A SELECT group of computer wizards has found a way to re-create reality in courtrooms and in some cases change it–legally.
Using technology that didn`t exist three years ago, these experts are creating complex color graphics, clearing up cloudy photographs and generating cartoon-like re-enactments of accidents for attorneys to take to court.
It`s known in the trade as ”graphic evidence.”
Colorful, costly and unconventional, it also can be a convincing method of communication, according to those who produce it and attorneys who have used it.
”A picture is better than a thousand words,” said San Francisco attorney Marvin Morgenstein, who used a computerized cartoon–an animation
–before an Ohio jury. ”That`s certainly true in the courtroom.”
Already, the use of complex graphic evidence has proved invaluable to some attorneys:
— Los Angeles lawyer Pat Lynch recently used an animation to show a federal District Court judge why he believed his client`s computer program had been copied.
With an off-the-shelf graphics package and an IBM personal computer, a programmer made a computer cartoon to illustrate the step-by-step similarities in the creation of the two computer programs, Lynch said.
The case was settled to the satisfaction of both sides before the judge ruled on Lynch`s request for a preliminary injunction.
— In Seattle, attorney Larry Johnson used a computer reconstruction of the Las Vegas MGM fire to settle a case in which an insurance company sued 20 firms for allegedly contributing to the unreasonable spread of the fire.
With a computer program developed at Harvard University, the fire path was mapped. The data were handed over to an artist who drew a reconstruction that was videotaped.
The case was settled before the reconstruction was shown to a jury. The entire package cost Johnson and his clients–Kemper Insurance Co.–more than $100,000.
— And in Minnesota, Marc Whitehead relied on a computerized image enhancement to show a jury that school district officials weren`t liable for a student`s football injury.
The student, then a 16-year-old defensive back, sued the district and two equipment manufacturers after he was paralyzed by a tackle. He claimed his neck was broken when another player`s kneepad got caught in his face guard.
Whitehead`s key piece of evidence was an amateur game film taken from atop the stands at night. With a computer, that image was enhanced and taken to a Hollywood animator, who superimposed his hand-drawn re-creation onto the film to show that the student had made an illegal tackle, Whitehead said.
Whitehead won the case for the school district. And though the graphic evidence cost him more than $25,000, he said, ”I don`t think the case could have been tried as effectively nor could we have communicated with the jury as well without (it).”
Both the hardware and software used to create such evidence can range from the simplest to the sophisticated, according to Roger McCarthy, president of Failure Analysis Associates, a Palo Alto, Calif., engineering firm that provides graphics and animations to attorneys.
Anything from a desk-top computer to a bank of machines that fills an entire room can be used. And the computer`s programs run the gamut from store- bought packages to complex systems with motion scripting features.
Once the computer and a program are available, creating the evidence is a matter of plugging in coordinates that tell the computer what size, shape and color to make the objects and–in the case of animations–how to move the objects. That can be done by hand or by laying a picture on a sensitive electronic plate that transfers the picture into numerical coordinates that a computer understands.
Graphic evidence can be anything from a simple chart to a full-color animation. With complex graphics, a computer can show how an intricate object such as a carburetor works, providing a ”transparent view” that allows jurors to look through the mechanism and see its interior parts.
Or, with animation, computers can take judge and jury to a site for a
”walk-through” that enables them to see what the area looks like from the ground or from the air, with or without surrounding scenery. Nearby buildings can be zapped from the screen, depicted as wire-frame models or shown as shaded images.
Animation can re-enact car crashes or underground explosions; it can show how buildings respond to stress, or how passengers inside a vehicle behave during accidents, among other things.
”It`s a very new field,” said McCarthy. ”People are only just realizing how beneficial it is.”
Essentially, it`s a high-tech version of what Walt Disney did years ago.
”Instead of being this great artist like Walt Disney, I just tell my computer to move Mickey around,” said McCarthy.
Besides, the computer is faster. By hand, it took a Walt Disney animator four weeks to create a three-minute animation, according to McCarthy. Failure Analysis can do one overnight.
Failure Analysis has been called on to illustrate events ranging from the failure of three natural gas storage tanks in Abu Dhabi to an electrical power plant accident that killed two people in the Southeastern United States, according to McCarthy.
The 17-year-old firm is primarily an engineering and metallurgical consulting business. But last year, it took up animation to give jurors an eyewitness experience.
In one demonstration animation, for example, viewers are placed inside a car that rear-ends a stalled vehicle.
Because it is a real-time re-creation, they theoretically have the same experience as the driver–which, at 60 m.p.h., means making the decision to swerve or collide within two seconds, McCarthy said.
”This is the only technique we know to turn the clock back and put people there,” said McCarthy.
And because it is only a re-creation, events can be changed to reflect the hypotheses of various witnesses and attorneys.
In one case, a car`s fuel tank ruptured and caught fire in an accident. The people injured in the crash contended that the tank would have been protected had it been built over the rear axle. With the help of crash tests and a computer, Failure Analysis Associates did an animated re-creation of the crash with the fuel tank over the rear axle–with little change.
Animation also has been used to depict events in inaccessible locations. Last year, for example, Graphic Evidence, a Los Angeles firm that specializes in courtroom visuals, completed a 10-minute computer animation of what happened during an underground chemical explosion in the sewers of Louisville, Ky.
The sewer district was suing a Ralston Purina plant, alleging that the plant accidentally had dumped the chemical that caused the explosion, according to Robert Seltzer, president of Graphic Evidence.
Using an engineering analysis showing that the chemical originated at the plant, Graphic Evidence created an animation to illustrate the complex hypothesis, Seltzer said.
It cost the municipal sewer district about $80,000. But it helped win an $18.5 million settlement in federal court, Seltzer said.
But how can an attorney be assured that such data hasn`t been manipulated to depict something that couldn`t have happened?
”These animations are based on engineering facts,” said Garrison Kost, head of Failure Analysis` computer aided design and graphics division. ”You just can`t pull it out of the air.”
In addition, much of the information used to create an animation can be verified from witness statements or police reports of an accident, Kost said. The problem for many attorneys faced with computer animation is knowing how to attack it.
”You don`t cross-examine the computer. You cross-examine the data and the person who put it in,” said Harold Caplener, a San Jose attorney who practices high-tech and personal injury law.
But for the attorney who doesn`t know how to do that, such evidence can be devastating. As Caplener said, ”If you don`t know how to attack that kind of evidence, it`s going to come in and you`re dead.”
Animations, however, are not accepted as fact in court. When they are introduced as evidence, it is usually through the testimony of expert witnesses, who–because of their credentials–are allowed to render opinions, Kost said.
Although some lawyers praise such high-tech techniques, others say animation and complex graphics are only useful in high-stakes cases where clients have money to spend.
”It`s just not worth it in 99 out of 100 cases,” said San Jose, Calif., attorney James Boccardo. ”The only good thing about it is that it`s moving.” ”If a jury thinks that it`s all show, you could hurt your client`s case,” said David Henderson, an attorney with Brown & Bain in Phoenix, Ariz. And there are those who wonder how persuasive a computer can be.
Jordan Kinkead, of Sherman and Kinkead Consulting Engineers in Redwood City, Calif., uses computers to complete calculations in reconstructions but does no animation. Instead, he prefers a scale drawing: ”It`s something the jury can take with them into the jury room.”
And, as Los Angeles lawyer Hal Kruth points out, attorneys will continue to use what they are comfortable with.
”It`s hard to plow new ground when your concern is putting on an effective defense,” said Kruth, who has seen animation but never used it.
”With all this technology, lawyers get very nervous. I don`t think it`s something lawyers are going to run out and embrace.”
