Evaluating the impact of different formats in the presentation of trauma evidence in court: a pilot study

The effect of different imaging techniques for the visualisation of evidence in court on jury comprehension

“…This is an increase from the photographic method (79%) and this difference is echoed by Ampanozi et al [17] who encourages the use of 3D reconstructions in forensic radiology reports. Similarly, this reiterates Blau et al [18] who state that some visual methods are stronger for comprehension of evidence than others and therefore can be effective at communicating complex evidence. Likewise, Rutty et al [21] also demonstrated an increase in understanding in nurse education with the use of innovative teaching tools.…”

“…However, this currently demonstrates that caution must be applied to the use of 3D-printed models and the authors believe that further research into the use of 3D-printed models should be undertaken prior to their continued use within the courtroom. This is reiterated in Blau et al's [18] study. With regard to the clarity and understanding of the evidence, although not statistically significant, 98% of jurors stated they understood the terminology used when the 3D-printed models were utilised as demonstrative evidence, and 88% of jurors when visualising the 3D animations.…”

“…Several authors have stated that evidential findings must be presented to the court in a palatable and clear manner, while not compromising the integrity of the evidence displayed [17,18]. The use of 3D imaging modalities in the courtroom is the current manifestation of illustrative evidence in a long timeline of evidential graphics.…”

“…Ampanozi et al [17] demonstrated that the use of 3D reconstructions and colour-coded CT images were a preferred visual format for district attorneys for understanding radiological findings. Further, Blau et al [18] have demonstrated that the comprehension of verbal presentations improved with the use of visual aids. Therefore, this study was designed to investigate whether the use of visualisation techniques influenced the juror's verdict and whether the visual format of the evidence improved the understanding of technical language within the court case.…”

Imaging in forensic science: Five years on

“…Courtroom Display Thali et al (2000) promoted the use of photogrammetric 3D models for demonstration of evidence, stating that 3D models are more easily understood by laypersons, a concept that is still portrayed (Villa et al 2017;Blau et al 2018). The utility of 3D digital data for courtroom demonstrations of osteological evidence and the potential advantages of having 3D models over 2D photographs was detailed by Errickson et al (2014).…”