Anjelica Cappellino | The Expert Institute | November 2, 2017
As many attorneys know first hand, the practice of law sometimes requires adapting to new technology. From artificial intelligence document review software to iPad trial presentation applications, there are a vast number of ways to utilize technology in the courtroom. In light of the fast-paced advancements trial presentation technology has made over the course of a relatively brief time frame, it is all the more important to stay up-to-date on the latest developments and future trends.
A recent development in trial technology has been in the field of virtual and augmented reality. At trial, these programs can provide the jury with what feels like a real-world experience or simulation of the testimony. Virtual reality can be a particularly helpful aid during expert testimony, as such technology can assist with explaining otherwise complex or foreign information to a jury. Depending upon an expert’s practice area and the factual issues at hand, the implementation of virtual reality during the testimony can be an interesting, novel, and effective tool.
What is Virtual and Augmented Reality?
Virtual reality is the general term used to describe a three-dimensional, computer-generated environment in which the user can interact. In short, virtual reality simulates experiences and creates a feeling that the user is present and involved in the environment. Virtual reality is most frequently associated with entertainment and gaming. There are headsets on the market (most notably, Facebook’s own Oculus Rift) that, when worn, immerses the user into the world of the game. Virtual reality has also been implemented in a number of marketing campaigns, from Mercedes’ 360-degree video driving experiences to Expedia’s virtual reality films promoting travel.
Augmented reality is similar to virtual reality technology in the sense that they both offer the user computer-generated simulations. However, augmented reality differs in that it imposes, or “augments” the user’s real-world environment by mixing in computer-generated images into the experience. As more aptly described by the technology experts, “[u]nlike virtual reality, which requires you to inhabit an entirely virtual environment, augmented reality uses your existing natural environment and simply overlays virtual information on top of it.”
Like virtual reality, augmented reality is frequently used in gaming, the most popular example being last year’s Pokemon Go craze – a smartphone game which enables players to search for virtual Pokemon which appear on the phone screen at certain real-world locations. Augmented reality is more frequently used than one may think, as location-based GPS monitoring available on the average smartphone implements this technology to map directions and find nearby locations.
With its growing ubiquity in our everyday lives, it makes sense that virtual and augmented reality can also be used during trial testimony.
Virtual and Augmented Reality Technology: How Can it Help at Trial?
As the technology grows, so does the number of ways that virtual and augmented reality can effectively be used during an expert’s testimony. First and foremost, such technology can physically bring an expert into the courtroom that otherwise might be unable to attend trial. Specifically, augmented reality and holographic technology (often seen at concerts that use 3-D holographic images to create “performances” of musicians who have passed away) allows a witness to be “appear” in three-dimensional form in the courtroom from another location (viewed by the jury through headsets). The augmented image of the expert can even be superimposed onto the witness stand. This technology is also promising for eliciting victim testimony, where the victim’s live appearance in the courtroom might be too traumatizing.
While videoconferencing with an expert at trial is the more common alternative to live testimony, holographic technology ameliorates the potential adverse effects of not having a witness physically present in the courtroom. During video testimony, witnesses are in two-dimensional form on a screen, which runs the risk that the jury will misinterpret their verbal and non-verbal cues. By “placing” the expert into the courtroom through holographic imaging, the jury’s view of the witness (and the witness’ credibility) is enhanced. Such technology can enable an attorney to call an otherwise impossible-to-get expert without sacrificing the credibility issues of video testimony.
Along with placing an expert into the courtroom, virtual reality can also place the jury at the scene. With the use of headsets, any number of locations can be computer-generated so that the jury can experience a first-hand view. A forensic scientist can use a three-dimensional crime scene to explain his findings, and likewise, an accident reconstruction specialist can use three-dimensional location monitoring to recreate the accident in “real time” in the presence of the jury.
One of the most promising ways that virtual and augmented reality can be used at trial is during the testimony of medical experts. These technologies have already been used by medical professionals throughout their training, and offer realistic alternatives to learning about the human body. To bring these technologies into the courtroom during medical expert testimony is the next logical step. The medical school at the University of California, San Francisco utilizes virtual reality headsets which allow medical students to examine computer-generated cadavers and “move” the anatomy without actually touching a human.
One of the benefits of this program is that it can be reset and the examination can be done over in a new way, avoiding the need for real-life cadavers. It also allows for the independent, microscopic-level examination of every single later of the body without destroying the body. As part of the school’s research pilot, the “[v]irtual reality anatomy allows the learner wearing a headset – and observers viewing monitors – to interact with a virtual patient that is upright, much as they would with an actual patient in a clinic. The virtual patient can be viewed from the top or bottom, and can be moved around to uncover spatial relationships.”
The benefits that such software can offer during a medical expert’s testimony are promising. The virtual examination of a body (which can even be designed to the exact specifications of the real-life subject at hand), allows experts to precisely pinpoint to each piece of anatomy as they testify. The three-dimensional representations can recreate medical problems, traumas, and injuries while also “reversing” the issues by showing the effects of lifestyle changes, medications, or surgical procedures. Depending upon the issues at hand, the possibilities are endless for medical experts utilizing this technology at trial.
Admissibility Considerations
Before electing to use virtual or augmented reality technology at trial, it is important to consider any evidentiary implications that can potentially preclude the expert’s testimony. First, the evidence must be deemed relevant under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (or under state laws that have adopted such a rule), which means it must have a tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without such evidence and the fact is of consequence in determining the action. If relevant, the evidence must not otherwise be excludable under Rule 403, which is when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of “unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly cumulative evidence.”
In the context of virtual and augmented technology, it is important to utilize such evidence in a judicious manner. It may be tempting to showcase these programs in an effort to wow the jury with high-tech and unique representations, but the information presented needs to be actually relevant to the facts at hand. Likewise, any potential dangers of exclusion should be considered. While this technology offers experts the opportunity to better explain their testimony, if utilized incorrectly, it may confuse the jury with sensory overload or needlessly compound (instead of strategically add) onto the testimony. In addition, virtual evidence may be considered unduly prejudicial if its “vividness exceeds its objective probative value.” Since most virtual technology is demonstrative in nature, the evidence should be used to illustrate the expert’s point and complement the testimony. In other words, the expert should control the evidence and not the other way around.
This may also create problems during cross examination. The difficulties surrounding the cross examination of an expert using virtual reality technology can both thwart opposing counsel while also threatening the admissibility of the evidence in the first place. Cross examination can undoubtedly be troublesome for an attorney, as most lawyers are likely not well-versed in such advanced technology. Virtual reality is considered demonstrative evidence, meaning that it is not admitted as substantive evidence but rather offers an illustration of the expert’s testimony. However, dependent upon the program used, it may actually “speak over” the expert. In which case, opposing counsel’s line of questioning would be limited. While this may seem like a smart strategy for the side offering the virtual reality evidence, it may also backfire. If a judge believes that virtual reality technology unfairly impedes or prejudices the other side, then the evidence will be excluded.
Overall, the future of courtroom technology is ever evolving. As long as the above caveats are considered, virtual and augmented technology can be an effective tool during expert testimony.