Animation in Litigation An Interview With David Marbach The power of animation to depict and persuade makes it a natural fit

t for many applications, from advertising to training to item documentation. One industry that has seen a multimedia boom in recent years is litigation. Animated reconstructions have turn out to be so commonplace in many kinds of instances as to be expected. I lately had a chance to speak to David Marbach, a litigation support expert who has utilized animation frequently in his function. Solid Blue Development: Tell me a bit bit about your encounter in the legal profession and your present position. David Marbach: I have been in the Litigation Support field for 10 years now with numerous law firms and corporate entities. I presently manage the Legal Technologies department at a big law firm where we work extremely closely with our attorneys on Electronic Discovery matters and large-scale document reviews and productions. SBD: How have you used animation in legal instances? For which kinds of instances is animation most useful? DM: I have used animation in approximately a half-dozen cases. Most of the cases had been product liability instances; 1 was medical malpractice and 1 was a negligence tort involving a slip-and-fall in a department shop. Animations are most useful when they accurately summarize and simplify a complicated mechanism or physical situation. SBD: During mediation, an animation demonstrating the expert testimony a jury would hear at trial can have a profound impact on the opposing party. How can this convince them to settle during mediation? If they hope to capitalize on any confusion resulting from complicated testimony at trial, how can an animation that clearly represents this testimony convince the opposing party to settle? DM: Due to the cost and attention necessary for creating animations, they're rarely utilized during pretrial option dispute resolution. The earlier in a case that they are unveiled, the greater the probabilities that the opposition will find a way to exclude them from trial. Animations are usually kept as ace-inthe-hole exhibits, nevertheless it is possible that they could be brought out throughout mediations to show how easy it would be to present one side of the dispute in a clear and convincing manner towards the jury. SBD: Admissibility as evidence is important to utilizing animations successfully. How can a side make sure the animation will be admissible if the case goes to trial? DM: It is practically impossible to make sure admissibility of an animation unless every single facet of the clip may be substantiated by irrefutable facts. Therefore, it is very essential to help keep animations extremely, very easy and not take any artistic license. Any deviation from or exaggeration of a physical scenario is likely to be objected to potentially making the entire animation inadmissible. SBD: A South Carolina court lately stated that concerns concerning the prejudicial impact of animations are diminishing as judges and the public turn out to be much more familiar with pc technology. How

does this familiarity, as well as the opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses at trial, impact the risk of prejudice for animation? DM: In Chicago, Richard Gere is ready to speak towards the jury when the announcer says, Ladies and Gentlemen! A tap-dance! The courtroom is not show company, but only within the exact same way that an election isnt a recognition contest. You will find a set of guidelines that everyone must follow. This does not mean that you cannot make a fantastically efficient presentation whilst operating inside these guidelines. The prejudicial impact of animations is certainly becoming negated as juries start expecting multi-media presentations to clearly state an argument. SBD: It seems that communication among the animator and the legal team presenting the case is critical to creating an accurate, admissible animation. How do you ensure that the animation faithfully represents spoken testimony? DM: More importantly, an animation should represent the irrefutable facts of the case. An outstanding way of ensuring this is by seeking to facts and evidence presented by the opposition. Attorneys are clearly much less inclined to object to facts they themselves have admitted. SBD: How may a plaintiffs use of animation differ from a defendants? DM: A typical mistake is to believe that plaintiffs' presentations are much more great or flashy than those of defendants. All litigants are topic to the same laws and balancing test between the probative value and also the potential prejudicial effect of any piece of evidence. SBD: In practical terms, what are some of the limitations of animation for trial use? What can animation not accomplish? DM: Animations completely cannot show or imply any reality not absolutely substantiated by undisputed evidence. It is greatest purpose would be to reinforce, not reinvent or in any way alter the facts. SBD: While animation can by no means completely replace descriptive narrative, when an whole courtroom views an animation judge, witnesses, jury, everybody and also the events depicted are determined to be substantially accurate, how essential is it in establishing the facts of a case? Just how much persuasive power does an accurate animation hold? DM: Animation may be unbelievably effective in summarizing a specific version of the facts in a case. It is power lies not only as a tool for efficient communication, but in generating a series of events tangible to a jury. Probabilities are, when deliberations begin on a case, the jury will instantly start talking about closing arguments and efficient animations and multimedia presentations. These are the parts of a trial that stick in their mind and help to decide cases. manga writing