Chapter 2 - §8. Computer-generated animation & simulations

• Jurisdiction: United States

§8. Computer-generated animation & simulations

Computer-generated animation and simulations are becoming increasingly popular in criminal proceedings because they can provide jurors with a persuasive, real-life visual re-creation of actual events or a version of actual events based on other evidence. Unlike static photographs or video recordings, computer-generated animations and simulations can be created without real-world limitations and can show events from every conceivable angle with movement and clarity. In assessing their admissibility, courts have made a distinction between animations and simulations. People v. Duenas (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1, 20. The type of computer-generated evidence being offered will determine its foundational requirements for admissibility. See id. at 20-21.

§8.1. Foundational requirements.

1. Computer animations. Although there is no universally adopted definition of computer-generated animations, they have been defined by courts and commentators as computer-generated drawings assembled frame by frame that, when viewed sequentially, produce the image of motion. Commonwealth v. Serge (Pa.2006) 896 A.2d 1170, 1174 n.1 (cited with approval by People v. Duenas (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1, 20); Galves, Where the Not-So-Wild Things Are: Computers in the Courtroom, the Federal Rules of Evidence & the Need for Institutional Reform & More Judicial Acceptance, 13 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 161, 180 (2000) (referred to as Galves, Computers in the Courtroom); see, e.g., Duenas, 55 Cal.4th at 18 (animation of police shooting consisted mostly of still images drawn to give impression of three-dimensional space and shown to reflect motion). The purpose of a computer-generated animation is not to draw conclusions but to simply aid the jury's understanding of witness testimony or other substantive evidence. Duenas, 55 Cal.4th at 20; People v. Tran (4th Dist.2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 171, 187. Thus, computer-generated animations have been treated as demonstrative aids, not substantive evidence. Duenas, 55 Cal.4th at 20; e.g., Tran, 50 Cal.App.5th at 187-88 (enhanced videos were admissible to help others understand raw video footage; expert merely enhanced videos' quality, corrected pixel ratios, and used colored tracking arrows to identify individuals); see People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 509-10; see, e.g., People v. Hood (4th Dist.1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 965, 969 (computer animation of shooting was admissible to illustrate expert's testimony). As demonstrative...