explain an item relevant to the issues
in dispute.
If you need to delve further into attacking (or admitting) computer
generated demonstrative exhibits, see generally the excellent discussions in
State v. Swinton, 268 Conn. 781, 847 A.2d 921 (Conn. 2004); K. Butea,
Seeing is Believing: A Practitioner's Guide to the Admissibility of
Demonstrative Computer Evidence, 46 Clev. St. L. Rev. 511, 525 (1998); and
E. Weinreb, " 'Counselor, Proceed With Caution': The Use of Integrated
Evidence Presentation Systems and Computer-Generated Evidence in the Courtroom,"
23 Cardozo L. Rev. 393, 410 (2001).
|
