The use of visual evidence in the courtroom is a modernized method of educating and informing juries. Complex ideas and technical terms are now being presented in a more comprehensive format with the use of visual aids.
In some quarters, forensic animation has been considered to be a “figment” of the producer’s imagination. However, in the true sense, forensic animation in a court case doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It has no life of its own and its reliability depends heavily on evidence.
The use of computer-generated evidence in criminal cases can often be more problematic.
“Can computers think?” “No, thinking is conscious and it’s an activity of an existential value to humans” “Yes, we now have modern computers capable of performing the highest possible mental operations”
“Defendant argues against the use of animated video in his appeal of the judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of criminally negligent child abuse resulting in death”
“If we have different ways of communicating, it makes little sense to rely on only one” – Brown (2014)
“We have never seen creativity. More precisely, we have never seen the creative process. What we have seen is the creative individual and the outcome of creativity”- Dörfler et al (2010)
Work is more enjoyable when your mind is unburdened. Your focus is sharpened, procrastination is dealt with and productivity increases.
“The animations can be summed up in one word – Glorious!!!” – Cokinos Law Founder on Fox Animated Engineering.
Thank you! We will be contacting you shortly to further discuss your case and/or questions.
