Search Results

Taking as its reference a pre-Daubert set of predictions [Bo:91] regarding the judicial reception to computer-generated (CG) animations and simulations, this paper surveys and analyzes the appellate rulings regarding CG imagery in the wake of the Daubert decision [Da:93]. It also reports on a survey carried out by the authors among 39 active accident reconstructionists regarding CG imagery that these investigators have encountered in their work. The results of this survey suggest that the use in court of CG animations is much less common than one might infer from either the popular press or the accident reconstruction press. The paper concludes that Daubert will in the short run, though probably not in the long, produce some strange results with respect to both acceptance and rejection of CG animations and simulations.

As the computer software which has lightened and enlightened the work of the accident reconstructionist over the past several years moves into the courtroom, a debate has sprung up concerning the appropriateness of this latest form of scientific evidence. Both its admissibility as evidence and its use as “demonstrative evidence” have been questioned. The primary purpose of this paper is to sort out the several different categories of computer applications which are frequently lumped together as “accident reconstruction software,” and then to distinguish on the basis of these categories the arguments regarding the courtroom use of data and images generated by this software. The paper also contains an attempt-based on current judicial scrutiny of scientific evidence-to predict the ultimate consensus which will emerge regarding the evidentiary use of computer-aided accident reconstruction results.