This popular YouTube video shows a computer generated animation of a motor vehicle accident created by artificial intelligence. The advances in technology in the last five years with AI have made such computer animations and simulations of accidents more common and much cheaper to create. Thus, it is only a matter time until such videos will be more common at trials.
Danger of Admitting Animations
Attorneys know that a picture is worth a thousand words, especially in front of a jury. Judges and attorneys know that showing a video like this one to a jury may effectively mean the end of a trial. No matter what witnesses say or whatever instructions a Judge gives to the jury, the case might be over very quickly during jury deliberations. A jury will see the video and quickly draw its own conclusions. So sometimes getting a video into evidence for the jury to see (or keeping the video out of evidence) is the crucial battle in a case.
Simulation versus Animation
A simulation is created by an AI program that takes information from witnesses, photographs of the scene, details about the vehicles involved and then creates a video representation of what the computer believes occurred. In other words, the AI program does all the deliberation and gives a rendering of what occurred.
These types of simulations are very difficult to get into evidence since they do the work of the jury. Most Judges would exclude these videos from a trial.
A computer animation is illustrative, demonstrative evidence. The evidence sought to be introduced is more akin to a chart or diagram than a scientific device. Feaster v New York City Tr. Auth. 172 AD2d 284, 285 (1st Dept 1991); Aitcheson v Lowe, 144 AD3d 848, 41 NYS3d 289 (2d Dept. 2016). Whether a diagram is hand drawn or by a computer is of no importance. There are three issues that the Judge considers before demonstrative evidence goes to a jury.
First, the animation fairly and accurately reflect the oral testimony offered. Second, that the animation must be an aid to the jury’s understanding of the issue. Third, the Judge should weigh the probative value of the animation against the prejudicial value to the adverse party. Usually, an accident reconstruction expert lays a foundation for an AI animation. The expert explains what he believed happened in the accident based upon the testimony and photographs. The animation is used to illustrate the expert’s narrative testimony.
As stated above, these types of video can be powerful. Courts will consider these videos on a case by case basis.
By James Santner, Esq.
If you have questions about a similar situation, feel free to contact us. Consultations are free and there is no fee unless we win.