Despite my grand exit into the world of retirement, it seems trial lawyer advertisements still find their way to me. Today, I’ve pulled back the gilded curtain for the curious non-lawyers among you; and yes, the young baby lawyers getting their courtroom legs too.
Step with me into the hallowed halls of yesteryears! Once upon a time, courtroom and settlement videos were as mythical as unicorns in the legal world. But now? They’re galloping through the profession at a breakneck pace. It’s a tad amusing that these ads still flutter into my world, especially since I ceremoniously shelved my lawyerly attire some moons ago.
- How Does Evidence Get Accepted in Court?
Before any evidence can be shown to the jury, it has to pass some rules:
Relevance: It needs to help prove a point in the case.
Realness: It has to be genuine, not fake.
Fairness: It shouldn’t trick the jury or make them overly emotional.
Accuracy: It needs to correctly show the facts or what a person is saying
- Why Demonstrative Evidence is Useful?
Makes Things Clear: It simplifies complex ideas.
Keeps Attention: People pay more attention to visuals.
Supports Stories: It backs up what someone is saying.
Convinces People: A good visual can persuade the jury.
- Possible Problems:
Can be Deceptive: If not accurate, it might give a wrong impression.
Might Overemphasize: Some points might look more crucial than they are.
Costly: Making these visuals can be expensive.
Can be Biased: Overly dramatic visuals might sway emotions unfairly.In short, demonstrative evidence is like a visual aid in the courtroom. It can be very helpful, but it needs to be used correctly to ensure justice is served.
A Few Kentucky Cases
This short note digs a little deeper into demonstrative evidence in Kentucky. It explores the admissibility and use of visual aids, anatomically accurate dolls, true replicas, and computer-generated diagrams at trial. These are a few of the cases in my notes when actively practicing and are provided to the lawyers with the caveats to research for accuracy and completeness beyond these superficial and older points of reference. The bottom line is this is a start, just a start, which is always a good place to begin.
I. Anatomically Accurate Dolls and Medical Models
Within the context of child abuse cases in Kentucky, it is permissible for testifying children to employ anatomically accurate dolls as a visual aid, as validated by the legal precedent established in the case of Stringer v. Com. (956 S.W.2d 883, Ky. 1997). Furthermore, the Hart v. Com. case (116 S.W.3d 481, Ky. 2003) has indicated the possibility of medical professionals using skeletons to clarify the nature of physical injuries during their testimonies.
II. True Replicas: Admissibility and Judicial Discretion
Under the existing legal framework, true replicas are considered admissible as evidence and may even be provided to the jury for their deliberations. This legal stance has been affirmed in precedent-setting cases like Cincinnati, N.O. & T.P. Ry. Co. v. Duvall (92 S.W.2d 363, Ky. 1936), Hogan v. Cooke Pontiac Co. (346 S.W.2d 529, Ky. 1961), and Jones v. Overstreet (371 S.W.3d 727, Ky. App. 2011). According to Kentucky law, these models or objects, referred to as “true replicas,” are considered admissible as long as they are adequately identified and authenticated as representations of pertinent elements. Duvall (92 S.W.2d at 366) underscores that any objections to their admissibility should pertain to their weight rather than their fundamental admissibility, a principle firmly upheld within the legal framework.
III. Dissimilarity and Disclosure
In accordance with established evidentiary principles, the authority to admit or exclude such true replicas ultimately rests with the presiding trial judge. This discretion hinges upon a careful balancing act, wherein the probative value of the evidence is weighed against its potential to bias the proceedings. As articulated in Jones v. Overstreet (371 S.W.3d 727, 735, Ky. App. 2011), the criterion for assessing an abuse of discretion centers on whether the trial judge’s decision exhibits arbitrariness, unreasonableness, unfairness, or a departure from sound legal principles, with due regard to internal citations.
IV. Computer-Generated Visual Evidence
In the context of medical malpractice trials, witnesses have been granted permission to employ sample tools to conduct simulations of medical procedures for the benefit of the jury. In a notable instance, an attorney utilized such a wire during a closing argument to illustrate that it cannot perforate the inside of a mouth, as seen in Jones v. Overstreet (371 S.W.3d 727, Ky. App. 2011).
Crucially, the admissibility of a model or object, even if it deviates from the original in certain aspects, is not contingent upon strict fidelity to the original. Instead, such dissimilarity must be clearly elucidated to the jury or should be of a nature that does not mislead the jury, as indicated in Jones v. Overstreet (371 S.W.3d 727, Ky. App. 2011), referencing 29A Am.Jur.2d. Evidence § 1006 (2011).
Lastly, the introduction of computer-generated visual evidence in Kentucky cases assumes significance, with its admissibility contingent upon categorization. Whether substantive or demonstrative, the admission of computer-generated diagrams relies on their relevance, with the court maintaining the discretion to exclude them. Additionally, the accuracy of such diagrams must be authenticated by a competent witness. The admissibility of computer-generated diagrams may also hinge on their method of preparation, as elucidated in Gosser v. Com. (31 S.W.3d 897, Ky. 2000, abrogated on other grounds).
Remember, the presentation of demonstrative evidence in Kentucky cases is governed by a framework that accommodates various forms of visual aids and replicas, with due emphasis on relevance, authentication, and judicial discretion in balancing probative value and potential prejudice.