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.

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 understanding.

Next, the animation should be a lair and accurate portrayal of the event or opinions being illustrated. The court noted that an animation "need not be exact in every detail," but that it should conform to important elements of other evidence and testimony given by the party offering it. (3) This may seem like a commonsense requirement, but courts have repeatedly been presented with animations that either exclude essential elements of the case or include elements that have no basis in fact. In Clark, the court ruled that the animation was properly excluded because it did not accurately reflect the vehicle positions and speeds given by the defendant's expert witnesses.

Finally, the animation should be shown to have probative value that outweighs any potential for unfair prejudice. Of the possible hurdles to admission, this one presents the greatest challenge, since the weighing of probative value against unfair prejudice is largely a matter of judicial discretion. (4)

Noting that opposing counsel should have the opportunity to challenge the admission of a forensic animation and to cross-examine the experts who prepared it, the Clark court said trial judges should consider whether the proponent disclosed the animation and underlying data within a reasonable period of time before trial (it cited one commentator's suggestion that disclosure occur at least two weeks before trial). (5) Because of the dynamic visual images' potential to influence a jury, the court also suggested that trial judges give a cautionary instruction that the animation represents only the proponent's version of an event and is not a factual representation of what actually happened. (6)

Effectiveness

Proponents often tout forensic animation's ability to enhance juror understanding and retention of information. Although the hype would suggest that forensic animation is a key to courtroom success, there is little direct evidence to support such claims. This is not to say that forensic animation cannot play a valuable role when used appropriately at trial--only that anyone contemplating using the technology should carefully consider exactly what that role is.

One study, often erroneously referred to as the "Weiss-McGrath report" (it is actually a 254-page book), is frequently cited as offering proof of the effectiveness of forensic animation. (7) Although the study--first published in 1963, long before the advent of forensic animation--did find that an audience is far more likely to retain information presented both orally and visually than that presented using only one of those methods, its findings are just as applicable to static exhibits coupled with oral testimony as they are to narrated forensic animation.

In some cases, using a forensic animation to illustrate information easily conveyed by other means may simply be overkill. If oral testimony accompanied by a simple chart, diagram, or photograph can get the point across to the jury, why go to the time and expense of producing a forensic animation?

More recent research has focused specifically on forensic animation. In a 1997 study, researchers conducted two controlled experiments to determine the extent to which animation influenced the subjects' opinions about an event when there was clear physical evidence. (8) The mock trial involved a lawsuit against an insurance company for failure to pay a claim in the case of a man who either fell or jumped to his death. The exact circumstances were controlled within the experiment by the physical evidence of how far the body landed from the edge of an eight-story building and forensic animations illustrating the trajectory of the falling body.

In the first experiment, the researchers found that animation significantly facilitated the mock jurors' decisionmaking. Although the jurors tended to believe that a body found 20 to 25 feet from the building must have been a run-and-jump suicide rather than a slip-and-fall accidental death, they were more inclined to arrive at this decision after viewing an animation illustrating the event.

Similar results were found when the body was located 5 to 10 feet from the building and the subjects were told that it was a fall rather than a jump, although the results in this case were not as pronounced since either event was plausible. The mock jurors tended to agree with the plaintiff's accidental-death argument, but the level of agreement was stronger when an animation supporting the claim was shown.

In the second experiment, the researchers examined the potential prejudicial effect of computer-animated displays by using the same case described above, but with animations that contradicted the physical evidence. In one pro-plaintiff scenario, the animated figure slips, waves his arms, loses his balance, and falls eight stories to the ground--but lands 20 to 25 feet from the building, a detail designed to clearly favor the defense's suicide theory. In this instance, mock jurors tended to make decisions consistent with the pro-plaintiff animation rather than with the pro-defense physical evidence.

Overall, the study results suggested that computer-animated displays had a greater impact than oral testimony, with mock jurors increasingly making decisions that contradicted the physical evidence as the plaintiff and defense used the animations to depict their own partisan theories.

In a 1999 study involving 126 students, expert witnesses gave four different presentations to determine whether retention of oral testimony was improved when supplemented with various types of visual aids. (9) The students were assigned to groups that viewed one-hour presentations in one of tour formats: expert testimony only, expert testimony with diagrams, expert testimony with computer animation, or expert testimony with diagrams and computer animation. All participants were then evaluated; a questionnaire was used to determine how much detail they could remember from the presentation.

A statistical analysis of the responses indicated that participants who viewed expert testimony with computer animation recalled information more accurately and in more detail than those who saw a presentation of testimony alone or with diagrams.

However, not all empirical research supports the claim that forensic animation is effective. In another 1999 study, researchers--using testimony and physical evidence from an actual trial involving an automobile accident--found that the presentation of a forensic animation made no statistically significant difference in any of the mock juries' decisions, including the assignment of liability and the amounts of monetary awards. (10)

Although more complex than previous research, the study was limited in scope, and involved far fewer variables than are present in most actual trials. Also, the testimony being illustrated by the animations in the experiment was relatively easy to understand, and the fore-hour videotape presented to mock jurors was significantly shorter than the 13-day real-world trial. The authors of the study noted that field research on the effects of forensic animation was not feasible, given wide variations in several critical factors, including the quality of physical evidence, the attorneys' abilities, and the witnesses' appeal and credibility.

Given these conflicting research results and the great differences between controlled laboratory experiments and real-world courtroom trials, lawyers are hard-pressed to determine when using a forensic animation is appropriate. In most circumstances, the best rule of thumb is to ask whether an animation can illustrate for the jury, better than any other media, a crucial piece of evidence or testimony.

The production process

The process of producing a forensic animation is similar to that involved in creating any computer animation, but the issue of admissibility at trial requires that far more attention be paid to content and accuracy.

Planning the concept. In the initial concept phase (often referred to as "pre-production" or "storyboarding" in the motion picture industry), the scope of the project is defined and agreed to by everyone concerned--the expert witnesses who will provide the information used in the animation, the animator who will create it, and the attorneys who will present it at trial. They discuss the underlying facts of the case, define presentation goals, present existing data to the animator for review, and identify requirements for additional data. All of this must be accomplished before meaningful estimates of the cost and time required for production can be made.

Once all relevant information has been reviewed, the animator presents a proposal that outlines the production schedule and cost of the project. Although this phase typically requires less time than the others, it is critical: Careful planning during the concept phase helps establish clear expectations, ensures a smooth production schedule, and eliminates costly revisions.

Modeling. In the modeling phase, the virtual scene and actors for the animation are created. This generally requires the most time, since the animator must accurately incorporate physical details of a crime or accident scene into the computer model. When objects' physical dimensions are not crucial to the overall accuracy of the animation, the animator can create simplistic representations of those objects. When an object's physical details are the very facts in contention, the animator must represent the object in great detail with verifiable accuracy.

Consider a forensic animation of a crash in which the speed of the vehicles and their angle of impact in an intersection are the primary issues. The models of the vehicles and accident scene should represent the overall dimensions of their real-world counterparts: Viewers should be able to discriminate between the vehicles and clearly see the boundaries of the intersection, but detail beyond this level is used more to provide realism than to ensure the presentation's admissibility.

No roadway is perfectly flat, but simple plane geometry is usually acceptable to represent the road and intersection in such a case. However, if the expert witness who will testify about the cause of the crash believes that the irregular surface of the road played a role, then the model of the roadway must be more detailed, which requires additional modeling time. These distinctions require the judgment of the entire litigation team, and decisions about them must be made during the concept phase.

Keyframing. This is the process of defining the motion of objects within the scene to re-create the event. Keyframing can be relatively simple (as in the case of a collision where vehicle motion data from a simulation are available) to extremely complex (as in the re-creation of a violent crime where multiple characters need to move in accordance with witness testimony and physical evidence). Generally, the more complex the motions being depicted, the more time an animator needs to establish how those motions are defined in the animation software. Naturally, this increases production time and cost.

However, complexity of motion and duration of motion are independent. A forensic animation of considerable length illustrating simple or constant motion--such as a one-minute presentation of a static scene--may require little or no keyframing. On the other hand, an animation depicting very brief yet complex movements--a 10-second accident sequence of a vehicle rolling over in a ditch, where no simulation data are available--requires much more time to create.

Rendering. This process determines what each frame of the animation looks like, based on the parameters the animator establishes, such as perspective and lighting. The computer creates a single image, or frame, for every thirtieth of a second of the animation time line and saves these as individual graphic image files. The amount of time required for the rendering process varies, depending on the length of the animation sequence, the number of different viewpoints being depicted, the geometric complexity of the models, the desired level of realism of the final images, and the speed of the computers doing the rendering.

Editing. Once the animation frames have been rendered, the image files are edited for presentation in court. Often, the animator adds titles, captions, fade-ins, and transitions and arranges the animation sequences to suit the expert witness who will present the animation at trial. Finally, the animation is recorded to a presentation media suitable for the venue, typically VHS cassette or DVD. The latter is becoming more common and has the added benefit of a menu-driven format that allows the user to decide spontaneously which sequences to show in what order without having to rewind or fast-forward.

Cost

The cost of a forensic animation varies depending on two primary factors--the level of detail necessary to illustrate the objects being depicted and the complexity of the motions being animated. The length of an animation should not influence its cost, even though animators often quote dollar-sper-second cost figures. Similarly, cost should not be affected by the amount of time it takes the computer to render images; if it were, the animator would make more money by using older, slower equipment. Rather, the cost of a forensic animation should be directly linked to the amount of time an animator needs to accomplish the modeling, keyframing, and editing tasks required for production.

Choosing an animator

When you are seeking to incorporate forensic animation into your litigation, locate an expert in the field to discuss the details of your particular case. A qualified forensic animation expert should be willing to go through the initial concept phase of a project--providing you with some idea about expense and assessing whether or not an animation is even appropriate--for little or no cost.

There is no licensing requirement or accreditation system for forensic animators. Education and experience in the field can be important indications of expertise, although you should examine these qualifications carefully. Many of the nation's best forensic animators began working long before formal education in computer animation was available. Futhermore, because forensic animation requires a high degree of specialization to ensure that the production can meet admissibility requirements at trial, seek out only those with experience in forensic animation, rather than computer animation in general.

When assessing an animator's qualifications, review his or her past work--typically available on a demonstration video or disc. If the demonstration includes more dancing corporate logos than forensic animations, you may want to consider another source.

Also speak to the animator's past clients, read his or her published papers or articles, and review any presentations the animator has given to bar associations or other legal groups. Keep in mind that forensic animators are sometimes required to testify about their work, which makes appropriate qualifications even more important. In short, a qualified forensic animator should have credentials comparable to those of any other expert witness.

The successful use of forensic animation depends on careful consideration of the details of the case. A collaborative effort among the attorney, the expert witness, and the forensic animator will ensure accuracy--a key element for both admissibility and effectiveness at trial. While admissibility is never certain, forensic animations that meet guidelines such as those set forth in Clark v. Cantrell have gained general acceptance in courtrooms throughout the country. When used as a complement to expert witness testimony, a forensic animation is an effective tool for jury persuasion, providing a memorable image married to compelling narration.

Notes

(1.) 529 S.E.2d 528 (S.C. 2000).

(2.) Id. at 537.

(3.) Id.

(4.) Id. at 538.

(5.) Id. at 536.

(6.) Id. at 537.

(7.) HAROLD WEISS & J.B. MCGRATH JR., TECHNICALLY SPEAKING: ORAL COMMUNICATION FOR ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS, AND TECHNICAL PERSONNEL (1963).

(8.) Saul M. Kassin & Meghan A. Dunn, Computer-Animated Displays and the Jury: Facilitative and Prejudicial Effects, 21 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 269 (1997).

(9.) Linda C. Morell, New Technology: Experimental Research on the Influence of Computer-Animated Display on Jurors, 28 SW. U.L. REV. 411 (1999).

(10.) Robert Bennett et al., Seing Is Believing; Or Is It? An Empirical Study of Computer Simulations as Evidence, 34 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 257 (1999).

STEVEN P. BREAUX is a forensic animator at Perceptual Motion in Gig Harbor, Washington. He can be reached by e-mail at [e-mail].