ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Court environments, which have been one of the last bastions of the oral tradition, are slowly transforming into cinematic display environments. The persuasive oral rhetoric of lawyers is increasingly being replaced by compelling visual media displays presenting a range of digital evidence in a convincing and credible manner. Advances in media formats and devices have made available new mechanisms for presenting evidence in court. Digital visual evidence presentation systems (including digital displays, computer-generated graphical presentations, animated graphics and immersive virtual environment technology) have already been used in many jurisdictions. There are a number of fundamental implications inherent in the shift from oral to visual mediation, and a number of facets of this modern evidence presentation technology need to be investigated and analysed. At first glance, these computer-generated graphical reconstructions may be seen as potentially useful in any court, and they are often treated like any other form of digital evidence regarding their admissibility. However, perhaps this specific form of digital media warrants special care and attention due to its inherently persuasive nature, and the undue reliance that the viewer may place on evidence presented through a (potentially photorealistic) visualisation medium.
Content may be subject to copyright.
ARTICLE:
The use of computer generated imagery in legal
proceedings
By Dr Damian Schofield
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 3
Court environments, which have been one of the last
bastions of the oral tradition, are slowly transforming
into cinematic display environments.
1
The persuasive
oral rhetoric of lawyers is increasingly being replaced
by compelling visual media displays presenting a
range of digital evidence in a convincing and credible
manner.
2
Advances in media formats and devices have
made available new mechanisms for presenting
evidence in court. Digital visual evidence presentation
systems (including digital displays, computer-
generated graphical presentations, animated graphics
and immersive virtual environment technology) have
already been used in many jurisdictions.
3
There are a number of fundamental implications
inherent in the shift from oral to visual mediation, and
a number of facets of this modern evidence
presentation technology need to be investigated and
analysed. At first glance, these computer-generated
graphical reconstructions may be seen as potentially
useful in any court, and they are often treated like any
other form of digital evidence regarding their
admissibility.
4
However, perhaps this specific form of
digital media warrants special care and attention due
to its inherently persuasive nature, and the undue
reliance that the viewer may place on evidence
presented through a (potentially photorealistic)
visualisation medium.
5
1
Heintz, M.E. (2002), ‘The digital divide and courtroom technology:
can David keep up with Goliath?’ Federal Communications Law
Journal, 54, pp 567589.
2
Lederer, F.I. (2004), ‘Courtroom technology: for trial lawyers, the
future is now’, Criminal Justice, 19(1), pp 1421; Schofield, D.
(2007), ‘Animating and interacting with graphical evidence: bringing
courtrooms to life with virtual reconstructions’, in: Proceedings of
IEEE Conference on Computer Graphics, Imaging and Visualisation,
Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 321328.
3
Leonetti, C. and Bailenson, J.N. (2010), ‘High-Tech View: The Use
of Immersive Virtual Environments in Jury Trials’, Marquette Law
Review, 93(3), pp 1073-1120; Bailenson, J.N., Balscovich, J., Beall,
A.C. and Noveck, B.S. (2006), ‘Courtroom Applications of Virtual
Environments, Immersive Virtual Environments, and Collaborative
Virtual Environments’, Law and Policy, 28(2), pp 249-270.
4
Schofield, D. and Mason, S. (2012), ‘Using graphical technology to
present evidence’, in: Mason, S. (Ed.), Electronic Evidence, 3rd edn,
LexisNexis Butterworths, pp. 217 253.
5
Girvan, R. (2001), ‘An overview of the use of computer-generated
displays in the courtroom’, Web Journal of Current Legal Issues,
7(1), pp 1–80; Sherwin, R.K. (2007), ‘Visual literacy in action: Law in
the age of images’, in Elkins, J. (ed), Visual Literacy in Action,
Routledge, pp 179–194; Galves, F. (2000), ‘Where the Not So Wild
As courts begin to increasingly use multimedia and
cinematic displays, this has profound implications for
the legal processes taking place that are intrinsically
tied to the application of such technology. It must be
questioned whether the decisions made in courts
when using such technology are affected by the
manner in which the evidence is presented.
6
This paper describes research undertaken to assess
the effect of the technology on jurors, and describes
some of the issues raised by the results. The paper
concludes with a discussion of the potential benefits
and problems of implementing this technology in
court settings.
Introduction
In a modern court, the presentation of forensic
evidence by an expert witness can bring about the
need for arduous descriptions by lawyers and experts
to get across the specific details of complicated
scientific, spatial and temporal data. Technological
advances have also meant that experts have had to
develop new ways to present such increasingly
complex evidence in court. Digital visual evidence
presentation systems (including digital displays,
computer-generated graphical presentations and
three-dimension virtual simulations) can be used to
present evidence and illustrate hypotheses based on
scientific data, or they may be used to depict the
perception of a witness, and to illustrate what may
have occurred (seen from a specific viewpoint) during
a particular incident. Digital reconstruction technology
may also be applied in a court to explore and illustrate
Things Are: Computers in the Courtroom, the Federal Rules of
Evidence, and the Need for Institutional Reform and More Judicial
Acceptance’, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 13(2), pp
161302; Spiesel, C.O., Sherwin, R.K. and Feigenson, N. (2005),
‘Law in the age of images: The challenges of visual literacy’, in
Wagner, A., Summerfield, T. and Vanegas, F.S.B. (eds),
Contemporary Issues of the Semiotics of Law, Oñati International
Series in Law and Society, 13.
6
Fowle, K. and Schofield, D. (2011), ‘Visualising forensic data:
investigation to court’, Woodward, A. and Valli, C. (eds),
Proceedings of the 9th Australian Digital Forensics Conference,
Security Research Centre, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia;
Gallant, J. and Shepherd, L. (2009), ‘Effective visual communication:
Scientific principles and research findings’, in Solomon, S.H.,
Gallant, J. and Esser, J.P. (eds), The Science of Courtroom
Litigation: Jury Research and Analytical Principals, ALM Publishing.
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 4
‘what if’ scenarios and questions, testing competing
hypotheses and possibly exposing any inconsistencies
and discrepancies within the evidence.
7
The use of such computer-generated presentations in
a court is sometimes viewed as nothing more than the
current manifestation of the illustration of evidence
and visualisation in a long history of evidential
graphics used in litigation.
8
However, computer
animations and interactive virtual simulations are
potentially unparalleled in their capabilities for
presenting complex evidence.
9
The use of such
enabling visualisation technology can affect the
manner in which evidence is assimilated and
correlated by the viewer. In many instances, visual
media can potentially help make the evidence more
relevant and easier to understand. In other cases it
may be seen to be unfairly prejudicing a jury.
10
The vast majority of people called to be on a jury have
grown up watching visual media on screens: cinemas,
televisions, computers and even on their mobile
telephones. Research has shown that many people
tend to believe what they see in the mass media and
merge mediated fictions into their beliefs about the
world.
11
The cognitive default when viewing visual
media is to believe what is seen, only later engaging in
the effort needed to suspend or reject belief. Pictures
on a screen which move tend to be even easier to
believe. These are usually more engaging and
entertaining, and hence decrease the mental
resources of the viewer that are available for doubt.
12
7
Burton, A., Schofield, D. and Goodwin, L.M. (2005), ‘Gates of
global perception: forensic graphics for evidence presentation’, in:
Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and
Technology, Singapore, pp. 103111.
8
Schofield, D. and Mason, S. (2012), ‘Using graphical technology to
present evidence’, in: Mason, S. (Ed.), Electronic Evidence, 3rd edn,
LexisNexis Butterworths, pp. 217253.
9
Joseph, G.P. (2009), Modern Visual Evidence, Law Journal
Seminars Press; Feigenson, N. and Spiesel, C.O. (2009), Law on
Display: The Digital Transformation of Legal Persuasion and
Judgment, NYU Press.
10
Burton, A., Schofield, D. and Goodwin, L.M. (2005), ‘Gates of
global perception: forensic graphics for evidence presentation’, in:
Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and
Technology, Singapore, pp. 103–111; Mervis, J. (1999), ‘Court
Views Engineers as Scientists’, Science, 284(5411), p 21; Tufte,
E.R., ‘The visual display of quantitative information’, American
Journal of Physics, 53(11), pp 11171118.
11
Burgoon, J.K. (2000), ‘Interactivity in human–computer interaction:
a study of credibility, understanding and influence’, Computers in
Human Behavior, 16(6), pp 553574; Shapiro, M.A. and McDonald,
D.G. (1992), ‘I’m not a doctor, but I play one in virtual reality:
implications of judgments about reality’, Journal of Communication,
42(4), pp 94114.
12
Gilbert, D.T. (1991), ‘How mental systems behave’, American
Psychologist, 46(2), pp 107119.
However, audiences receive visual information
differently when they watch it on a screen compared
to when they see it in real space, and these
differences can affect everything they see. This
difference can be described in two contexts, firstly the
way the screen frames and what the viewer sees; a
physical border that limits and creates new
relationships between the elements displayed inside
it. Secondly, the visuals presented also act as a carrier
of personal and cultural associations.
13
This ability of viewers to place undue reliance on
visual evidence has profound implications for the use
of any form of animated visual digital technology to
present evidence in courts.
14
The potential life-and-
death weight of the issues means that those
undertaking this important civic duty by acting as
jurors need to able to make objective assessment of
the evidence before making their decisions. The way
the evidence presented must be probative, not
unfairly prejudicial.
This paper gives a brief background to the use of
animated visual digital technology in courts and
describes past research that has been undertaken to
examine the effect any form of animated visual
presentation has upon members of the jury. The
paper also provides an extensive discussion of the
issues arising from the use of animated visual digital
presentation, specifically those based on video game
technology, in courts. This includes an analysis of the
emotional and psychological effect of the use of this
technology, the creation of narrative through
interaction with virtual environments and the
influence of viewer perspective on the user
experience. The paper concludes by comparing the
advantages and disadvantages of using such a
medium to present evidence.
Technology
It is beyond the remit of this paper to provide an
extensive catalogue of every aspect of technology
employed and utilised in modern courts, this has been
undertaken by many other authors.
15
However, it is
13
Hopkins, R. (1998), Picture, Image and Experience, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
14
Schofield, D. (2007), Animating and interacting with graphical
evidence: bringing courtrooms to life with virtual reconstructions, in:
Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Graphics, Imaging
and Visualisation, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 321328.
15
Brown, M. (2000), ‘Criminal Justice Discovers Information
Technology’, Criminal Justice, 1, pp 219-259; Goodwin, L. (2007),
Visualising Vehicle Accidents: Evidence Uncertainty, Presentation
and Admissibility, PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham; Lederer,
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 5
perhaps appropriate to define and describe the
technologies under discussion in this paper.
Visual evidence displays and digital court presentation
systems cover a wide variety of technologies. This
paper focuses on computer-generated imagery,
particularly computer graphics. Computer Graphics or
‘CG’ in this context refers to a range of software
applications that can be used to produce outputs such
as rendered images and animations. Rendering is the
process of generating a digital image from a three-
dimensional virtual computer model. The term may
be thought of by analogy with an ‘artist’s rendering’ of
a scene. Most current computer graphics systems
utilise numerical three-dimensional models of physical
world objects to create artificial virtual environments.
Based on the data surveyed (physical measurements)
of objects such as equipment, vehicles, human figures,
environment details, landscape features and other
relevant evidence from and in respect of the scene,
items can be accurately positioned and precisely
scaled within the virtual three-dimensional
environment. The objects within this virtual scene can
then be ‘texture mapped’ or painted with relevant
photographic images to produce a credible lifelike
appearance. Hence, a brick wall in the virtual
environment will use a photograph of a brick to give
the impression that the virtual object has the texture
of a real brick wall.
16
Computer technology can be used to build an
animation from one of these virtual environments.
This is usually achieved by developing the material
frame-by-frame (as a series of still images). These
frames, when played back in quick succession, create
an experience of space, motion and time. Popular
cultural examples of the use of this technology include
animated movies such as those made by Pixar
Animation Studios (for example Shrek and Toy Story).
In the context of a court, the term often used to
describe evidence presented in this format is ‘forensic
animation’.
F.I. and Solomon, S.H. (1997), ‘Courtroom technology – an
introduction to the onrushing future’, Proceedings of Fifth National
Court Technology Conference (CTC5), National Centre for State
Courts, Detroit (MI); Wiggins, E.C. (2006), ‘The Courtroom of the
Future is Here: Introduction to Emerging Technologies in the Legal
System’, Law and Policy, 28(2), pp 182-191.
16
Schofield, D. (2007), ‘Animating and interacting with graphical
evidence: Bringing courtrooms to life with virtual reconstructions’ in
Banissi, E. Sarfraz, M. and Dedumrong, N. (eds), Proceedings of
Computer Graphics, Imaging and Visualisation, Bangkok, Thailand;
Watt, A.H. and Watt, A. (2000), 3D Computer Graphics. Vol. 2.
Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Virtual Reality or ‘VR’ is a development of this
technology that relies on the faster processing power
of modern computers to produce interactive, real-
time, three-dimensional graphical environments that
respond to user input and action, such as moving
around in the virtual world or operating virtual
equipment. An important aspect of such a virtual
reality system is its underlying processes, simulations,
behaviour and reactions, and the way a user can
interact with objects within the virtual world. A virtual
reality user could, for example, sit in a virtual vehicle
and drive it. Popular cultural examples of this
technique include modern three-dimensional
computer games such as Unreal Tournament (Epic
Games) and Grand Theft Auto (Rockstar Games). In
the context of a court, the term often used to
describe evidence presented in this format is ‘virtual
simulation’ or ‘virtual reconstruction’.
Many novel applications have emerged because of
recent and rapid developments in personal computer
technology, especially in the realms of desktop VR
systems. In particular, the home computer games
market has encouraged the development of software
tools together with specialist three-dimensional
graphics accelerator boards and peripheral products.
Whilst much of the development is aimed at the
home and leisure industry, there are many
applications that have been developed for a range of
commercial sectors. This has consequently also had an
effect on the legal profession, and is one of the
reasons for the technology being increasingly
introduced into courts around the world over the past
few years. These types of VR display systems can offer
major advantages over other visualisation media,
because of the interactive nature of the experience
they create.
17
It is useful at this point to clarify the terms used to
describe such technology. The standard form of
evidence from such virtual environments usually
consists of a series of still images and animations. In
this context, the term ‘computer animation’ is often
misused to describe an animation created from a
virtual environment that is not based on the laws of
physics, but is still represented as ‘simulating’ a given
event.
17
Schofield, D., Noond, J., Goodwin, L. and Fowle, K. (2001),
‘Accident Scenarios: Using Computer-generated Forensic
Animations’, Journal of Occupational Health and Safety Australia
and New Zealand, 17(2), pp 163-173.
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 6
The terms ‘animation’, ‘scientific animation’ and
‘simulation’ have had specific definitions in the
reconstruction community for many years (note: all
the quotes in the paragraphs below are from
Grimes):
18
‘Animation’ is a general term describing ‘any
presentation which consists of a series of
graphical images being sequentially displayed,
representing objects in different positions
from one image to the next, which implies
motion’. This term may be used to describe a
presentation consisting of artist renditions or
illustrated moving graphics, sometimes
referred to as a ‘cartoon animation’.
The phrase ‘Scientific Animation’ is
consequently used to describe a more
technically based presentation, and is defined
as ‘a computer animation that is based on the
laws of physics and the appropriate equations
of motion’. Velocities and positions are time
integrals of the acceleration data, and the
objects and environment in a scientific
animation are properly and consistently
scaled. For example, a scientific animation
showing the movement of vehicles involved in
a road traffic accident, based on calculations
from an accident reconstruction expert
witness.
In the reconstruction community, a
‘Simulation’ is often defined as being based
on the laws of physics and containing specific
underlying equations. A simulation goes
further than a scientific animation, and can be
further defined as ‘A model that predicts an
outcome. The model may be a physical or a
mathematical model, but the significant
property is that a simulation predicts a future
result’ – for example a computation fluid
dynamics model used to predict smoke flow
through an enclosed environment.
In summary, an ‘animation’ may only be illustrative or
demonstrative evidence, whereas a ‘scientific
animation’ is more technical, and relies upon scientific
laws, and thus might be categorised as substantive
evidence. A ‘simulation’ is more predictive in nature,
18
Grimes, W.D. (1994), ‘Classifying the Elements in a Scientific
Animation, Accident Reconstruction: Technology and Animation’,
SAE Paper No 940919, USA Society of Automotive Engineers, pp
39-404.
and consists of data or forecasts that are usually
created via a computer program.
Visual evidence
Modern culture is dominated with images whose
value may be simultaneously over-determined and
indeterminate, whose layers of significance can only
be teased apart with difficulty. Different academic
disciplines (including critical theory, psychology,
education, media studies, art history, semiotics, etc)
have been developed to help explain how audiences
interpret this visual imagery.
19
Improvements in
forensic science have led to an increasing amount of
complex, technical evidence being presented in
courts. The issues in question can be extremely
complicated and difficult to explain without some
form of graphical representation. A further survey by
the American Bar Association found that members of
a jury are often confused, bored, frustrated and
overwhelmed by technical issues or complex facts.
20
Other research has indicated that the attention span
of the average member of a jury in a court is, on
average, only seven minutes.
21
Any visualisation or graphic can potentially be a
valuable aid to help construe and convey a large
amount of complex information. An American judge,
C. B. Rubin, highlighted the problem of retaining the
interest of the jurors when he stated:
22
‘It isn’t difficult to tell when jurors have lost
interest … Such wandering attention is much less
likely in a paperless trial, because the evidence is
presented in a format jurors are used to watching
… I have noticed repeatedly that when a
document is displayed on the monitors, the jurors
sit up and pay attention. Such attention is far
greater than that given to a document which they
19
Schofield, D. and Mason, S. (2012), ‘Using graphical technology to
present evidence’, in: Mason, S. (Ed.), Electronic Evidence, 3rd edn,
LexisNexis Butterworths, pp. 217253; Spiesel, C.O., Sherwin, R.K.
and Feigenson, N. (2005), ‘Law in the age of images: The
challenges of visual literacy’, in Wagner, A., Summerfield, T. and
Vanegas, F.S.B. (eds), Contemporary Issues of the Semiotics of
Law, Oñati International Series in Law and Society, 13.
20
Kuehn, P.F. (1999), ‘Maximising your Persuasiveness: Effective
Computer Generated Exhibits’, Journal of the DuPage Country Bar
Association, available online at
http://www.dcba.org/mpage/vol121099art4.
21
Schroder, K.J. (1997), ‘Computer Animation: The Litigator’s Legal
Ally’, Computers and Law (University of Buffalo); Devine, D.J.,
Clayton, L.D., Dunford, B.B., Seying, R. and Pryce, J. (2001), ‘Jury
decision making, 45 years of empirical research on deliberating
groups’, Psychology Public Policy, and Law, 7(3), pp 622727;
Durkin, K.P. and Dunn, C.H. (2010), ‘Building your case for the jury’,
Litigation Journal, 36(3).
22
Rubin, C.B. (1992), ‘A Paperless Trial’, Litigation Magazine, 19(3).
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 7
cannot see as it is being discussed by the attorney
and the witnesses …’
This comment illustrates the perceived need to
reduce lengthy verbal explanations and increase the
use of visual tools for a media-literate modern
audience. This, in turn, offers a lawyer the possibility
of improving the capacity of a jury to retain the
evidence they present, to maintain their interest in
the proceedings, and to allow the jury to understand
the nature of the case more fully.
23
In court settings, static images such as diagrams, plans
and charts have been traditionally used to explain the
testimony of an expert witness. A number of modern
expert witnesses now provide animated multimedia
explanations illustrating their evidence. Such forensic
animations or virtual reconstructions can be seen as
an advance due to their unique ability to visually
illustrate and animate visually the passing of time.
This extra temporal dimension can be extremely
useful when explaining a chronological sequence of
events, such as the reconstruction of the occurrences
leading up to a vehicle collision. In this case the
dynamic movement of the vehicles involved in the
collision may be dependent on complicated
engineering or mathematical principles that are
potentially difficult to explain to members of the jury
but easy to understand when visually represented in
an animated, photo-realistic reconstruction.
24
A particularly relevant aspect of the technology under
discussion is the ability to visualise unseen or
imaginary environments. In a court context this
manifests itself as the ability to visualise evidential
information that may not be naturally or readily
visible to the naked eye. The virtual camera can break
free of the physical restrictions restraining real world
cameras and show processes that occur on too large
or too slow a scale (from the unfolding of a storm to
the replication of DNA), or processes that are
occluded by other objects.
25
23
Loftus, E.R. and Loftus, G.R. (1980), ‘On the permanence of
stored information in the human brain’, American Psychologist,
35(5), pp 409–420; Leader, L. and Schofield, D. (2006), ‘Madness in
the method? Potential pitfalls in handling expert evidence’, Journal of
Personal Injury Law, 6(1), pp 6886.
24
Schofield, D. (2006), ‘The future of evidence: new applications of
digital technologies, forensic science: classroom to courtroom’, in:
Proceedings of 18th International Symposium of the Forensic
Sciences, Fremantle, Western Australia, 2006.
25
Richter, E.M. and Humke, A.M. (2011), ‘Demonstrative evidence:
evidence and technology in the courtroom’, in Weiner, R.L. and
Bornstein, B.H. (eds), Handbook of Trial Consulting, Springer,
pp187-201; Schofield, D. (2011), ‘Playing with evidence: using video
games in the courtroom’, Journal of Entertainment Computing
The precise effect that this increasing reliance on
visual media over the more traditional mechanism of
oral presentation is having on members of a jury,
witnesses and other viewers in the court is not
currently known. Concerns are beginning to be
articulated that the use of computer-generated
visualisation technology can distort perceptions,
memories, attitudes and decision making in the court.
Some research work, previously undertaken in the
USA, has examined how members of a jury retain
details in their memory from different forms of
evidence:
(i) Research evidence has also shown that
members of a jury are more likely to be
persuaded if the arguments are supported by
visual aids.
26
(ii) One study showed that the average person
retains 87 per cent of information presented
visually, but only 10 per cent of information
presented orally.
27
(iii) Another study showed that the average
person retains 65 per cent of information
presented visually and 15 per cent of that
presented orally.
28
(iv) A further survey showed that members of
a jury will retain twice the amount of
information when using a visual presentation,
as distinct to an oral presentation.
29
When the evidence is animated, the improvement in
memory retention is even more apparent: another
survey revealed that members of a jury will retain an
increase of 650 per cent of information when
presented with presentations using a form of
computer animation.
30
However the Visual Persuasion
(Special Issue: Video Games as Research Instruments), 2(1), pp 47-
58; Speisel, C.O. and Feigenson, N. (2009), Law on Display: The
Digital Transformation of Legal Persuasion and Judgement, New
York University Press, New York, 2009; Jones, I.S., Muir, D.W. and
Groo, S.W. (1991), ‘Computer animation – admissibility in the
courtroom, accident reconstruction: technology and animation’,
Society of Automotive Engineering, 1, 143151.
26
Lederer, F.I. and Solomon, S.H. (1997), ‘Courtroom technology
an introduction to the onrushing future’, Proceedings of Fifth National
Court Technology Conference (CTC5), National Centre for State
Courts, Detroit (MI); Lederer, F.I. (2004), ‘Courtroom technology: for
trial lawyers, the future is now’, Criminal Justice, 19(1), pp 1421.
27
Seltzer, R.F. (1990), ‘Evidence and Exhibits at Trial’, 387 PLI/Lit
371.
28
Cobo, M.E. (1990), ‘A Strategic Approach to Demonstrative
Exhibits and Effective Jury Presentations’, 3 PLI/Lit 359.
29
Krieger, R. (1992), ‘Sophisticated Computer Graphics Come of
Age—and Evidence Will Never Be the Same’, Journal of the
American Bar Association (December), pp 93-95.
30
Thomas, R.D. (1997), Computer Re-Enactment, available online at
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.reenact.html .
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 8
Project, run by the New York School of Law, identified
a number of issues and problems with the use of
visual technology.
31
These issues, along with many
others will be expanded upon and addressed later in
this paper.
Kassin and Dunn undertook two experiments to assess
the effects of computer-animated displays on mock
jurors.
32
In both experiments, participants watched a
trial involving a dispute over whether a man who fell
to his death had accidentally slipped or jumped in a
suicide. They observed that when the claimant and
defence used an animation to depict their own
partisan theories, participants increasingly made
judgments that contradicted the physical evidence,
suggesting that computer-animated displays can have
a greater effect than oral testimony. More recent
research by Dunn and others examined the prejudicial
effects of computer-generated animations in more
detail.
33
This research work offered varying results,
depending on the familiarity of the viewers with the
scenarios depicted. These experiments also showed
that the juror’s expectations about the persuasiveness
of animations were at odds with the animations’
actual influence on jurors’ verdicts.
Australia currently has a number of projects underway
in this thematic area. In Western Australia, rare
permission has been given by the Attorney General
for a researcher to interview jurors after criminal trials
in which a range of expert evidence was presented.
While the data showed statistically significant findings
that jurors are clearly influenced in their treatment of
some forensic evidence by the manner of
presentation, reassuringly, no support was found for
the operation of a detrimental effect of the
technology. In fact the study found support for the
proposition that most jurors assess forensic evidence
in a balanced and thoughtful manner, whatever the
mode of presentation.
34
31
Sherwin, R.K. (2002), When Law Goes Pop: The Vanishing Line
between Law and Popular Culture, University Of Chicago Press, 2nd
Edition.
32
Kassin, S.M. and Dunn, M.A. (1997), ‘Computer-Animated
Displays and the Jury: Facilitative and Prejudicial Effects’, Law and
Human Behavior, 21(3), pp 269-281; Selbak, J. (1994), ‘Digital
Litigation: The Prejudicial Effects of Computer-Generated Animation
in the Courtroom’, Berkley Technology Law Journal, 19(9:2).
33
Dunn, M.A., Feigenson, N. and Salovey, P. (2006), ‘The Jury
Persuaded (and Not): Computer Animation in the Courtroom’, Law &
Policy 28(2), pp 228-248.
34
Fordham, J.G. (2006), ‘Muddying the Waters with Red Herrings: a
Progress Report on Western Australian Jury Research’, in Brooks-
Gordon, B. and Freeman, M. (Eds), Law and Psychology Current
Legal Issues 9, Oxford University Press, pp 338360; Holmgren,
J.A. and Fordham, J.G. (2011), ‘The CSI effect and the Canadian
The author was a member of a large international
research project based in Australia, the Juries and
Visual Evidence Project (JIVE), which also examined
some of these issues. The project measured the effect
of interactive displays on the trial process; specifically
whether forensic animation and virtual reconstruction
technology better informs juries or potentially
increases prejudice against defendants. In January
2008, the JIVE project team ran a number of mock
trials in the Supreme Court in Sydney, Australia. A
range of forensic animations and interactive
reconstructions of evidence relating to a terrorist
bombing were shown to a number of different groups
of jurors (Figure 1). Each jury deliberation was filmed
and recorded. A major theme emerging from the
analysis of the project data is that the main
experimental effects (interactive visual evidence and
judicial instructions) have relatively modest influence
overall. However, they do show stronger effects in
some groups of people, particularly those who are
most prone to convict. The JIVE data has so far shown
that fear of terrorism may be a better predictor of a
verdict than either the method of presentation,
experimental interventions, deliberation or any
demographic characteristics. The research team
intends to publish a book on the data from this
project which will focus on issues of juries and trials in
terrorism cases.
35
There is little argument regarding the effectiveness of
animated visual media as a tool for communication
and knowledge transfer. The technology can offer
significant benefits over traditional static
(photographic) or moving (film) media captured in the
physical world. The rendered images from virtual
worlds are not bound by the limitations of available
lighting; they can avoid extraneous information,
focusing only on salient evidential items; and they can
and Australian jury’, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56(S1), pp S63-
S71.
35
Tait, D. (2007), ‘Rethinking the role of the image in justice: visual
evidence and science in the trial process’, Law, Probability and Risk,
6(14), pp 311318; Tait, D., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Schofield, D.
and Jones, D. (2008), ‘Evidence on the Holodeck: Jury responses to
Computer Simulations’, Proceedings of the 4th Law and Technology
Conference, Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, Sydney,
Australia; Schofield, D. (2009), ‘Animating Evidence: Computer
Game Technology in the Courtroom’, Journal of Information Law &
Technology (JILT) 1 (2009); Schofield, D. (2011), ‘Playing with
evidence: using video games in the courtroom’, Journal of
Entertainment Computing (Special Issue: Video Games as Research
Instruments), 2(1), pp 47-58.
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 9
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 10
Figure 1: Computer generated graphical images from the JIVE Terrorism Trial
be colourful, animated and lively enough to guarantee
the attention and engagement of the viewer.
36
Examples of computer-generated
graphical evidence
Computer-generated displays, and more specifically,
scientific animations or simulations, must meet
certain criteria before being admitted as evidence in
court due to potential bias and unfairness. A number
of examples are set out below to illustrate the nature
of what can be achieved. Although computer-
generated displays have often been used at jury trials,
it is suggested that many of the same advantages and
concerns raised when showing such graphical displays
36
Dunn, M.A., Feigenson, N. and Salovey, P. (2006), ‘The Jury
Persuaded (and Not): Computer Animation in the Courtroom’, Law &
Policy 28(2), pp 228-248.
to members of a jury, apply to judges or any other
trier of fact.
37
Legislation and case law exists in most countries that
govern the admissibility of computer-generated
displays (and in fact, any visual or scientific evidence
or display) in court, in order to ensure fair, unbiased,
and appropriate use of this evidence. Digital
visualisations have been widely used in American
courts for the last 20 years; hence much of the
applicable case law is from the United States. The
technology has only relatively recently begun to be
introduced into the United Kingdom and Australian
courts. Recently, there have been a number of articles
reporting on the use of this technology in other
jurisdictions, such as India and China.
38
Although this
37
Schofield, D. (2009), ‘Graphical Evidence: Forensic Animations
and Virtual Reconstructions’, Journal of the Australia and New
Zealand Forensic Science Society, 41(2), pp 1-15.
38
Liao, G., Zheng, Y., Zhao, L. and Wu, X. (2015), ‘A Novel Plan for
Crime Scene Reconstruction’, Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference of Computer Engineering and Networks, Shanghai,
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 4
technology is more common in civil trials, it is seeing
greater use in the criminal arena and has been used in
high-profile criminal cases such as the O. J. Simpson
and Oklahoma City bombing trials in the US.
39
Computer-generated graphical evidence in the
USA
Computer-generated evidence in the US has primarily
been used in civil cases. One of the first major uses of
computer-generated animations in court took place in
the federal civil case for the Delta flight 191 crash. In
August 1985 a Delta aeroplane with 163 people
aboard was caught in a wind vortex and crashed while
attempting to land at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, a
mile from the runway.
40
128 passengers, 8 crew
members and 1 person on the ground were killed, and
there was extensive property damage. In the
subsequent litigation, computer-generated
animations were used to explain the complex issues
and technical matters to the members of the jury,
without overwhelming them with the complexities of
the evidence. The US government offered a 55-minute
computer-generated presentation, including forensic
animations to the court to explain the details of each
item of evidence. The animations that were created
were based on ground-radar data and the design
capabilities of the radar used by Delta 191.
41
The use of computer-generated evidence in criminal
cases can often be more problematic. The benefits
and disadvantages of using such evidence in court can
become magnified, due to the importance of the
result of the trial. Admittance of computer-generated
evidence to a civil trial may mean an award or loss of
money, whereas in a criminal case loss of liberty may
result.
42
. Computer animations and simulations may
China; Sahu, A., Mandla, N. S. and Yogesh, G. (2014), ‘Advantages
of Computer Generated Evidence: Forensic Animation in Indian
Judiciary System’, Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine and
Toxicology, 8(1), pp 13; Lalwani, S., Raina, A., Pokle, R.C. and
Dogras, T.D. (2014), ‘Reconstruction of Scene by Forensic
Animation: Two Case Reports’, Journal of Indian Academy of
Forensic Medicine, 36(1), pp 104-107.
39
Lederer, F.I. (2004), ‘Courtroom technology: for trial lawyers, the
future is now’, Criminal Justice, 19(1), pp 1421
40
Marcotte, P. (1989), ‘Animated Evidence: Delta 191 Crash Re-
Created Through Computer Simulations at Trial’, American Bar
Association Journal, 75(12), pp 52 56.
41
Gold, S. (2001), ‘Forensic Animation Its Origins, Creation,
Limitations and Future’, Expert Law, available online at
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/animation/forensic_animation.html;
Marcotte, P. (1991), ‘Animated Evidence: Delta 191 Crash Re-
Created Through Computer Simulations at Trial’; In re Air Crash at
Dallas/Fort Worth Airport on August 2, 1985, 720 F. Supp. 1258 (N.
D. Tex. 1989), aff’d, 919 F.2d 1079 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied sub
nom. Connors v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 276.
42
Bardelli, E.J. (1994), ‘The Use of Computer Simulations in
Criminal Prosecutions’, Wayne Law Review, pp 1357-1377.
not only be used by the prosecution, but also by the
defence to show that the prosecutor’s version of
events could not possibly have happened. An example
of the latter is the state case of People v McHugh,
43
which involved one of the first uses of a computer-
generated simulation in a criminal trial. McHugh was
driving his vehicle in New York City when he was
alleged to have killed several people. He was charged
with their deaths, but argued he had not been
criminally negligent. The defence claimed the incident
occurred because the weather conditions caused the
vehicle to leave the road and to hit an electrical box
that was open at ground level. This in turn caused a
tyre to rupture, which caused the vehicle to spin into
a concrete abutment.
44
On behalf of the defence, a
specialist in reconstructing accidents introduced a
simple simulation illustrating the defence theory
relating to the path the vehicle took. The prosecution
moved for a pre-trial conference to evaluate the
admissibility of the computer-generated evidence.
After the court reviewed the expert’s report outlining
the construction of the computer simulation, it was
ruled that there would be no need for a pre-trial
hearing on the issue. Collins J classified the computer-
generated evidence as demonstrative, at 722:
‘The evidence sought to be introduced here is
more akin to a chart or diagram than a
scientific device. Whether a diagram is hand
drawn or mechanically drawn by means of a
computer is of no importance.’
The judge ruled that the expert could use the
simulation, provided the defence laid the proper
foundations and qualifications of the expert.
45
As a result of the possible loss of an individual’s
freedom, and sometimes life, the use of computer
animations and simulations in criminal cases must be
analysed carefully. This is particularly important since
scientific evidence is far more difficult to admit than
illustrative evidence. There is a risk in a criminal trial
that the members of the jury can be overwhelmed by
the scientific techniques or devices employed.
A further relevant example is the case of State of
Connecticut v Michael Skakel,
46
which involved
43
124 Misc.2d 559; 476 N.Y.S.2d 721 (Sup. 1984).
44
Kassin, S.M. and Dunn, M.A. (1997), ‘Computer-Animated
Displays and the Jury: Facilitative and Prejudicial Effects’, Law and
Human Behavior, 21(3), pp 269-281.
45
Bohan, T.L. and Damask, A.C. (1995), Forensic Accident
Investigation: Motor Vehicles, Michie-Butterworth, Charlottesville,
VA; D’Angelo, C. (1998), ‘The Snoop Doggy Dogg Trial: A Look at
How Computer Animation will Impact Litigation in the Next Century’,
University of San Francisco Law Review, pp 561-585.
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 5
significant use of computer-generated imagery.
Michael Skakel’s audiotaped interviews were digitised
and re-formatted into an interactive multimedia
presentation. The digital audio from the interviews
was synchronised with the digital transcripts so that
the jury could listen and read along in order to
increase their understanding of the content. This was
developed into a closing argument presentation,
which allowed jurors to hear Skakel describe the panic
he felt when the victim’s mother asked him about her
daughter the morning after the night of the murder;
and simultaneously saw on the screen a photograph
of the lifeless body next to the transcript of Skakel’s
words.
47
The defense appealed to the Supreme Court
of Connecticut on this point, amongst others. The
appeal was rejected (for which see paragraph VII item
F of the judgment).
Another example was the case of Commonwealth v
Serge.
48
Here the defendant appealed his conviction
for murder after the prosecution introduced a
computer-generated animation based on their theory
of the case. The court held that a computer-generated
animation was admissible evidence and had to be
weighed by the same criteria of admissibility as other
evidence; probative value versus prejudicial effect.
The court also stated that certain concerns prior to
admission carry more weight and deserve closer
scrutiny for such computer generated testimony than
for more traditional forms of evidence
49
. The court
also decided that because in this case the computer
generated animation was a graphic illustration of an
expert witness’s reconstruction rather than a
simulation based on computer calculations, it was not
subject to the test governing admissibility of scientific
evidence established under Frye v United States.
50
Virtual reality technology as evidence in the USA
46
An appeal was argued before Sullivan, C.J., and Katz, Palmer,
Vertefeuille and Zarella, J.J. on 14 January 2005, and judgment
officially released on 24 January 2006. It is available at
https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR276/276CR
155.pdf .
47
Carney, B. and Feigenson, N. (2004), ‘Visual Persuasion in the
Michael Skakel Trial: Enhancing Advocacy through Interactive Media
Presentations’, Criminal Justice Magazine 19(1).
48
586 Pa. 671, 896 A.2d 1170 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 2006).
49
Mentioned in this judgment was an article by Joseph, G.P. (2009),
‘A simplified approach to computer-generated evidence and
animations’, 43 New York Law School Law Review, 875 (reprinted in
part in Shira, A., Scheindlin, D., Capra, J. and The Sedona
Conference, Electronic Discovery and Digital Evidence.
50
293 F. 1013; 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 1712; 54 App. D.C. 46; 34
A.L.R. 145 (D.C. 1923).
The case of Stephenson v Honda Motors Ltd of
America
51
saw the first use of an interactive real time
simulator (based on real time VR technology) in US
courts. After an accident on her motorcycle, Ms
Stephenson claimed that the ground she was traveling
on was smooth, and her vehicle inherently unstable,
because it caused her to fall. Rain had eroded the
road by the time of trial, so it was impossible to
determine the condition of the road. Honda argued
that it was too dangerous to drive safely upon the
terrain. Honda produced a virtual reconstruction of
the terrain, which members of the jury could view by
using VR headsets and a demonstration motorcycle
simulator. Honda claimed that this method of viewing
the environment was more realistic and relevant than
photographs and videos, as it gave the jury a better
idea of the nature of the terrain. The motorcycle
simulator and accompanying virtual environment was
admitted as evidence.
52
Other new forms of evidence are also now becoming
available. The Court 21 Project, based at the William
and Mary Law School, Williamsburg, Virginia, is a
renowned centre for experimental work in court
technology. In 2002, the School conducted a
laboratory trial involving a federal homicide
prosecution of a company accused of manufacturing a
medical device that it knew or should have known
would kill its first patient. That case included the first
known use of holographic evidence (allowing the
circulatory system to be seen in three dimensions in
the air in front of each juror) and an immersive VR
system involving a head mounted display was used for
each juror.
53
Computer-generated graphical evidence in
England and Wales
For examples of computer-generated visualisations
and computer-generated evidence in England and
Wales, see the forthcoming fourth edition of
Electronic Evidence, edited by Stephen Mason and to
be published in early 2017 by the University of London
and the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies.
51
No. 81067 (Cal. Sup. Placer County, June 25, 1992).
52
Dunn, J.A. (1999), ‘Virtual Reality Evidence’, available online at
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lit04.htm .
53
Lederer, F.I. (2004), ‘Courtroom technology: for trial lawyers, the
future is now’, Criminal Justice, 19(1), pp 1421.
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 6
Computer-generated graphical evidence in
Australia
Over the last decade, Australia has been a relative
pioneer in the introduction of high technology into
courts. Queensland University of Technology houses
(what it claims to be) the most high-tech court in the
southern hemisphere. Here, law students are taught
to handle a range of advanced technologies for use in
the court.
54
There are few published examples of the use of
computer-generated animations in Australian courts.
One early example is King v The Queen
55
where three
men allegedly raped a young woman in November
1995. The men each pleaded not guilty to deprivation
of liberty and six counts of sexual penetration without
consent. A reconstruction was admitted on behalf of
the defence to illustrate how measurements of the
crime scene were taken, and that it was impossible to
re-enact the crime without removing certain physical
parameters from the scene, such as obstructing
objects and wall geometry. In the animation that was
produced, it was demonstrated that the perpetrator’s
frame had to protrude through the shower wall in
order for the assault to have occurred in the manner
described by the prosecutor.
The case of Brambles Australia Ltd v AM and JP Keune
Pty Ltd
56
involved the collision of two heavily laden
road trains on the Brand Highway, near Regans Ford.
On 2 December 1991, the road train, owned by
Brambles Australia Ltd (‘Brambles’) was travelling
south, and being driven by Mr Steven Lee, who died in
the collision. The road train owned by AM and JP
Keune Pty Ltd (‘Keune’) was travelling north from
Perth to Tom Price, driven by Mr Ian Jones, who was
injured in the collision. Mr Jones’ evidence was tested
before the trial, both practically and theoretically. The
practical test involved the reconstruction of the
movements of the Brambles road train as described
by Mr Jones, by an experienced vehicle accident
consultant. An animation of this reconstruction based
on Mr Jone’s testimony was introduced as evidence. A
further computer-generated reconstruction was also
created by a qualified vehicle accident consultant in
conjunction with ARRB Transport Research Limited.
Although the virtual simulations demonstrated that it
would have been possible for both road trains to have
54
Macdonald, R. and Wallace, A., ‘Review of the extent of courtroom
technology in Australia’, William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 12,
pp 649-979.
55
[1998] WASCA 3 (19 January 1998).
56
[1998] WASC 57 (26 February 1998).
moved in the way described by Mr Jones, the
simulations did not concur fully with the physical
evidence recovered from the scene. The simulation
showing Mr Jones’s version of events was not in full
accordance with the video recording, and the ARRB
report findings on times of lane changes and the limit
of stability of the road trains. Therefore, testing the
reconstruction built from Mr Jones’s account against
the evidence described above illustrated that
although Mr Jones’s account was seemingly probable,
it did not provide a satisfactory explanation.
Templeman J concluded that the version of events put
forward by Brambles was more probable, and that Mr
Lee was not responsible for the collision. The judge
stated that Mr Jones was a competent driver and did
not intentionally allow his vehicle to drift to the wrong
lane, but that he had fallen asleep at the wheel.
Issues arising from the use of computer-
generated graphical evidence in court
The previous sections have described how computer
generated visual evidence can be extremely
advantageous to the court, providing they are used
appropriately. Such displays may be used in different
ways in the court: as substantive evidence (used to
prove a specific case hypothesis or argument), or to
generally illustrate or demonstrate a fact (such as a
medical illustration showing how a lung works or
demonstrating the interior workings of a piece of
machinery).
However, potential difficulties can occur from the
application of this technology, and when these
reconstructions are examined in further detail, a
number of issues and questions can arise. The
consequences of these problems cannot be
underestimated, since errors, inaccuracies, misuse,
tampering or bias within visual and graphical evidence
are capable of leading to miscarriages of justice.
57
A
number of these potential issues are discussed below.
Viewpoint
One issue is how to correlate the viewpoint of a
witness in a ‘virtual’ environment with the view from
their physical position at the scene. For example,
compare the problem of accurately replicating the
‘physical world’ view of the driver of the vehicle
involved in a road traffic accident with the field of
57
Worring, M. and Cucchiara, R. (2009), ‘Multimedia in forensics’,
Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on
Multimedia, New York, USA, pp 1153-1154.
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 7
view of a camera in a virtual reconstruction. The
driver has a wide field of vision through two eyes with
differing levels of visual acuity across the field of view
(for example there will be lower resolution vision at
the periphery of the field of view compared to the
current focus of attention), and the driver may also
move their head around within the car to gain a
better view. Whereas, animated driving simulations
often rely on a fixed camera viewpoint within the
vehicle.
58
Popular computer game titles provide a good example
of distinct viewing configurations through various
playing styles. Unreal Tournament (Epic Games) and
the Halo Series (Bungee Studios) are examples that
belong to a genre known as the First Person Shooter
(FPS), distinguished by a first person perspective
(egocentric) that renders the game world from the
visual perspective of the player character. Grand Theft
Auto (Rockstar Games) and Tomb Raider (Core Design)
are games that belong to a genre known as the Third
Person Shooter (TPS), this is a genre of video game in
which an avatar of the player character is seen at a
distance from a number of different possible
perspective angles (exocentric). In any forensic
reconstruction (as in any computer game), the choice
of the viewing perspective may have significant effect
on the way an image is interpreted by the viewer.
Changing the viewing perspective can potentially alter
which ‘character’ in an evidence presentation a
viewer identifies with, or aligns themselves with.
59
In fact, this is why there is a common (albeit not
universal) rule prohibiting lawyers from asking jurors
to put themselves in the place of a party (or witness).
Images rendered to the screen may seem objective to
the viewer, because they ‘appear’ not to be operated
by human beings who by definition have a subjective
position.
60
However, these cameras have a point of
view that engages the viewer in familiar ways. The
viewer becomes the driver, the game player,
observing from inside the scene and every aspect of
58
Noond, J., Schofield, D., March, J. and Evison, M. (2002),
‘Visualising the scene: computer graphics and evidence
presentation’, Science & Justice 42(2), pp 8995.
59
Bryce, J. and Rutter, J. (2002), ‘Spectacle of the Deathmatch:
Character and Narrative in First-Person Shooters’, in King, G. and
Krzywinska, T. (Eds), ScreenPlay: Cinema/Videogames/Interfaces,
Wallflower Press, pp 66-80.
60
Feigenson, N. and Spiesel, C.O. (2009), Law on Display: The
Digital Transformation of Legal Persuasion and Judgment, NYU
Press.
the way the images are presented on the screen can
evoke an emotional response.
61
However, research has shown that positioning the
virtual camera to represent a specific subject’s
viewpoint can actually incline the viewer to attribute
less responsibility to the person whose point of view
the simulation leads them to adopt and more
responsibility to others or to the circumstances.
Cognitive psychologists call this actor-observer bias,
and it is a bias since this point of view ought to be
irrelevant to judgements of responsibility. This actor-
observer effect is well established in the social
psychology literature.
62
Correlating location
There is also a possible issue regarding the correlation
of the locations of witnesses when viewed in a virtual
environment, in comparison to their actual position at
the scene. It is a reasonable assumption to make that
most people would be better able to correlate their
actual spatial location from a three-dimensional
‘virtual’ simulation, than they might be able to on a
two-dimensional plan or map.
It is interesting to note that research has indeed
shown that a significant proportion of people tested
have problems relating and correlating two-
dimensional (eg maps and plans) and three-
dimensional (eg real and virtual) spatial information.
63
In practice, this means that some witnesses may find
it easier to identify their physical position by referring
to their location within a virtual environment (relating
physical three-dimensions to ‘virtual’ three-
dimensions) rather than picking a position on a two-
dimensional plan or map of the scene of the
incident.
64
One of the main advantages of the use of an
interactive ‘real-time’ virtual simulation over a passive
forensic animation is the ability to control the virtual
camera movement dynamically within the
61
Schofield, D. (2006), ‘The future of evidence: new applications of
digital technologies, forensic science: classroom to courtroom’, in:
Proceedings of 18th International Symposium of the Forensic
Sciences, Fremantle, Western Australia, 2006.
62
Jones, E.E. and Nesbett, R.E. (1971), ‘The actor and the
observer: divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior’, in:
Jones, E.E. (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior,
General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ, pp. 7994.
63
Schnabel, M.A. and Kvan, T. (2003), ‘Spatial Understanding in
Immersive Environments’, International Journal of Architectural
Computing, 1(4), pp 435448.
64
Schofield, D. (2009), ‘Animating Evidence: Computer Game
Technology in the Courtroom’, Journal of Information Law &
Technology (JILT) 1 (2009).
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 8
environment.
65
This permits the user to adjust the
view of the digital evidence ‘interactively’ – for
example, a witness could move a camera around until
the virtual view matches their memory of their view
of the incident. However, it should be noted that how
humans position themselves and correlate spatial
information between the three-dimensional views of
the virtual world and the physical world are still not
fully understood.
66
Realism
The environment surrounding any particular scene
that is to be reconstructed may be included within the
virtual model. For example, a model may not only
show the location of items or objects that form part of
the evidence, but also the position of such items in
relation to nearby buildings or other environment
features, and these items may be placed and
animated within a chronology of events or a time
frame. The realism of these ‘virtual’ environments
continues to improve. Popular types of animated film
demonstrate two distinct representation styles. Shrek
(Dreamworks Animation) or Toy Story (Pixar Studios)
rely on a cartoon-like, abstract approach to present its
narrative. On the other hand, films such as Polar
Express (Castle Rock Entertainment) or Beowulf
(Imagemovers) rely on a more realistic
representational form. A number of researchers have
noted an interesting observable fact relating to the
realism in such animated imagery, where many
viewers become ‘unnerved’ by images of humans
which are close to, but not quite real. This
phenomenon (experienced by a number of viewers of
the Polar Express and Beowulf movies) has become
known as the ‘uncanny valley’, because of the sharp
dip seen in a graph of familiarity against the
perception of reality.
67
As computer-processing power
65
Ware, C. and Osborne, S. (1990), ‘Exploration and virtual camera
control in virtual three dimensional environments’, in: Proceedings of
the 1990 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, SIGGRAPH: ACM
Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive
Techniques, Utah, USA, pp. 175183;Lipski, C., Linz, C., Berger, K.,
Sellent A. and Magnor, M., 2010, ‘Virtual video camera: image-
based viewpoint navigation through space and time’, Computer
Graphics Forum, 29(8), pp 2555-2568.
66
Montello, D.R., Hegarty, M., Richardson, A.E. and Waller, D.
(2004), ‘Spatial Memory of Real Environments, Virtual Environments
and Maps’, in Allen, G.L. (Ed), Human Spatial Memory:
Remembering Where, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp 251286;
Arthur, E.J., Hancock, P.A. and Crysler, S.T. (1997), ‘The Perception
of Spatial Layout in Real and Virtual Worlds’, Ergonomics, 40(1), pp
6977.
67
MacDorman, K.F. (2006), ‘Subjective Ratings of Robot Video Clips
for Human Likeness, Familiarity, and Eeriness: an Exploration of the
Uncanny Valley’, Proceedings of the ICCS/CogSci-2006 Long
Symposium: Toward Social Mechanisms of Android Science, pp 26
29.
increases and software tools develop, it is natural to
assume that it will be possible to achieve a similar
level of realism to that used in photorealistic
animated Hollywood movies within the computer-
generated environments used in a court.
Virtual objects in a court reconstruction can be
modelled with varying degrees of accuracy to explain
and visualise the certainty, believability and veracity
of the information related to that object. For example,
the trajectories of bullets are often displayed as cones
or wedge shapes within shooting reconstructions to
show a range of possible positions of the weapon,
instead of showing a single definitive line trajectory.
68
However, the mixing of visual metaphors and modes
may be potentially disorientating to some viewers.
Combining abstract data representations in photo-
realistic environments may provide an unnatural
experience for the viewer. Fielder
69
has commented
on the way members of juries may be misled by the
use of visual metaphors and abstract representations
in forensic animations. Combining different degrees of
photorealism and expecting the viewer to draw
additional information from a number of abstract
representations in the virtual environment may
overload the viewer and potentially add to their
confusion, rather than increasing their
comprehension of the evidence that is presented. In a
forensic graphics context, many presentations used in
court currently rely on fairly abstract representations
(such as the examples shown in Figure 1).
70
However,
as technology develops, the development of
increasingly photorealistic evidence reconstructions
becomes ever more likely. Increasing use of the
rendering of photorealistic components of the virtual
model may lead to instances where viewers may be
lulled into a ‘seeing is believing’ attitude, causing a
potential relaxation of their critical faculties.
71
68
Ken Fowle and Damian Schofield, ‘Visualising forensic data:
investigation to court’, 9th Australian Digital Forensics Conference.
69
Fielder, B.S. (2003), ‘Are Your Eyes Deceiving You? The
Evidential Crisis Regarding the Admissibility of Computer-Generated
Evidence’, New York Law School Law Review, 48(1-2), pp 295321.
70
Schofield, D. (2009), ‘Animating Evidence: Computer Game
Technology in the Courtroom’, Journal of Information Law &
Technology (JILT) 1 (2009);
71
O’Flaherty, D. (1996), ‘Computer-generated displays in the
courtroom: for better or worse?’, Web Journal of Current Legal
Issues, 2(4), pp 1–14; Fielder, B.S. (2003), ‘Are Your Eyes
Deceiving You? The Evidential Crisis Regarding the Admissibility of
Computer-Generated Evidence’, New York Law School Law Review,
48(1-2), pp 295–321; Galves, F. (2000), ‘Where the Not So Wild
Things Are: Computers in the Courtroom, the Federal Rules of
Evidence, and the Need for Institutional Reform and More Judicial
Acceptance’, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 13(2), pp
161302.
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 9
Figure 2: Image from a virtual simulation, showing vehicle debris at the crime scene
Media mode
It is rare that one form of media will be sufficient to
explain fully every facet of a complex process or case
to a viewer. Many people see three-dimensional
technology as a universal solution, and it has been
‘over-applied’ or ‘misapplied’ in many visualisation
applications. It is important to choose an appropriate
representation mode (photographs, text, video,
graphics etc) for the evidence that needs to be
presented. Additional forensic data may be included
and displayed within any virtual environment; for
example, location based statistical or analytical data
may be displayed, calculation and test results may be
presented in a visual format, and original documents
and photographs can be linked to three-dimensional
virtual objects.
A reconstruction developed for the West Midlands
Police in the United Kingdom by the author, for
instance, uses real-time VR technology (Figure 2).
72
The user can pass the mouse over any relevant piece
of evidence and view textual data about that item,
and by clicking on any particular object in the virtual
world (in this case, mainly items of vehicle debris),
relevant crime scene photographs and evidential data
will be displayed. The linking of ‘real’ evidence to
spatially contextualised hotspots in a virtual
environment has the potential to provide an effective
mechanism to help the viewer understand the spatial
relationship of the evidence. Such a multi-modal
approach can be very effective, and different media
72
Schofield, D. (2011), ‘Playing with evidence: using video games in
the courtroom’, Journal of Entertainment Computing (Special Issue:
Video Games as Research Instruments), 2(1), pp 47-58; Schofield,
D. and Fowle, K. (2013), ‘Technology Corner: Visualising Forensic
Data’, The Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 8(1).
may also be used as a device to help to retain the
attention of the viewer and thereby increase
understanding.
73
Audio
The integration of physical-world audio evidence with
a forensic animation has been used in the United
States for many years. One of the first recorded
applications of such a forensic animation was the
reconstruction of the Delta 191 aeroplane crash in
1985, as described previously. In the court, the
animated evidence showing the movement of the
aeroplane was played simultaneously with an audio
recording from the cockpit voice recorder. Research
suggests that adding audio to a computer-generated
visual can have a significant effect on the level of
engagement of the viewer, and hence may potentially
affect their understanding and interpretation of the
evidence viewed.
74
Resolution
One difficulty is to correlate the resolution of the
virtual scene with that subjectively perceived by the
viewer in the physical world. In this instance,
resolution not only refers to screen image dimensions
(the pixel count), but also to the level of photorealism
of the virtual environment that is created.
75
This also
73
Clark, R.C. and Mayer, R.E. (2008), E-learning and science of
instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of
multimedia learning, John Wiley and Sons.
74
Porschmann, C. and Pellegrini, R.S. (2010), ‘3-D audio in mobile
communication devices: effects of self-created and external sounds
on presence in auditory virtual environments’, Journal of Virtual
Reality and Broadcasting, 7.
75
Slater, M. Khanna, P., Mortensen, J. and Yu, I. (2009), ‘Virtual
realism enhances realistic response in an immersive virtual
environment’, Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE, 29(3), pp
7684.
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 4
relates to the display mechanisms used: a viewer
watching a reconstruction on a mobile device such as
a mobile telephone or a smartphone has a very
different experience to one who watches it on a
cinema screen. In addition, a viewer watching a
computer monitor or screen may not have the same
experience (depth of field, motion parallax, peripheral
vision etc.) as a viewer watching the actual event.
76
A relevant factor which needs to be considered is the
way the technology is used, and for what purpose.
One crime scene reconstruction created by the author
was used extensively during the pre-trial phase as an
interactive briefing tool. This gave investigators the
opportunity to become familiar with the evidence and
to test hypotheses. The simulation was also run on
laptop computers by investigators who physically
walked along the scene long after the incident (all
transient evidence had been removed). The
investigators were able to walk round the physical
location while simultaneously moving through the
virtual environment; jumping to points in the event
chronology, and correlating the virtual evidence of the
event spatially with their physical world view.
77
This
could be considered, in a basic way, a form of
augmented reality.
78
Accuracy
Any forensic investigation begins with data collection:
accuracy is crucial, because this data serves as the
foundation for the evidence. At the scene, an
investigator makes field measurements, rough scene
sketches may be produced, and usually sets of
76
Machado, L.S., Morales, R.M., Souza, D.L., Souza, L. and Cunha,
I.L. (2009), ‘A framework for development of virtual reality-based
training simulators’, in Westewood, J.D. (Eds), Medicine Meets
Virtual Reality, IOS Press, (2009); Tromp, J. and Schofield, D.
(2004), ‘Practical Experiences Of Building Virtual Reality Systems’,
Proceedings of Designing and Evaluating Virtual Reality Systems
Symposium, University of Nottingham, UK; Schofield, D. (2009),
Animating Evidence: Computer Game Technology in the
Courtroom’, Journal of Information Law & Technology (JILT), 1.
77
Schofield, D. (2007), ‘Animating and interacting with graphical
evidence: bringing courtrooms to life with virtual reconstructions’, in:
Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Graphics, Imaging
and Visualisation, Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 321328.; Burton, A.,
Schofield, D. and Goodwin, L.M. (2005), ‘Gates of global perception:
forensic graphics for evidence presentation’, in: Proceedings of ACM
Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, Singapore,
pp. 103–111; Schofield, D. and Mason, S. (2012), ‘Using graphical
technology to present evidence’, in: Mason, S. (Ed.), Electronic
Evidence, 3rd edn, LexisNexis Butterworths, pp. 217253.
78
Augmented Reality is defined as a technology that superimposes
a computer-generated image on a user's view of the real world, thus
providing a composite view. A popular recent example is the
Pokemon Go game (developed by Niantic for a range of mobile
devices) where imaginary creatures are superimposed over views of
the real world environment. For more information see Woodrow, B.
(2015), Fundamentals of wearable computers and augmented
reality, CRC Press.
photographs or video are taken. At a later stage,
accurate plans of the scene are drafted and the
information and evidence is collated in some sort of a
visual format. The evidence taken from the scene is
analysed by experienced and suitably qualified
investigators and, finally, the investigators present
their findings to a mixed audience of experts and lay
people in a court.
79
The technology used for collecting data and
measurements ranges from tape measures and
traditional surveying tools (still used by many private
accident investigators), to Electronic Distance
Measurement (EDM) technology (used by many police
organisations), to three-dimensional laser scanners
(used by many large forensic organisations and
government agencies). Collecting the data digitally
allows for the automatic generation of three-
dimensional coordinate information of the scene that
can be imported directly into a range of drafting and
mapping software. These coordinates provide a
reliable numerical data set for the creation of the
geometry that is the foundation of any credible
computer model or virtual reconstruction of a scene.
If the virtual environment is created to a sufficient
level of accuracy, then it may potentially be used to
test hypotheses, such as to verify the location of a
witness (especially where lines of sight around
obstructions or hazards that are present in the
environment may call into question the physical
location of the witness) or perhaps to evaluate
potential alternative bullet trajectories through the
environment.
80
Unlike the environment surrounding a road traffic
accident or crime scene reconstruction where exact,
surveyed measurements are usually available,
pathology or medical visualisations are often based on
descriptive post-mortem findings or approximate
measurements. The use of generic anatomical
computer models allows the recreation of dynamic
events in which wounding or damage to a human
body occurs. Such a reconstruction is, by its very
nature, often dependent on the knowledge, expertise
and opinion of medical experts.
81
Hence, in many of
79
Burton, A., Schofield, D. and Goodwin, L.M. (2005), ‘Gates of
global perception: forensic graphics for evidence presentation’, in:
Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and
Technology, Singapore, pp. 103111.
80
Buck, U., Naether, S., Räss, B., Jackowski, C. and Thali, M. J.
(2013), ‘Accident or homicide–virtual crime scene reconstruction
using 3D methods’, Forensic Science International, 225(1), pp 75-
84.
81
Benali, L., Gromb, S. and Bou, C. (2013), ‘Post-mortem imaging in
traffic fatalities: from autopsy to reconstruction of the scene using
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 5
these cases, the advice of the expert is seen as crucial
in creating a graphical representation that accurately
matches the medical opinion. However, the potential
inaccuracies involved mean that these reconstructions
must be viewed cautiously and the uncertainty
associated with the exact position of virtual objects
must be explained to the viewer.
82
Simulation
It should never be forgotten that a virtual simulation
is by its very definition a ‘simulation’ of reality. In the
context of the court, it is necessary to understand the
nature of the simulation and the veracity of the
representation that is how close it is to the original
evidence from which it was derived.
For example, the vehicle movement in a road traffic
accident virtual simulation may be based on the same
equations as used by an accident reconstruction
expert witness. However, questions that arise include
whether the virtual simulation applies them in the
same way; whether the simulation works to the same
level of accuracy; whether the simulation makes the
same assumptions as the expert witness; and whether
the visual representation provides a realistic and
relevant portrayal of the simulation data.
83
Narrative
The ability to move through time and along a
chronology of events in the virtual environment may
be potentially disorientating to many viewers. Most
members of the general public are used to linear
narratives (such as those in books or films), and may
struggle to follow multiple narrative threads when
faced with such a non-linear approach.
84
freely available software’, International Journal of Legal Medicine,
127(5), pp 1045-1049; Urschler, M., Höller, J., Bornik, A., Paul, T.,
Giretzlehner, M., Bischof, H. and Scheurer, E. (2014), ‘Intuitive
presentation of clinical forensic data using anonymous and person-
specific 3D reference manikins’, Forensic Science International, 241,
pp 155-166.
82
March, J., Schofield, D., Evison, M. and Woodford, N. (2004),
‘Three-dimensional computer visualisation of forensic pathology
data’, American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 25(1),
pp 60-70; Maksymowicz, K., Tunikowski, W. and Kościuk, J. (2014),
‘Crime event 3D reconstruction based on incomplete or fragmentary
evidence material–Case report’, Forensic Science International, 242,
e6-e11.
83
Grimes, W.D. (1994), ‘Classifying the Elements in a Scientific
Animation, Accident Reconstruction: Technology and Animation’,
SAE Paper No 940919, USA Society of Automotive Engineers, pp
39-404; Noond, J., Schofield, D., March, J. and Evison, M. (2002),
‘Visualising the scene: computer graphics and evidence
presentation’, Science & Justice 42(2), pp 8995.
84
Craven, M., Taylor, I., Drozd, A., Purbrick, J., Greenhalgh, C. and
Benford, S. (2001), ‘Exploiting interactivity, influence, space and
time to explore non-linear drama in virtual worlds’, Proceedings of
Lighting
Consideration needs to be given as to how it is
possible to correlate the lighting in the virtual world
with that available at the scene at the time of the
incident. It has to be determined whether an
approximation is acceptable. Arguably, it might not be
crucial in some cases, because only the line of sight
might be under investigation, not the illumination,
and hence the visibility, of the objects.
85
Disneying evidence
The emotive nature of the visual media that is
produced can support a hypothesis that one of the
possible dangers of using computer-generated visual
evidence is that they can be ‘loaded’ with emotive
content that may have a prejudicial effect on the
viewer.
86
This process of adding emotive content has
been called ‘Disneying-up’ the evidence.
87
The effect of the use of computer-
generated graphical evidence in court
There are a number of concerns relating to the
viewer’s understanding of the visual evidence, based
on the issues described above. These are identified
and classified below. These are areas that should be
considered whenever a computer-generated
visualisation is to be used in a court.
Memory
Loftus has demonstrated that the memory of a
witness to an event can be biased by a wide variety of
seemingly inconsequential factors.
88
The results of
Loftus’s work can be extrapolated to predict that
the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
pp 3037.
85
Hoang, R., Koepnick, S., Mahsman, J.D., Sgambati, M., White,
C.J. and Coming, D.S. (2010), ‘Exploring global illumination for
virtual reality’, Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 2010, New York, USA.
86
O’Flaherty, D. (1996), ‘Computer-generated displays in the
courtroom: for better or worse?’, Web Journal of Current Legal
Issues, 2(4), pp 114; Bailenson, J.N., Balscovich, J., Beall, A.C.
and Noveck, B.S. (2006), ‘Courtroom Applications of Virtual
Environments, Immersive Virtual Environments, and Collaborative
Virtual Environments’, Law and Policy, 28(2), pp 249-270; Fielder,
B.S. (2003), ‘Are Your Eyes Deceiving You? The Evidential Crisis
Regarding the Admissibility of Computer-Generated Evidence’, New
York Law School Law Review, 48(1-2), pp 295321; Girvan, R.
(2001), ‘An overview of the use of computer-generated displays in
the courtroom’, Web Journal of Current Legal Issues, 7(1), pp 180.
87
Galves, F. (2000), ‘Where the Not So Wild Things Are: Computers
in the Courtroom, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Need for
Institutional Reform and More Judicial Acceptance’, Harvard Journal
of Law and Technology, 13(2), pp 161302.
88
Loftus, E.F. (1996), Eyewitness Testimony, Harvard University
Press; Loftus, E.F. (2003), ‘Our Changeable Memories: Legal and
Practical Implications’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4, pp 231-
234.
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 6
computer-generated visualisations can possibly to
lead to similar biases. Critical variables in such
visualisations may include the representation of
depth, speed, colour and distance. The question of
how much detail or realism is needed in order for a
visualisation to be effective (ie believable) is
considered crucial. Object recognition studies have
shown that outline drawings can often be just as
effective as colour photographs,
89
but in other
circumstances the interpretation of small details can
be critical, such as the difference between an object
being perceived as a gun or a stick, as was
demonstrated in the case of Harry Stanley.
90
Critics of
computer animated evidence contend that media
displays can occasionally create false memories. Brian
Stonehill, the director of media studies at Pomona
College in Claremont, California is reported to have
indicated that such animations can ‘create pseudo-
memories of an event’ and the ‘memorability of
having witnessed the crime [or event in dispute] but
[with] no validity in fact’.
91
Attitudes
Research has found that when people believe they
have a sufficient volume of evidence, they feel more
confident about making judgments, even when the
information is irrelevant.
92
Computer-generated
visualisations can provide just such an illusion of
sufficiency. Members of the public are often more
comfortable with visual simulations over legal
discourse, and hence the visualisations may be
considered more believable. Many factors also
influence the credibility of witnesses’ testimony, such
as the gender of a witness, their race, appearance,
and socioeconomic circumstances.
93
A computer-
generated visualisation based on witness testimony
89
Biederman, I. and Ju, G. (1998), ‘Surface vs. Edge-Based
Determinants of Visual Recognition’, Cognitive Psychology, 20, pp
38-64.
90
CPS decision in Henry (Harry) Stanley case 20 October 2005,
available online at
https://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/153_05/.
91
Cooper, C. (1993), ‘Computer Animation on Trial’, The San Diego
Union Tribune (27 January 1993), E1.
92
Darley, J.M. and Gross, P.H. (1983), ‘A Hypothesis-Confirming
Bias in Labeling Effects’, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 44(1), pp 20-33.
93
Nunez, N., McCoy, M.L, Clark, H. L. and Shaw, L. A., (1999), ‘The
testimony of elderly victim/witnesses and their impact on juror
decisions: The importance of examining multiple stereotype’s, Law
and Human Behavior, 23(4), pp 413423; Schuller, R.A., Terry, D.
and McKimmie, B. (2005), ‘The impact of expert testimony on jurors’
decisions: Gender of the expert and testimony complexity’, Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 35(6), pp 12661280; Wuensch, K.L.
Campbell, M.W., Kesler, F. C. and Moore, C. H. (2002), ‘Racial bias
in decisions made by mock jurors evaluating a case of sexual
harassment’, Journal of Social Psychology, 142(5), pp 587600.
has the potential to cause members of the public to
discount such factors. The anonymous and abstract
nature of a well made computer generated
reconstruction (one which takes into account the
issues discussed in this paper) may help to remove
any such bias or prejudice. On the other hand, a
poorly made one may serve to emphasise any such
differences.
Decision making
Research on group decision making has found that
once a group starts a communal discussion, many
social and linguistic biases are exhibited, such as
group polarisation, production losses and Grice’s
maxims (which are a way to explain the link between
utterances and what is understood from them).
94
Computer-generated visualisations can provide a
shared memory or representation for a group of
decision makers, such as members of a jury. Although
this has the potential to reduce a number of social
and linguistic biases, it is likely to increase others (for
example, production loss). It is necessary to
determine if the technology being used undermines
critical reasoning; in other words, whether the display
that is to be used supports or hinders decision
making, and whether it affects the way in which
members of a jury or witnesses interact. A
reconstruction often contains uncertain or inferred
data, which may need to be represented in order for it
to be understood by the viewer.
95
The communication
and collaborative process between individuals will
also be affected by the type and extent of the display
and will also determine content, in as much as it
might affect the way groups reach decisions.
96
Advantages and disadvantages of
computer-generated graphical evidence
in court
Many of the issues regarding the use of this
technology affect the admissibility of the
reconstructions as evidence, and can be expressed as
a list of advantages and disadvantages.
94
Grice, H.P. (1975), ‘Logic and Conversation’, in Cole, P. and
Morgan, J.L. (Eds), Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics Volume 3,
Academic Press, pp 41-58.
95
Goodwin, L. and Schofield, D. (2002), ‘Visualising Uncertainty:
Combining Evidence with Statistics’, Proceedings of Conference on
Expert Evidence: Causation, Proof and Presentation, Florence, Italy.
96
Klein, G. (1989), ‘Recognition-Primed Decision’s, in Rouse, W.B.
(Ed), Advances in Man-Machine Systems Research, 5, JAI Press:
NY, pp 47-92; Lurie, N.H. and Mason, C. (2007), ‘Visual
representation: Implications for decision making’, Journal of
Marketing, 71, pp 160-177.
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 7
Advantages of computer-generated graphical
evidence in court
In court, computer-generated displays are either
substantive evidence (scientific or forensic
animations, or simulation) or illustrative (a
demonstrative visual aid). As technology advances,
such displays are likely to become more prevalent,
due to a number of perceived benefits:
(i) Such displays can provide an effective
means of conveying complex evidence to the
judge and jury. Visual memory has been
found to be highly detailed and almost
limitless, in contrast with memory for verbal
material.
97
Forensic animations and virtual
reconstructions have the potential to improve
a viewer’s ability to retain complex spatial and
temporal data and hence increase the
potential comprehension of complex evidence
by members of a jury.
(ii) Visual media can provide an increase in the
attention span of the viewer, since human
attention is naturally drawn to animated
images. Moving objects rank top on the
hierarchy of methods to draw attention,
which covers actions, objects, pictures,
diagrams, the written word, and the spoken
word.
98
A modern audience will more readily
engage with audio-visual forms of
communication, rather than relying solely on
verbal modes of discourse. This increased
attention can potentially lead to the triers of
fact (in particular, members of a jury) studying
this visual evidence more intently than more
traditional (predominantly oral or textual)
forms of evidence.
99
(iii) Computer displays can also act to help
persuade members of a jury. Studies
comparing oral, textual, and static visual
presentations to computer animated
presentations containing the same
information found the animations to be more
97
Chapman, P. (2005), ‘Remembering What We’ve Seen: Predicting
Recollective Experience from Eye Movements When Viewing
Everyday Scenes’, in Underwood, G.D.M. (Ed), Cognitive Processes
in Eye Guidance, Oxford University Press, pp 237-258.
98
Drummond, M.A. (1999), Courtroom Persuasion: Eight Keys to
Success, Institute for Continuing Legal Education, Loyola University.
99
Worring, M. and Cucchiara, R. (2007), ‘Multimedia in forensics’,
Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on
Multimedia.
memorable.
100
This has implications not only
for the retention of information, but also the
weight given to the evidence by the member
of a jury or other trier of fact.
101
Also, visual,
rather than verbal information, more readily
activates the formation of an impression.
102
(iv) Digital displays also have the ability to
provide the presenter with an improved
illustration of their arguments; evidence can
be retrieved instantaneously during a
presentation, and the display can be
manipulated for better vantage points. The
person using the display can ‘zoom in’ to an
item of evidence, pull apart a piece of
machinery or present a crime scene from the
point of view of a significant witness.
103
(v) Such computer-generated displays may
improve efficiency in the court, thus saving
court time, as arguments and complex
information are understood at a faster pace.
The increase in efficiency because of the use
of graphical display technology is a factor of
the potential improvements in the speed with
which complex information can be imparted
to an audience, which therefore may shorten
the length of a trial. However, poorly created
virtual reconstructions may also be
responsible for causing confusion, and cause
an increase in the length of a trial.
104
This
saving of court time can potentially lead to a
reduction in costs. Some authors report that
the technology can save between a quarter to
a third of the time taken for a traditional
100
Seltzer, R.F. (1990), ‘Evidence and Exhibits at Trial’, 387 PLI/Lit
371; Cobo, M.E. (1990), ‘A Strategic Approach to Demonstrative
Exhibits and Effective Jury Presentations’, 3 PLI/Lit 359; Krieger, R.
(1992), ‘Sophisticated Computer Graphics Come of Age—and
Evidence Will Never Be the Same’, Journal of the American Bar
Association (December), pp 93-95; Thomas, R.D. (1997), Computer
Re-Enactment, available online at
http://www.pimall.com/nais/n.reenact.html.
101
Yale, D. (1996), ‘Computers on the Witness Stand: Expert
testimony that relies on data generated by computers in the age of
Daubert’, available online at
http://www.dcyale.com/law_papers/daubert.html; Feigenson, N. and
Spiesel, C.O. (2009), Law on Display: The Digital Transformation of
Legal Persuasion and Judgment, NYU Press.
102
Brewer, M.B. (1998), ‘A Dual Process Model of Impression
Formation’, in Wyer, R.S. and Srull, T.K. (Eds), Advances in Social
Cognition Volume 1, Psychology Press, pp 1-36.
103
Schofield, D. (2011),’ Playing with evidence: using video games
in the courtroom’, Journal of Entertainment Computing (Special
Issue: Video Games as Research Instruments), 2(1), pp 47-58.
104
Devine, D.J., Clayton, L.D., Dunford, B.B., Seying, R. and Pryce,
J. (2001), ‘Jury decision making, 45 years of empirical research on
deliberating groups’, Psychology Public Policy, and Law, 7(3), pp
622727.
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 8
trial.
105
However, it should be noted that part
of this saving comes at the cost of increased
pre-trial preparation, which may involve the
assistance of additional staff or technology
vendors and consultants.
Disadvantages of computer-generated graphical
evidence in court
Despite the many benefits of using computer-
generated visualisations in court, there are a number
of potential dangers and disadvantages:
(i) The very fact that computer-generated
visualisations impress themselves on the
memory, and are persuasive and convincing,
is also their greatest disadvantage: they can
leave a strong impression on viewers. Moving
images tend to mesmerize, and they can relax
an individual’s natural critical nature. This
means that viewers are inclined towards a
‘seeing is believing’ attitude, as they do with
television, potentially reducing the standards
expected of the evidence.
106
Simulations can
assume a ‘hyper-real’ character that eclipses
the significance of the reality.
107
Small
alterations to a computer-generated
representation can have a substantial effect
on the impression it gives. For example,
judgments of speed and recklessness are
critical in determining responsibility for road
accidents.
108
A driver traveling at speed may
seem to be reckless if the animation includes
young children near the road, but reasonable
if adults are represented. Hence, apparently
innocuous decisions about virtual object
representation are often critical.
109
105
Lederer, F.I. (2004), ‘Courtroom technology: for trial lawyers, the
future is now’, Criminal Justice, 19(1), pp 1421.
106
Loftus, E.R. and Loftus, G.R. (1980), ‘On the permanence of
stored information in the human brain’, American Psychologist,
35(5), pp 409–420; O’Flaherty, D. (1996), ‘Computer-generated
displays in the courtroom: for better or worse?’, Web Journal of
Current Legal Issues, 2(4), pp 114.
107
Habermas, J. (1996), The Structural Transformation of the Public
Sphere, MIT Press; Baudrillard, J. (1994), Simulacra and Simulation,
University of Michigan.
108
Chapman, P., Cox, G. and Kirwan, C. (2005), ‘Distortions of
Driver’s Speed and Time Estimates in Dangerous Situations’, in
Behavioural Research in Road Safety: Fifteenth Seminar,
Department for Transport, pp 164-175; Lawrence, C. and
Richardson, J. (2005), ‘Gender Based Judgements of Traffic
Violations: The Moderating Impact of Car Type’, Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 35(8), pp 1755-1773.
109
Nichols, S., Haldane, C. and Wilson, J.R. (2000),’ Measurement
of Presence and Side Effects in Virtual Environments’, International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies 52(3), pp 471-491.
(ii) Similarly, the appearance (and visual
effect) of the virtual environment in a
reconstruction depends largely on small
details such as textures, foliage and litter
among other items. Without guidelines or
knowledge of the relevant factors, it can be
surprisingly easy for a forensic modeller or
animator to present a location as either a
likely or unlikely location for a crime or
accident based on small, seemingly
insignificant details. Atmosphere, lighting,
colour saturation and the camera
configuration (lens, camera angle) will also all
have some effect on the viewer.
110
(iii) Another possible disadvantage of such
visualisations is the potential prejudicial effect
of not using the technology. A party deciding
to present a case without the use of visual
aids such as those described in this paper may
be prejudiced by the use of such technology
by the other side. The use of computer-
generated displays (by either side) may,
however, assist in achieving early settlement,
thus avoiding the time and expense of a
drawn-out court hearing.
111
(iv) It is often difficult to represent
uncertainty in computer-generated evidence.
Viewers often wrongly believe there is little or
no margin of error in evidence presented
using a forensic animation or virtual
simulation.
112
Research undertaken at the
University of Nottingham has examined how
to visualise uncertainty and provide non-
prejudicial representations of uncertain
evidence. As an example, consider the
uncertainty that is inherent in vehicle speeds
when calculated for traffic accident
reconstructions.
113
The police calculate
vehicle speed ranges (not single speeds),
110
Schofield, D., Noond, J., Goodwin, L. and Fowle, K. (2001),
‘Accident Scenarios: Using Computer-generated Forensic
Animations’, Journal of Occupational Health and Safety Australia
and New Zealand, 17(2), pp 163-173.
111
Lederer, F.I. (2004), ‘Courtroom technology: for trial lawyers, the
future is now’, Criminal Justice, 19(1), pp 1421.
112
Goodwin, L. and Schofield, D. (2002), ‘Visualising Uncertainty:
Combining Evidence with Statistics’, Proceedings of Conference on
Expert Evidence: Causation, Proof and Presentation, Florence, Italy;
Hussin, N., Schofield, D. and Shalaby, T.M. (2004), ‘Visualising
information: Evidence analysis for computer-generated animation
(CGA)’, in Eighth International Conference on Information
Visualisation IV, London, UK, pp 903908.
113
Goodwin, L. (2007), Visualising Vehicle Accidents: Evidence
Uncertainty, Presentation and Admissibility, PhD Thesis, University
of Nottingham.
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 9
drivers remember their own speed and
witnesses may report a different speed, yet
only one single speed value (usually an
average) will typically be represented in any
individual animated or virtual reconstruction
of the vehicle accident.
114
(v) The flexibility of a computer-generated
display also implies that they inherently
contain the potential for tampering.
Admissibility does not equate with sufficiency,
and the public’s general knowledge that
filmmakers can use computers to resurrect
dinosaurs and create alien landscapes make
allegations of digital alteration a potentially
major issue when it comes to weight.
115
Hence, it is highly recommended that all
computer-generated visual evidence should
include a comprehensive audit trail and an
expert report. The expert witness presenting
such evidence must also be able to prove the
accuracy of their reconstruction, both with
reference to the original data used to
reconstruct the incident, and to validate the
development stages of the visualisation
itself.
116
(vi) A party may intentionally create an
animation or simulation that provides a
favourable perspective to support a particular
hypothesis, or unintentionally choose a
viewpoint, perspective, illumination model or
colour scheme that alters the appearance of
the animation to work against the same
hypothesis. This could create bias in the trier
of the fact, whether that is conscious bias (a
form of evidence tampering) or subconscious
bias.
117
The ability to change the perspective
of a virtual camera, the use of slow motion
and stop-action in displays, or the alteration
of the colour palette of a display all give the
potential to portray the events being
simulated in a tainted light. Forensic
animations and the creators of virtual
114
Goodwin, L. and Schofield, D. (2002), ‘Visualising Uncertainty:
Combining Evidence with Statistics’, Proceedings of Conference on
Expert Evidence: Causation, Proof and Presentation, Florence, Italy.
115
Lederer, F.I. (2004), ‘Courtroom technology: for trial lawyers, the
future is now’, Criminal Justice, 19(1), pp 1421.
116
Schofield, D. (2009), ‘Animating Evidence: Computer Game
Technology in the Courtroom’, Journal of Information Law &
Technology (JILT) 1 (2009).
117
Selbak, J. (1994), ‘Digital Litigation: The Prejudicial Effects of
Computer-Generated Animation in the Courtroom’, Berkley
Technology Law Journal, 19(9:2).
reconstructions can learn much from the work
of film and media theorists who continually
strive to define the nature and functions of
the media in which they work, particularly in
relation to viewer perception and
engagement. By studying how film makers
elicit emotion from a viewer by manipulating
lighting, camera angles, editing and such like,
a forensic animator or reconstructionist can
‘reverse engineer’ the process and attempt to
remove all such emotive content from
evidential graphics.
118
Recommendations regarding the use of
computer-generated graphical evidence
in court
By their very nature, any recommendations and
guidelines formulated are likely to be broadly defined
and generic. Many of the recommendations offered
below are little more than general suggestions that
users of the technology be aware of these issues
when involved in developing the types of forensic
animations and virtual reconstructions described in
this paper. Unfortunately, many of these
recommendations have been ignored in the past
when such technology has been used, and this may
have been a contributing factor to the admissibility
problems encountered when using this technology in
certain jurisdictions.
Field of view
Designers of virtual environments ought to study film-
making techniques for two reasons. First, to be able to
achieve the same effects as a film-maker; perhaps
getting the viewer to identify emotively with a
particular character in a reconstruction to enhance
the power of the message. More importantly, an
animator or reconstruction engineer may wish to
eliminate these effects and to remove the emotive
content to provide an objective, understandable view
of a forensic data set, with no distracting emotive
attachment. An awareness of the ways in which the
viewer can be manipulated (for example, through the
use of egocentric and exocentric viewpoints) is
essential.
118
Porter, G. (2007), ‘Visual culture in forensic science’, Australian
Journal of Forensic Sciences 39(2), pp 8191; Schofield, D. (2007),
‘Animating and interacting with graphical evidence: bringing
courtrooms to life with virtual reconstructions’, in: Proceedings of
IEEE Conference on Computer Graphics, Imaging and Visualisation,
Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 321328.
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 10
Interaction and resolution
Careful thought needs to be given to the enabling
technology; it is necessary to know how the user will
interact with any virtual simulation created. For
example, the best mechanism for a particular case
could be to deliver a spatially contextualised evidence
visualisation to a user’s personal device (a mobile
telephone or smartphone) as they traverse the actual
scene. Alternatively, a complex forensic data set with
many spatially interlinked evidential items may be
best utilised as a shared viewing experience on a large
screen in the court.
Modes of representation
Developers need to be aware that three-dimensional
virtual reconstructions are not a panacea solution to
all visualisation requirements they are not ideal for
representing every case. Any developer should adopt
a holistic, multi-modal visualisation approach using
appropriate technology (whether that is text,
photography, video, computer graphics etc) for the
particular type of material and evidential content to
be displayed.
Effect of the media
Most interactive three-dimensional virtual
environments have the capacity to allow the user to
interact with a range of digital media (often using
spatially context sensitive hotspots which usually
consist of clickable links connecting objects in the
virtual world to other evidence such as photographs).
It is necessary to be aware of the effect that the
particular form of media being displayed will have on
the viewers, and also to have an appreciation of the
context in which it will be experienced by the user.
The pedagogical effect of transitions between the
forms of media should be considered. For example,
switching between a virtual, rendered image of a
crime scene and a real crime scene photograph may
cause confusion in the viewer as they attempt to
correlate evidence between the different forms of
media.
Audio
The integration of sound into the virtual world is often
overlooked or added as an afterthought. Very few
virtual developers are also qualified as or competent
at being sound engineers. Effective audio soundtracks
can add new dimensions to the viewer’s media
experience. The addition of an audio track can be a
positive alteration to the virtual environment,
providing an increased understanding of events or it
can be distracting, adding unnecessary emotional
context.
Abstraction
Careful use of visual metaphors is essential. Thought
needs to be given to each abstract data
representation in the environment and how the
potential audience will perceive it. Experience and
literature from disciplines such as psychology, cultural
and critical theory, visual media, art history, education
and such like can inform how abstract (and realist)
representations are interpreted by the viewer. This in
turn provides for what the viewer remembers and
understands from the evidence presented to them. As
a simple example, imagine a forensic animation
showing the rising temperature in a building during a
fire the dangerous parts of the building could be
represented by a red colour. However, although red in
Western culture (European and North American)
represents danger and heat, in Eastern and Asian
culture it is associated with joy and weddings, and in
some parts of Africa it represents good fortune.
Navigation and interface
Many interactive virtual simulations have complicated
navigation systems (often based on computer game
style controls) that may add an extra layer of
complexity to the data the users are trying to
comprehend, rather than augmenting their
understanding. Careful thought should be given to the
options that will be made available to the user. If
control is to be passed to the viewer, then it may be
better to restrict their movement and control in the
virtual environment (for example between set points)
rather than allow them to become potentially ‘lost’ in
the data or environment.
Behaviour
It is important that the developers of these virtual
environments have an understanding of the processes
and events being simulated (whether this is vehicle
movement, bullet trajectories or human anatomy).
The developers must be aware of the veracity and
realism of the simulation that is, the accuracy of the
model. Also, it is important that if decisions are to be
made based on the simulation, then it is necessary
that information is made available to the court that
explains how the simulation works and details of the
underlying mathematical model.
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 11
Narrative
In an interactive simulation, the user may often take
control of the narrative, altering the chronological
presentation of information, and choosing which
information they see at which time. This can easily
become confusing to the viewer, particularly to those
used to linear narratives in other media (for example,
novels and films). Developers should produce a guide
to the interactions in their environments and be
aware (through user testing) of how the users are able
to interact with the data and any possible unexpected
interpretations that may result.
Lighting
It is very rare that light meters would be installed in
the location of a scene, measuring the intensity of the
illumination at a particular moment, thus allowing the
designer of a virtual world to replicate exactly the
luminosity in the virtual environment at the time of
the incident. In many cases, it is possible to argue that
this is not an issue, because the lighting may not be
crucial to the viewing of the incident. However, taking
into account how much effort is put into lighting a
Hollywood movie to achieve a particular effect on the
viewer, it is possible to grasp the enormous effect that
the lighting of a virtual environment may have.
Testing
It is axiomatic that a reconstruction should be tested
before it is released. It is common knowledge that a
number of court visualisation systems have often
received limited user testing before their release.
Skills
The ability to manipulate, operate and professionally
utilise the technology needed to present advanced
visual media in a court is a skill that a number of
lawyers do not possess. If a lawyer wishes to use this
technology, they must master this skill or use an
outside vendor or expert. Lawyers must practice and
rehearse their court presentations. The use of this
type of technology requires perceptive construction,
because a number of issues only come to light when
the media are viewed on a large screen in the court.
For example, the brightness may be too low, or the
colours on the image that is projected may be
different to how they appeared on a small monitor, or
the resolution of the display may make some objects
difficult to see. As with any technology, it is important
to be aware that it has the potential to fail. There is
no substitute for extensive testing, repeated
rehearsals, and a back-up must always be in place.
Introducing computer-generated
graphical evidence into legal proceedings
This section does not reflect the full gamut of issues
the lawyer must consider when either seeking to
adduce computer generated animations and
simulations into proceedings, or when resisting the
admission of such material. It cannot be over-
emphasized that the leading text is that written by
Gregory P. Joseph
119
Although Joseph only deals with
the position in the United States of America,
nevertheless his text provides incomparable guidance
for lawyers across in the world on this topic. The
discussion below is merely an outline.
Although animations and simulations are discussed in
detail above, nevertheless, it is pertinent to make the
observation that the distinction will not always be
clear-cut, as observed by Katz J in the case of State of
Connecticut v Swinton:
120
‘Not only can we not
anticipate what forms this evidence will take, but also
common sense dictates that the line between one
type of computer generated evidence and another
will not always be obvious.’ Gregory offers a checklist
of factors for the trial judge to consider before
admitting computer-generated evidence into the
proceedings.
121
They include the issues set out below.
The factual foundation
The factual foundation comprises three aspects:
admissibility; the provision to use such evidence
either by virtue of the relevant procedural rules or as
provided for in statute, or both; and demonstrating
the suitability of the animation or simulation by
reference to the underlying evidence from witnesses,
and whether there is sufficient witness testimony to
admit the animation or simulation, which in turn will
depend on the certainty or otherwise of the witness
statements.
The underlying scientific or technical theory
The party wishing to adduce evidence of a computer
animation or simulation will be required to provide
evidence of the underlying mathematical model used
in preparing the effect, together with the factual
119
Joseph, G.P. (2009), Modern Visual Evidence, Law Journal
Seminars Press.
120
847 A.2d 921, (Conn. 2004) at 938 [11].
121
Joseph, G.P. (2009), Modern Visual Evidence, Law Journal
Seminars Press, paras 7.01[4][c] and 8.03, 8.05.
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 12
premise upon which the effect is predicated. In
addition, it will be necessary for the expert
introducing the evidence to explain their opinion at
the preliminary stage in order for the trial judge to
decide whether the evidence of the animation or
simulation, together with the opinion of the expert,
embraces the ultimate issue to be decided.
Consideration also ought to be given where the
animation or simulation is accompanied with the
recording of a narrative. Such a recording is an
extrajudicial statement, and it must be determined
whether the narration is to remain, or whether the
narration is to be excluded.
122
Authenticity of the simulation
The main difference between simulations and other
forms of evidence generated by computers is the
simulation model used, which means it is important to
pay attention to demonstrating or undermining,
whichever the case may be, the reliability and
trustworthiness of the model. Apart from the normal
considerations that are relevant to the authentication
of computer evidence generally, Gregory has listed a
number of issues that ought to be the subject of
testimony:
123
‘(1) that the model appropriately measures
the factors that have been selected to
represent the real life system;
(2) that those factors are relevant and
inclusive of all important aspects of the
system;
(3) that the mathematical techniques selected
for constructing the model are appropriate so
that the model actually performs the
functions it was intended to perform;
(4) that the mathematical tools are
appropriately applied; and
(5) that the problem at issue was
appropriately translated into mathematical
symbols comprising the model.’
The degree of reliability has been the subject of
comment in the United States, and although the level
of reliability may be variable, a degree of reliability
that is consistent with the current state of the art in
122
Campbell, K. L., Jones, L. A. and Datny, D. B. (2013), ‘Avatar in
the Courtroom: Is 3D Technology Ready for Primetime?’. FDCC
Quarterly, 63(4), pp 295.
123
Joseph, G.P. (2009), Modern Visual Evidence, Law Journal
Seminars Press, para 8.03[2][b].
the modelling techniques used needs to have been
applied.
124
In practical terms, where a simulation of a
road traffic accident is presented, for instance,
consideration ought to be given to the authenticity of
the representations of physical objects, such as the
road surface.
Prejudicial effect
In criminal cases in particular, the trial judge will be
required to balance the probative value against the
prejudicial effect of the evidence proffered during the
trial within a trial. On the matter of probative value in
the context of facial mapping,
125
Steyn LJ observed in
Clarke (Robert Lee)
126
that ‘the probative value of such
evidence depends on the reliability of the scientific
technique (and that is a matter of fact), and it is one
fit for debate and for exploration in evidence.’ There
is always a concern that the simulation may have the
effect of being overly persuasive to the members of a
jury.
127
The use of computer-generated simulations and
animations can be very effective in helping the trier of
the facts reach a decision. The matters set out in this
section also apply to other forms of digital evidence,
such as computer-enhanced photographic images, the
product of digital photography and enhanced
videotapes. Whatever the form of the computer-
generated evidence that a party seeks to adduce,
careful consideration ought to be addressed with
respect to the underlying authenticity and reliability
of the techniques used to generate the evidence.
Finally, an assertion by the opposing party about the
ease by which digital evidence can be altered or
124
Joseph, G.P. (2009), Modern Visual Evidence, Law Journal
Seminars Press, para 8.03[2][b] for cases, and para 8.03[3] for a list
of the types of illustrative simulations that have been used and some
of the problems identified.
125
For cases involving the use of techniques relating to facial
mapping when CCTV footage is of poor quality from England &
Wales, see: R v Grey [2003] EWCA Crim 1001; R v Gardner [2004]
EWCA Crim 1639, 2004 WL 1808904; R v Stubbs [2002] EWCA
Crim 2254, 2002 WL 31413980; R v Buckland [2007] EWCA Crim
1639, 2007 WL 1942806; R v Mulgrew [2008] EWCA Crim 1375. For
facial mapping in relation to establishing identity, see Beckett v
Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 2002
(Admin). For a discussion respecting the nature of the expert
witness and facial mapping with the discussion of relevant case law,
see Atkins and Atkins v R [2009] EWCA Crim 1876. For the
admissibility of such evidence, see A-G’s Reference (No 2 of 2002)
[2003] 1 Cr App R 321. For judicial pronouncements of the reliability
of facial mapping, compare R v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45 to R v
Ciantar [2005] EWCA Crim 3559.
126
[1995] 2 Cr App R 425 at 431F.
127
For a critical analysis of video tape evidence, see: Elliott, D.W.
(1998), ‘Video Tape Evidence: The Risk of Over-Persuasion’,
Criminal Law Review, pp 159-174; Feigenson, N. and Spiesel, C.O.
(2009), Law on Display: The Digital Transformation of Legal
Persuasion and Judgment, NYU Press.
The use of computer generated imagery in legal proceedings vvvvvvvv
Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 13 (2016) | 13
manipulated is not a sufficient claim to prevent the
proponent of the evidence from adducing it. If the
opponent cannot offer an objection of substance that
acts to undermine the methods by which the
authenticity of the evidence has been preserved, it is
questionable as to whether the objections of the
opponent are meritorious.
Concluding remarks
For many lawyers, the crux of any case is the
presentation of information to the finder of fact,
whether in the form of an opening statement,
evidence or closing argument. Burns sums up the
need for a clear presentation of evidence by an expert
(forensic):
128
‘The presentation typically takes the form of
a report, and the scientist must be prepared
to explain this report in such a way that a
typically science-phobic judge and jury are
able to comprehend it. Presentation is
everything.’
The unavoidable future for courts across the world is
the introduction of technology; this technology could
be merely electronic filing and teleconferencing, but is
likely, depending on the level of damages that might
be awarded, to encompass many forms of computer-
generated evidence presentations, such as forensic
animations and virtual reconstructions. As computer-
graphics based technologies continue to evolve, this
will inevitably lead to improvements in the realism of
evidential forensic animations and virtual simulations.
This could, in turn, result in jurors and triers of fact
experiencing a greater depth of immersion when
viewing and experiencing the incident within the
virtual world. This could also potentially lead to a
corresponding increase in their acceptance or belief in
the hypotheses being presented; and conversely also
result in a rise in any associated possible prejudice
caused by the visual media.
In conclusion, lawyers and expert witnesses should
endeavour to ensure that any virtual evidence
presentation produced accurately reflects the
scientific data available and augments the testimony
of the witnesses. However, to be effective, the
evidence must not only tell ‘the story’ but also be
understood easily. To that end, forensic scientists and
128
Burns, D.C. (2001), ‘When used in the criminal legal process
forensic science shows a bias in favour of the prosecution’, Science
and Justice, 41(4), pp 271277.
media specialists must strive continuously to develop
new and creative ways to present complex evidence.
As a technology for displaying evidence, forensic
animation and virtual reconstructions have the
potential to have an important effect on many future
cases as the technology and the forensic and legal
communities develop.
© Damian Schofield, 2016
Dr. Damian Schofield is Director of Human Computer
Interaction at the State University of New York at Oswego, USA.
He is also Adjunct Associate Professor of Forensic Computing at
Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia. He has been
researching the use of digital evidence in court, particularly
virtual reconstructions, for over 20 years.
http://www.cs.oswego.edu/~schofield
schofield@cs.oswego.edu
... The delivery of evidence in the UK Courts of Law in part involves extensive oral descriptions of events and evidence from an investigation, which can be a time consuming and laborious task (Schofield 2016). In terms of evidence relating to a crime scene, verbal statements, printed photographs and sketches of the scene may be used (Lederer 1994;McCracken 1999). ...
... There have been research studies which have investigated and considered the effects and impact that evidence presentation methods may have on jurors' decisions in the courtroom (Schofield 2016;Schofield and Fowle 2013;Dahir 2011;Kassin and Dunn 1997;Dunn et al. 2006;Schofield 2011). Alternative research has started to develop our understanding of the effects that technology may have on jurors and the decisions which they make in the courtroom (Burton et al. 2005). ...
... Alternative research has started to develop our understanding of the effects that technology may have on jurors and the decisions which they make in the courtroom (Burton et al. 2005). Whilst visual presentation methods offer significant advantages in presenting complex evidence in an understandable way, research would suggest that such methods could also mislead, or unfairly persuade a jury (Schofield 2016;Burton et al. 2005). Manlowe (2005) details the practical considerations which need to be made before introducing visual presentations into the courtroom, such as whether the technology installed permits graphical displays to be presented. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background The ability to present complex forensic evidence in a courtroom in a manner that is fully comprehensible to all stakeholders remains problematic. Individual subjective interpretations may impede a collective and correct understanding of the complex environments and the evidence therein presented to them. This is not fully facilitated or assisted in any way with current non-technological evidence presentation methods such as poor resolution black and white photocopies or unidimensional photographs of complex 3D environments. Given the wide availability of relatively cheap technology, such as tablets, smartphones and laptops, there is evidence to suggest that individuals are already used to receiving visually complex information in relatively short periods of time such as is available in a court hearing. courtrooms could learn from this more generic widespread use of technology and have demonstrated their ability to do so in part by their adoption of the use of tablets for Magistrates. The aim of this current study was to identify the types of digital technology being used in courts and to obtain data from police personnel presenting digital evidence in court. Results A questionnaire study was conducted in this research to explore current technology used within courtrooms from the perspective of crime scene personnel involved in the presentation of complex crime scene evidence. The study demonstrated that whilst many of the participants currently utilize high-end technological solutions to document their crime scenes, such as 360° photography or laser scanning technologies, their ability to present such evidence was hindered or prevented. This was most likely due to either a lack of existing technology installed in the court, or due to a lack of interoperability between new and existing technology. Conclusion This study has contributed to this academic field by publishing real life experiences of crime scene examiner’s, who have used advanced technology to record and evaluate crime scenes but are limited in their scope for sharing this information with the court due to technological insufficiency. Contemporary recording techniques have provided the opportunity for further review of crime scenes, which is considered to be a valuable property over previous documentation practice, which relied upon the competency of the investigator to comprehensively capture the scene, often in a single opportunity.
... CGI animation is the process used to produce an animated image aided computer graphics (Schofield 2016). CGI is a term commonly used for create static scenes and dynamic images, whereas computer animation only refers on the created moving image using a computer (Immaniar et al. 2015). ...
... Animasi adalah istilah umum yang menjelaskan presentasi apapun yang terdiri dari rangkaian gambar grafis yang ditampilkan secara berurutan, mewakili obyek dalam posisi berbeda dari satu gambar ke gambar berikutnya, yang menyiratkan gerakan [2]. Salah satu cara untuk meningkatkan kekuatan pesan dalam sebuah animasi adalah dengan menciptakan efek khusus. ...
Article
Full-text available
Computer-Generated Imagery merupakan penerapan lanjutan dalam bidang komputer grafis. Penggunaan teknik Computer-Generated Imagery untuk memberikan efek khusus dapat menghasilkan animasi yang lebih kelihatan nyata dan menarik perhatian. Proses komunikasi massa pada intinya ialah proses penyampaian pesan dari komunikator kepada komunikan. Komunikasi massa dapat disajikan dalam bentuk animasi. Penggunaan teknologi Computer-Generated Imagery dapat memberikan efek khusus pada adegan dalam animasi sehingga tampak begitu nyata dan seperti hidup. Penelitian ini akan membuat animasi pembuatan lubang resapan biopori menggunakan teknik Computer-Generated Imagery sebagai media sosialisasi sehingga masyarakat akan tertarik untuk berperan serta mendukung pelestarian lingkungan hidup khususnya dalam menanggulangi krisis air tanah.
... Recording the crime scene traditionally involves photographs, videos, handwritten notes, or sketches [17,21]. These documents later make their way into the courtroom to aid the jury in their understanding of the crime along with a description of events [28,51]. However, these two-dimensional methods of presenting space are bound to introduce some level of distortion regarding the spatial relationships [2]. ...
Conference Paper
This paper investigates the use of immersive virtual reconstructions as an aid for jurors during a courtroom trial. The fndings of a between-participant user study on memory and decision-making are presented in the context of viewing a simulated hit-run-death scenario. Participants listened to the opening statement of a prosecutor and a defence attorney before viewing the crime scene in Virtual Reality (VR) or as still images. We compare the efects on cognition and usability of using VR over images presented on a screen. We found several signifcant improvements, including that VR led to more consistent decision-making among participants. This shows that VR could provide a promising solution for the court to present crime scenes when site visitations are not possible.
... The majority of film productions utilizing digital technology have focused on computer generated special effects and characters [62,63,64,65]. Modern cinema creates multiple fantastic worlds and "spectacles" that constantly clamor for our attention. ...
Article
Full-text available
We live in a world of cyborg poetics, a world in which we constantly dance with technology. Our daily lives are surrounded by, immersed in, and intersected by technology. This integration has a long historical trajectory, and one that has certainly been troubled, filtered, and reflected through literature, theatre, and film. Recent years have seen an explosion in cinema technology, with the introduction of computer-generated characters becoming commonplace in film. However, we have seen relatively few "physical" robots acting in films. This paper discusses the theoretical implications of cyborg thespians and the way the audience perceives this potential innovation. The paper presents a timeline of the use of robots in cinema, and examines how these cyborg thespians are represented and portrayed. An analysis of the functions and motivations of the robots has been undertaken allowing trends to be identified.
... In addition to its intrinsic value, investigating human-robot interaction has research value in developing everyday robots [66,67,68]. By combining resources and creating a better mesh between these domains, it may be possible to bootstrap the development of deeper and more effective HRI, particularly in the domain of nonverbal interaction. ...
Article
Full-text available
An artificial consciousness permeates globalized societies; technology is all around us, in science, in science fiction, in daily life. This relationship continues to be processual, technologies continue to move forward, assisting or, perhaps, encroaching on the human body. In modern society, we are increasingly becoming merged with the technology around us, wearing it and implanting it. This allows us to contemplate the merging of the organic and the inorganic. Bodies are being remapped by technology and rigid notions of subjectivity are reconfigured and societal norms are disrupted and shifted. Questions and issues regarding ability, identity, and a struggle for embedded agency in relation to technologies are principal concerns of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Immediately recognizable, culturally ubiquitous, androids, cyborgs, and robots, need no introduction. Yet their very familiarity obscures their meaning, this paper attempts to unpack how humans see these artificial humans and how we interpret their representation.
... Injury maps can potentially adopt an interactive simulator format to present evidence to court members. According to Schofield,[27] this type of technological format can provide users with the ability to control the virtual camera of forensic animations dynamically and permits the user to freely adjust the view of digital evidence. ...
Book
How do we make sense of complex evidence? What are the cognitive principles that allow detectives to solve crimes, and lay people to puzzle out everyday problems? To address these questions, David Lagnado presents a novel perspective on human reasoning. At heart, we are causal thinkers driven to explain the myriad ways in which people behave and interact. We build mental models of the world, enabling us to infer patterns of cause and effect, linking words to deeds, actions to effects, and crimes to evidence. But building models is not enough; we need to evaluate these models against evidence, and we often struggle with this task. We have a knack for explaining, but less skill at evaluating. Fortunately, we can improve our reasoning by reflecting on inferential practices and using formal tools. This book presents a system of rational inference that helps us evaluate our models and make sounder judgments.
Article
How do we make sense of complex evidence? What are the cognitive principles that allow detectives to solve crimes, and lay people to puzzle out everyday problems? To address these questions, David Lagnado presents a novel perspective on human reasoning. At heart, we are causal thinkers driven to explain the myriad ways in which people behave and interact. We build mental models of the world, enabling us to infer patterns of cause and effect, linking words to deeds, actions to effects, and crimes to evidence. But building models is not enough; we need to evaluate these models against evidence, and we often struggle with this task. We have a knack for explaining, but less skill at evaluating. Fortunately, we can improve our reasoning by reflecting on inferential practices and using formal tools. This book presents a system of rational inference that helps us evaluate our models and make sounder judgments.
Article
p>A la luz de las nuevas escrituras informáticas de la sociedad de la información y a partir de los dos conceptos diferentes de escritura que se encuentran en la Ley de Interpretación de 1978 del Reino Unido y en el art. 1.11 de los Principios Unidroit, así como de la contraposición del derecho italiano entre «scritture» (escritos) y «riproduzioni meccaniche» (reproducciones mecánicas), el trabajo investiga si la representación o reproducción de palabras en forma visible es necesaria para cumplir con los requisitos del derecho privado europeo en cuanto a la forma y la prueba por escrito, o si es suficiente cualquier forma de comunicación que preserve la documentación de la información contenida y sea reproducible en forma tangible. Argumentando la preferencia por la segunda solución, se establece una distinción entre, por un lado, «documentos declarativos» (es decir, los que constituyen el medio para efectuar declaraciones por escrito) y, por el otro, «documentos meramente representativos» (que en cambio no constituyen el medio para efectuar dichas declaraciones), teniendo en cuenta varias normativas vigentes a distinto nivel en el panorama del derecho europeo (y, en particular, ciertas normas del Codice civile , del BGB y del ABGB , del Código Civil español, del Código Civil griego y de la Law of Property inglés, por un lado, y el art. 1, 4.º apartado, lett. a y c , de la Convención Unidroit sobre el Factoring internacional y ciertos artículos y Considerandos de la Directiva 85/577/CEE, de la Directiva 97/7/CE y de la Directiva 2011/83/UE, por el otro). Recibido : 23 mayo 2019 Aceptado : 3 julio 2019 Publicación en línea : 30 octubre 2019</p
Article
Full-text available
Two experiments assessed the effects of computer-animated displays on mock jurors. In both, participants watched a trial involving a dispute over whether a man who fell to his death had accidentally slipped or jumped in a suicide. They watched a proplaintiff or prodefendant version in which the body landed 5–10 feet or 20–25 feet from the building. Within each condition, the distance testimony was presented orally or with an animated display. When the tape depicted the event in a neutral manner, judgments were more consistent with the physical evidence. But when the plaintiff and defense used the tape to depict their own partisan theories, participants increasingly made judgments that contradicted the physical evidence. Results suggest that computer-animated displays have greater impact than oral testimony. Whether that impact is to facilitate or mislead a jury, however, depends on the nature of the display.
Article
Full-text available
Courtroom environments, which have been one of the last bastions of the oral tradition, are slowly morphing into cinematic display environments [1]. The persuasive oral rhetoric of lawyers is increasingly being replaced by compelling visual media displays presenting a range of digital evidence in a convincing and credible manner [2,3].There are a number of fundamental implications inherent in the shift from oral to visual mediation and a number of facets of this modern evidence presentation technology need to be investigated and analysed. Recently, a number of courtrooms around the world have seen the presentation of forensic evidence within reconstructed virtual environments powered by real-time game engines.At first glance, these graphical reconstructions may be seen as potentially useful in many courtroom situations, and they are often treated like any other form of digital evidence regarding their admissibility [4]. However, perhaps this specific form of digital media warrants special care and attention due to its inherently persuasive nature, and the undue reliance that the viewer may place on the evidence presented through a visualisation medium [5,6].This paper describes a range of examples of where evidence has been presented in courtrooms using video games technology (particularly forensic animation and virtual crime scene reconstructions) (The author acted as an expert witness in all of the cases discussed, responsible for the preparation of the virtual reconstructions used as case studies in this paper. Most of the work was undertaken through the author’s own company in the UK, Aims Solutions Ltd., ). The paper then describes experiments undertaken to assess the impact of the technology on jurors and describes some of the issues raised by the results. The paper concludes with a discussion of the potential benefits and problems of implementing this technology in courtroom settings. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875952111000206
Book
Three orders of simulacra: 1. counterfeits and false images: from renaissance to industrial revolution, signs become mode of exchange, these signs are obviously flase. 2. Dominated by production and series: mass produced signs as commodities, signs refer not to reality but to other signs (money, posters). 3. Pure simulacra: simulacra mask over the idea that there is no reality, reality is an effect of simulacra (disneyland masks simulacra of LA, Prison masks nonfreedom outside the walls).
Article
impression formation processes are assumed to be bottom-up, or data-driven, with an integrated representation of the individual person as the final product / challenges this prevailing view of the person perception process by proposing an alternative model of social cognition that incorporates top down processing as well as data-driven constructions differences between these two modes of impression formation are elaborated implications for how and when social cognition differs from object perception are discussed comparison of processing stages identification / automatic processing typing / structure and format of person categories person types / words or images impression formation as category matching individuation / intracategory differentiation personalization / formation of person-based impressions (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)