United States: Evidentiary Use of Novel Computer-Generated Animation Upheld in Pennsylvania

See Commonwealth v. Serge, 896 A.2d 1170 (Pa., April 25, 2006)

Society has become increasingly dependent upon computers in business and in our personal lives. With each technological advancement, the practice of law becomes more sophisticated and, commensurate with this progress, the legal system must adapt. Courts are facing the need to shed any technophobia and become more willing to embrace the advances that have the ability to enhance the efficacy of the legal system.

Id. at 1176.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently took up this mantle in Serge, a criminal appeal involving the Commonwealth’s use of computer-generated animation (CGA) in a murder trial. Though Serge was a criminal action, the issue it addresses -- the standard for admitting CGAs at trial -- is certainly relevant to product liability litigation, as product manufacturers often use CGAs at trial to illustrate expert testimony (such as testimony relating to automobile accident reconstruction in crashworthiness lawsuits).

Appellant, a former Lieutenant of Detectives was convicted of shooting and killing his wife. He argued self defense at trial, claiming that his wife had attacked him with a knife. The Commonwealth’s theory at trial was that Serge had "used his decades of experience as a police officer to tamper with the crime scene to stage a self-defense setting . . . [by] mov[ing] his wife’s body and strategically position[ing] her near a knife that he had placed on the floor." Id. at 1175. In support, the Commonwealth used a CGA visually depicting its expert witnesses’ opinion about how Serge had killed his wife, including not only the trajectory of the bullets, but the crime scene generally at the time of the murder. Id.

Limiting the appeal "solely to the issue of whether the admission of the CGA depicting the Commonwealth’s theory of the case was proper," id. at 1176, the court focused first on the traditional evidentiary touchstones, declaring that:

Id. at 1178-1179 (emphasis added). As an added safeguard, the court suggested that trial courts must use "limiting instructions . . . explaining the nature of the specific CGA"at issue. Id. at 1179.

Noting that the difference between the use of CGA and "chalk diagrams or sketches on a blackboard . . . is one of mode, not meaning," the court explained that "[t]he law does not, and should not prohibit proficient professional employment of new technology in the courtroom. This is, after all, the twenty-first century." Id. at 1178. It found comfort in the fact that CGA was simply "a graphical presentation of another expert’s opinion, not the conclusions or calculations of a computer," id. at 1180, as well as the fact that the technology "clearly, concisely, and accurately depicted the Commonwealth’s theory of the case and aided the jury in the comprehension of the collective testimonies of the witnesses," id. at 1182.

Conducting the usual Rule 403 balancing test, the court found that appellant had not been unfairly prejudiced by the Commonwealth’s use of the CGA, largely on the basis that the CGA used by the Commonwealth did not include:"(1) sounds; (2) facial expressions; (3) evocative or even life-like movements; (4) transition between the scenes to suggest a story line or add a subconscious prejudicial effect; or (5) evidence of injury such as blood or other wounds." Id. at 1183. In the final analysis, the Court found that any possible unfair prejudice -- owing, for instance, to the "visual nature of the presentation" -- resulted not so much from the "on-screen depiction of the Commonwealth’s theory, but rather was inherent to the reprehensible act of murder," and was in the event cured or "vitiated" by the "thorough cautionary instructions" about the "exact nature and role of a CGA" issued by the trial court. Id. at 1182-1186.

In the final analysis,Sergewas pragmatically grounded on recognition that the law traditionally "has been flexible enough to accommodate scientific progress and technological advances in all fields,and should continue to do so." Id. at 1178.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.