DS King hearing nixed
9 messages in this thread
FLASH !
The judge has just ruled on the 3-D Studio animation offered by the defense
in the Rodney King beating trial. The offer of evidence has been rejected
by the judge as inadmissable and will not be heard by the jury. The
biomechanical engineer failed to show it was an accurate or reliable
rendition of what actually happened. The judge found her testimony and
measurements to be based on subjective suppositions, measurements of
changed physical parameters (the road was re-surfaced, changin contours and
look agles), had weak probative value, and had a high probability of
confusing and mis-leading the jury.
Hey Gary, just as well, eh ? You didn't really want 3-DS to be associated
too strongly with the politically incorrect side of this case, did you ? In
any event you've had two days of free advertising to every law firm in Los
Angeles, the litigation capitol of the free world. . . admissable or
inadmissable, your dealer network is bound to be flooded with inquiries.
Bruce
Which goes to show that 3D Studio is just a tool. The expert witness blew
it.
Evan
Evan:
Not necessarily… the rules of evidence must be met. I used to do
illustrations for court cases… and there is a fine line between the
evidence simply reflecting the actual conditions and the evidence having an
influence on the jury that is not in line with the rules of evidence.
Visiting the scene is not always allowed for this reason, so I don't see
how someone can guarantee that 3DS is appropriate. In my mind, I don't
think that 3DS will become a strong tool for courtroom application.
Convincing someone to settle based on the >potential< of something so
patently damaging might be the highest and best use of 3DS.
C#
Craig:
What do I know of courtroom proceedures? It just seems to me that an
animation must be explicitly supported by non-graphical data. Any
animation that shows what *might* have happened, without having supporting
data, seems destined to fail.
Evan
I think you're right, Evan. There has to be a strong legal foundation for
ANY item of evidence. I don't know what happened in the King case regard
ing the denial but I spoke with the animator a week ago and I knew he had a
very difficult project.
I'm just starting on another homicide case in which the entire animation
will be based on the testimony of one witness. One thing to remember is
that each case is different and the admissibility of anything in a trial
the decision — right or wrong — of one man: the judge.
Alec Jason
Alec,
Even if it had been ruled admissable I doubt the jury would have
bought it. The defence was trying to refute the sworn testimony of four
eyewitness accounts by rigging a computer model to depict a different
scenario than what they swear they saw. I sensed the judge found this
distasteful, even on TV it seemed he was quite annoyed with the defense for
taking up so much time trying to get this in as evidence. Grounds for
appeal if any of the cops are convicted ????
Bruce
Bruce,
Interesting. I still don't understand exactly what point the animation was
supposed to demonstrate but if it's something difficult to substantiate
and/or difficult to believe then animation will not likely help and may
even prove to be counterproductive. The GI=GO principle will still prevail
even when filtered through fancy experts, fancy machines, and fancy
software. (I'm not referring to this case — I don't know enough about
it).
Can they appeal on the basis that the court should have admitted the
animation? Oh, sure. They can appeal on just about anything. They'll have
to claim that the jury was denied the opportunity to hear the expert's
testimony and see her animated presentation and they will have to argue
that the judge was wrong on each of his reasons for denial. I don't really
think any appeal will have a greater chance of success just because it
involved the use of computer animation.
Is the trial being shown via "Court TV?" I really want to get that but my
cable company isn't interested. I may have to get a satelite dish (yet
more expensive stuff I need!)
Alec Jason
Alec,
Don't know if it's on Court TV, here in L.A. it is being carried
live by one of the local independant TV stations with expert commentary
during breaks in the action.
I believe the defense was trying to "prove" that King was never hit
in the head by police batons, that the blows hit elsewhere, and that the
witnesses and videotape had faulty or misleading views/ angles .
Bruce
I'm actually relieved at this, since once I found out that the defense was
using 3DS to prove their case, I figured it wouldn't be the most popular
thing in the world.
– G