Computer generated animation: identifying new and subtle prejudicial special effects.

• Jurisdiction: United States
• Date: 01 December 2000
• Author: Thomas, Cope C.

Computer animation technology has developed substantially in the past few years allowing lawyers to incorporate cinematic special effects into their courtroom presentation.(1) The problem is that these special effects have no probative value, result in a "slickly" produced animation that leads the jury to accept the testimony presented in the animation and, consequently, discount the probative value of the testimony presented by other witnesses. This article will identify these special effects and demonstrate their prejudicial effect.

Section 90.403 of the Florida Evidence Code states that "[r]elevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." F.S. [sections] 90.403 (1997). Unfair prejudice is defined as an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.(2) Unfair prejudice has also been defined as a tendency to influence the outcome of a trial by improper means.(3) With computer animation, "improper means" would occur if the jury viewing the computer animation accepted the testimony conveyed in the animation more readily than if the jury evaluated the testimony based on all of the presented evidence.

In this state, State of Florida v. Pierce, 671 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), provides the only analysis of the unfairly prejudicial effects of computer animation. There, the appeals court agreed with the circuit court that the computer animation of a vehicular homicide was properly used to illustrate a detective's reconstruction of the motor vehicle.(4) Represented as yellow outlines against a black background, the animation depicted the defendant's vehicle colliding into three children portrayed as mannequins. The appeals court reasoned that the animation's substantial danger of unfair prejudice did not outweigh its probative value because 1) the animation had not graphically recreated the accident by depicting blood or sound; 2) the mannequins depicted no facial expressions; 3) there had been no undue emphasis on the animation, which had lasted only six minutes; 4) the trial judge had explained to the jury that the animation was used only to illustrate the expert's opinion; and 5) the trial court had allowed cross-examination of the expert's testimony and the animation.(5) In essence, the animation was clinical and did not arouse emotional responses.

Pierce was an easy conclusion because the court relied upon the admission requirements for gruesome and shocking evidence, such as the depiction of blood and the shocking character of the evidence. However, computer animation is a new and consistently changing medium that challenges the traditional criteria for determining prejudicial diagrams or video reenactments.(6) The important additional dimension is that animators create computer animation for the courtroom in the same subtle or spectacular manner as they create special effects for video games and movies. These special effects can detract from the testimony and create a very memorable impression in the jurors' minds.(7)

The Florida Supreme Court recognized the improper persuasive effects of video reenactment in Cave v. State of Florida, 660 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 1995), in which the court took pains to address the moot issue of the trial court's admission of the state's videotaped reenactment of a portion of the crime. The court stated that "[w]hen a videotape is proffered into evidence, the trial court must be ever mindful that the `artificial...