patents korea

patents korea
With continuing technological advances, prosecutors no longer must be based on traditional forms of evidence to prove, defend or prosecute the case. The use of forensic computer animation used as evidence has exploded, with the IT challenges for the traditional principles admissibility of the evidence. As offered, these computer animations that pretend to demonstrate how a certain event did or did not occur. The unique characteristic of these animations is that they, as a means to synthesize all the evidence that during the process into a visual representation. Their use can be either very effective or unfairly prejudicial. Animations allegedly show how an act did or did not occur tremendous persuasive value in the minds of the jury. Instead compel the jury to integrate theory and all the pieces of evidence in a seamless mental thought , a forensic animation seemingly combines all relevant facts into a visualized theory of truth. While these animations are only representations of theories, the jury is often described as the truth of the matter because of their very convincing and value. In a key study, 82% of tests , where animation was seen as evidence has led to the victory party for the move.

The key to the argument for or against the admissibility of computer forensic animation lies in the attorney's ability to understand the standards for the admissibility of such evidence. Computer animation can generally be referred to two different classes of evidence, each with its own standard of admissibility:

Computer generated evidence as demonstrative evidence:

As an argument in favor of the admissibility of computer generated evidence, the best argument is that the only demonstrative evidence. Demonstrative evidence inherently carries no independent probative force and is used for five general purposes: (1) to educate your audience, (2) to explain (3) to your audience of something, (4) to hold your audience, something and (5) to reinforce what your audience already believes.

The argument that your computer generated evidence is demonstrative evidence, the judge, the low relevance standard when determining its admissibility. After categorizing the evidence as demonstrative evidence, the judges then ask the following questions to determine its admissibility:

1. Is it relevant? Is there a tendency for the existence of a fact is that the consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence? ". F.R.E. 401 (2006).
2. Is there help Trier of fact in understanding pertinent information?
3. Is it exactly the elements of the situation, it is the presentation?

If the evidence is deemed as demonstrative and the answers to the questions are mainly in the yes, the evidence admissible if the probative value is not "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." FRE 403 (2006). This low threshold test for the admissibility of the most demonstrative evidence. The key for your computer animation evidence is to argue that they are in one of the five categories of demonstrative evidence. The successful lawyer needs to know the tests and ask questions, and have the opportunity to judge that the evidence which is offered only on the overall relevance standard to be included in the evidence.

Computer generated simulation evidence (substantive) evidence:

As an argument against the introduction of forensic animation, the better choice is to say that the animation is simulation evidence that a higher standard of admissibility. Computer simulations are used as blurs the boundary between demonstrative and substantive evidence. Simulation evidence is very effective because it is a complicated facts, data and facts, be extrapolated into a visual demonstration of every piece of relevant evidence. Given the role that the people in the creation of computer animations, judges often view such animations as substantive evidence that the experts to create the animation, which is thus a test. The argument that a computer animation is simulation evidence, the attorney's argument must be based on its technical aspects and the role that people in the selection and interpretation of data used for the animation.

Once simulation as evidence, the judge will then examine three primary questions:

1. Is the underlying scientific principle valid? Examining whether the principle has been tested, its error, and the degree of acceptance of the principle that, in particular in the scientific community. "FRE 401
2. Is the technique applying the scientific principle valid?
3. What the technique correctly on this particular occasion?


Each of the questions above a full and extensive investigation into the quality and characteristics of the evidence is trying to be introduced. In order for simulation evidence admissible, there must be more than relevant. In addition to the three tests mentioned above, only evidence which has been proven to be true or may be used in the simulation. This higher admissibility standard is due to strongly affect this value simulation evidence. Regardless of the admissibility as evidence simulation, which shows still be excluded if it is not the rule 403 unfair prejudice analysis. The Article 403 unfair prejudice argument is the last "bug in the quiver" for the lawyer arguing against the admissibility of evidence and computer animation should only be used to as a last resort.

As you can see, categorizing computer forensic animation as demonstrative or simulation evidence will, for the most part of its overall acceptability. These different standards of admissibility, which as an argument, depending on the lawyer's role in the case. In preparing for such an argument, it is important to note the opposing views and be prepared to argue against him. As in any process to work, your level or preparation will ultimately determine the level of your success or the depths of your failure.

This article was written by Nicholas J. Deleault, Pierce Law Center'07. Nicholas writes select legal articles for the law firm Goldstien and Clegg, a Massachusetts company Cyberlaw.