Ever have someone offer you help and it actually just made things worse? You know, “I'll help you move” and the person "helping" is now inadvertently scraping the wooden legs of your couch against the new paint on the hallway wall. Sometimes hiring graphic artists can be like that. Graphic artists, court reporters or engineers will tell lawyers that they are "committed to helping you present your case in the most compelling, memorable manner possible." While compelling and memorable are very important to a legal visual presentation, more important is that the presentation of evidence be admissible. Otherwise, you are wasting your time and money.
This is exactly why my company assigns lawyers to consult as project managers for the legal visual communication projects we undertake. A lawyer, trained and practiced in evidence, understands the difference between a substantive presentation designed to persuade at a mediation … versus a presentation used as a pedagogical device at trial to teach principles explaining complex expert testimony … versus a silly inadmissible Hollywood-style dramatic visual presentation created for entertainment value.
The bottom line is that non-lawyers who create visuals for litigation do not (and for good reason should not) understand the rules of evidence or the practice of law. This is true even though the non-lawyers happen to spend a lot of their time in a courtroom, like court reporters. Because they do not possess a thorough grasp of the rules of evidence, and because they don't understand precisely why certain evidence must be shown in a particular way, trial lawyers who hire these individuals need to spend more time with the non-lawyer graphic designer to ensure admissibility of the final animation.
The focus of any legal graphic, especially a 3D animation, needs to be on relevant, professional, educational visual communication, instead of visceral, manipulative, visual entertainment. A trial lawyer, reviewing 3D animations (ones created for you or for your opponent), must pay close attention to the following:
Camera angle choices - why did the visual designer choose a particular camera angle? Does that make the presentation of the information more persuasive or more manipulative? Does it make the graphic more admissible or less admissible at trial?
Sound effects - Honestly, I don't ever see a need to use sound effects – they are silly, distracting, irrelevant, and manipulative. Nonetheless, I have seen lawyers (and graphic consultants) stand before a roomful of CLE attendees proudly presenting PowerPoint presentations and animations with sound effects … without a hint of any awareness of the impropriety. The one exception to the use of sound might be if a sound is being used as a demonstration of the actual sound heard by a witness. But then it would not be an effect, rather, a demonstration (with its own admissibility hurdles to overcome).
Flashes of light or flying objects - Flying or flashing things are usually used to create dramatic Hollywood style effects. Unless there is a science to the randomness of the way in which objects fly through the air (like electrons in a mechanical device), such things ought to be left out of an animation (or objected to as manipulative and irrelevant).
Motion blur effects - These effects are used by Hollywood to imply speed or dizziness. Such effects are not relevant and unduly prejudicial, making the jury (the viewer) feel a certain way -- as opposed to illustrating the evidence in a fair and accurate, (or sometimes, scientifically accurate way).
Particle effects – These are used to replicate air or liquid movement such as in an explosion. Unless an expert will be authenticating the visual depiction of the explosion as a fair and accurate representation, it is extraneous and probably prejudicial/inadmissible.
For a great example of precisely how not to develop a 3D presentation, and the highly inappropriate use of all of the above methods, look at the first example on this website (http://www.hightechtrial.com/pages/animations.html) of a 3D animation of a truck accident -- complete with sound effects, flying objects and particle effects.
Lawyers should use 3D animations when the third dimension actually helps to convey information that cannot be explained in another better way. Bad 3D animations make for bad law. Unfortunately, they also may adversely impact the ability of prosecutors and trial lawyers to use properly created, appropriate, and admissible 3D animations in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment