Federal Judicial Center The results of 3 surveys (1 each of federal judges in 1991 and 1998 and another of attorneys in 1999) indicate that practices and beliefs concerning expert testimony have changed in the wake of the 1993 Supreme Court decision on admissibility in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Reporting both on their general experience with expert testimony and on their most recent civil trial involving such testimony, judges and attorneys indicated that judges were more likely in 1998 than in 1991 to scrutinize expert testimony before trial and then limit or exclude proffered testimony. The results describe common problems with expert testimony, the characteristics of trials in which expert testimony is introduced, and the types of experts who testify.

Two experiments assessed the effects of computer-animated displays on mock jurors. In both, participants watched a trial involving a dispute over whether a man who fell to his death had accidentally slipped or jumped in a suicide. They watched a proplaintiff or prodefendant version in which the body landed 5–10 feet or 20–25 feet from the building. Within each condition, the distance testimony was presented orally or with an animated display. When the tape depicted the event in a neutral manner, judgments were more consistent with the physical evidence. But when the plaintiff and defense used the tape to depict their own partisan theories, participants increasingly made judgments that contradicted the physical evidence. Results suggest that computer-animated displays have greater impact than oral testimony. Whether that impact is to facilitate or mislead a jury, however, depends on the nature of the display.

No abstract

In two experiments, we examined the persuasiveness of computer animation on juror decision making by comparing animation to diagrams in two mock trialsa plane crash case and a car accident case. The persuasiveness of the animation on verdicts was dependent on the case; in the plane crash case, participants rendered verdicts in favor of the side presenting the animation. In the car accident case, the animation had no effect on verdicts. The role of familiarity with the depicted scenario is discussed as a possible explanation for the differing impact of animation. Additionally, jurors' expectations about the persuasiveness of animations were discrepant with the animations' actual influence on jurors' verdicts.Computer animation technology is becoming increasingly common in courtrooms around the country, and has been used in cases ranging from plane crashes and car accidents to medical malpractice and murder. Attorneys use animated displays to bolster their arguments in court because they believe such displays are more persuasive than traditional diagrams and photographs.To produce an animation sequence, graphic designers create threedimensional computer models of the objects that are to be depicted. These objects are then set in motion through the use of computer-generated algorithms that determine the precise location and the relative path of each object at specific moments in time (Ellenbogen 1993). The result is a cartoon-like recreation of the scene that can be transferred to videotape or laser disc for presentation in the courtroom.

Litigation is being transformed by new visual communication technologies, including videoconferencing, PowerPoint, and computer animations. Yet the effects of these visual technologies on legal decision making are largely unknown. In order to understand better the most pressing issues surrounding technology in the courtroom, psychologists, lawyers, and representatives from technology companies and funding agencies attended a Research Conference on Courtroom Technology organized by the Federal Judicial Center. The goals of the conference were to identify issues raised by courtroom uses of new technologies that could be illuminated by empirical research and to suggest designs and methods for conducting that research. This paper emerged from that conference. The authors provide an overview of considerations that should guide research in this area, including a framework that takes into account features of the technology, the audience, and the legal strategy of the user of the technology. They outline a paradigm for conducting such research, illustrate it with several possible empirical studies of varying levels of experimental and conceptual complexity, and identify directions for subsequent research.