Animation Jury Instruction

Here is the cautionary instructions that Judge Nealon gave in the Serge case. A very clear explanation for both jurors and lawyers. A good model for future cases:
Members of the jury, parties in a case are permitted to use photographs, drawings and other exhibits to illustrate a point they are attempting to make in the case. We refer to this type of evidence as demonstrative evidence, as opposed to substantive evidence, since it is offered merely to demonstrate or illustrate a point rather than as actual proof of that point. With the advent of the digital age, computers are now used to produce such demonstrative evidence.
You heard testimony from Dr. Gary Ross and Trooper Brad Beach that the computer-generated animation which will now be shown to you is a fair and accurate illustration of the opinions that they formed as to how this shooting occurred. You also heard Randy Matzkanin of 21st Century Forensic Animations describe how he produced three-dimensional drawings with computer software to depict those opinions and thereafter transformed them onto videotape to produce moving images.
What you are about to be shown is commonly referred to as a computer-generated exhibit. There are two types of computer-generated exhibits: (1) a simulation and (2) an animation. In a simulation, data is entered into a computer which is pre-programmed to perform certain calculations by applying laws of physics, mathematical formulas and other scientific principles in order for the computer to draw conclusions and attempt to recreate an incident. The end product of a simulation represents the computer program’s conclusion of what happened and the results of the computer simulation serve as the basis for the testifying expert’s opinion of what happened.
In contrast, an animation is simply a graphic depiction or illustration of an opinion that an expert has already formed based upon his/her own investigation, computations and analysis. With an animation, the computer does not perform any scientific calculations of develop any opinions as in the case with a simulation. An animation consists of computer-generated drawings which are assembled frame by frame and, when viewed sequentially, produce the image of motion. Thus, an animation is merely a graphic depiction or illustration of an opinion or recreation which an expert witness has already devised through his/her own independent calculations and analysis.
Please understand that what you are about to view is an animation, not a simulation. This computer-generated animation is a demonstrative exhibit, not substantive evidence, and it is being offered solely as an illustration of the Commonwealth’s version of events as recreated by Dr. Gary Ross and Trooper Brad Beach. You should not confuse art with reality and should not view the animation as a definitive recreation of the actual incident. The series of pictures which have been drawn by the computer and transferred on videotape for your review are no different from a witness sketching a series of drawings on paper and then fanning those pages to portray moving images of his/her opinion. Remember, the demonstrative animation is only as good as the underlying testimony, data, assumptions and opinions that serve as the basis for its images and the computer maxim “Garbage in, Garbage out” applies equally to computer animations.
Like all other evidence in the case, you may accept or reject the computer-generated animation in whole or in part. I caution you again that the animation may only be considered for demonstrative purposes to illustrate the opinions of Dr. Gary Ross and Trooper Brad Beach. Always bear in mind that the Commonwealth must still meet its burden of proving all of the element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt.