Lights, Camera, Litigation: How to Leverage Computer-Generated Images as Evidence
A speaker at this year's ABA TechShow highlighted the benefits and potential evidentiary issues of using 3D and computer-generated images as evidence.
February 28, 2020 at 09:48 AM
3 minute read
A photo is worth a 1,000 words, but the joy of having a panoramic or 3D image to further a litigator's argument can be priceless.
The ABA TechShow 2020′s "Laser and Light Show" session held Thursday identified the practical uses of demonstrative images, and their potential technical and evidentiary hurdles.
Examples of demonstrative evidence include 2D images and footage that can be captured with a camera. But law firms are also leveraging advanced images to better make their argument during litigation, said session speaker Michael Ko, a founder of litigation support firm Groundwork Trial Consulting and a Chicago-Kent College of Law professor.
Those advanced images include 3D images and animated and real-life reenactment videos, which can be computer-generated or recorded with drones or 360 cameras.
3D images are best used as a "virtual exemplar" for objects too large to bring into a courtroom or too impractical to have access to, such as internal organs, Ko explained.
Also, lawyers and their litigation support staff can offer 360-degree panoramic images of a scene at angles inaccessible during a site visit while also fading in real-life pictures to show the 3D images aren't skewed. "It introduces everyone to the full scope of what was going on," Ko said.
Likewise, reenacted videos can be worthwhile evidence regarding an incident when the full real-life video isn't available. However, such computer-generated reenactments have unique challenges when lawyers are attempting to introduce them as evidence, unlike traditional images and videos, Ko noted.
Ko said he's encountered judges who said a demonstrative image is "an uncanny valley of an animation" and is "too good" and misleading. This type of image can be "too good" when it animates actions that can't be proven by testimony; an example includes an animator illustrating what bystanders were doing during an incident.
"There's no testimony for it but an animator has to make an animation for it, which I think judges are very concerned about," he noted.
Along with realism concerns, litigators may also face admissibility challenges. But Ko said that hurdle can be cleared if litigators compare their images captured with advanced technology to traditional demonstrative evidence.
"[Compare] it with something simpler so it's more like something a judge is comfortable with."
Those analogies include describing a 3D image as a 2D image that has been rotated and referring to a 3D video as simply two video recordings.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 2Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 3Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 4'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 5Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250