Numerous state district, appellate, and supreme courts have ruled on the admissibility of law firm graphics in civil and criminal proceedings. Looking back on some of these rulings can provide insights into how the legal system evaluates the admissibility of visual aids.
One prime example comes from Constans v. Choctaw Trans., which was argued on appeal from a civil district court in Louisiana. A piece of video evidence showed the progression of each vehicle’s position during an accident.
The plaintiff argued that graphics illustrating a reconstruction of the accident were unduly prejudicial. Similarly, an expert witness explained that the video was not a true reconstruction and emphasized its limitations during cross-examination. Ultimately, however, the judge allowed the animation to be used in the appellate proceedings. In their explanation to the jury, the judge noted that the animation being created to scale was key to their decision.
Visuals that do not meet basic standards for accuracy will likely not be admissible. Another case, Clark v. Cantrell, provides an example of such an outcome. The Supreme Court of South Carolina sustained the lower court’s ruling that an animation was not admissible because it conflicted with the testimony of an expert witness.
Generally speaking, courts have been open to the use of law firm graphics so long as they are factually accurate, relevant to the case, and consistent with primary evidence sources.