Ruling on computer evidence animates Pennsylvania high court.

When does technology trump the truth?

That was the question before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which, in a case of first impression, has ruled that a computer-generated animation (CGA) could be admitted as demonstrative evidence in a criminal trial. (Pennsylvania v. Serge, No. 150-MAP-2004, 2006 WL 1096364 (Pa. Apr. 25, 2006).)

"The overriding principle in determining if any evidence, including demonstrative, should be admitted involves a weighing of the probative value versus prejudicial effect," Justice Sandra Schultz Newman wrote for the court.

In January 2001, Michael Serge of Scott Township shot and killed his wife, Jennifer. At his 2002 trial, Serge claimed that Jennifer attacked him with a knife, forcing him to defend himself. The prosecution countered that Serge, a former lieutenant detective with the Scranton police department, "used his decades of experience as a police officer to tamper with the crime scene to stage a self-defense setting."

The prosecution presented a CGA based on the expert testimony of a forensic pathologist and a crime scene reconstructionist. The animation showed Michael shooting Jennifer three times as she knelt on the floor, then repositioning her body and placing a knife near her hand.

"Unfortunately for her, but fortunately for us, she had 'through-and-through' wounds, that go in and out of the body," said Andre Stuart, president and CEO of 21st Century Forensic Animations, based in Arlington, Texas, which created the animation. "This gives us a great deal of information. This was really a case study in geometry."

The jury took two hours to find Serge guilty of first-degree murder and sentence him to life imprisonment. Serge appealed, but the superior court affirmed. The case then went to the state supreme court, which allowed an appeal only on the question of the CGA's admissibility.

Smart said a CGA is useful to explain abstract ideas because people have a difficult time imagining visual images of time and spatial concepts that are crucial in analyzing a crime scene.

"These concepts are very difficult to comprehend because they are so relative," he said. "Most of the time, when we estimate time or distance, we are about 25 percent off. So doing this allows us to present a very clear, very accurate, depiction of geometry. And also, since it can be cross-examined, that enhances the accuracy of the depiction and the reliability of the experts' testimony."

The court's ruling warns that the "visual appeal" and novelty of a CGA are potentially dangerous and call for an extra "prong" of caution in the form of explicit jury instructions--a condition the supreme court found that the trial court had met.

Robert Perez, a criminal defense lawyer in Seattle who specializes in the use of technology in the courtroom, wrote on his Defensology blog, "Sure, the CGA did not depict anything 'new,' the evidence was testified to in court, and all this did was reflect it. More like amplified it, if you ask me. Can anyone really question the proposition that as the jurors sat in the jury room deliberating what happened, the CGA images of what the state said happened were locked in their minds as a reality of its own?"

"I can see an initial response like that because of [the technology's] newness," said Stuart. "But keep in mind that 30 years ago, color photographs were considered too prejudicial. If technology helps to create a more complete and accurate analysis and presentation of an event, should you restrict the ability of the triers-of-fact to fully understand the facts?"

Or, as the Pennsylvania court concluded, "The law does not, and should not, prohibit proficient professional employment of new technology in the courtroom. This is, after all, the 21st century."