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
© 2025 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
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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