Computers in Court

PEOPLE v. MCHUGH, 476 NYS.2d 721, 722 (Sup.Ct. 1984)

A computer is not a gimmick and the court should not be shy about its use, when proper. Computers are simply mechanical tools – receiving information and acting on instructions at lightning speed. When the results are useful, they should be accepted, when confusing, they should be rejected. What is important is that the presentation be relevant . . . that it fairly and accurately reflect the oral testimony offered and that it be an aid to the jury’s understanding of the issues in the case.); see also Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg, 81 F.3d 416, 424-25 (4th Cir. 1996) (Although there is a fine distinction between a recreation and an illustration, the practical distinction is the difference between a jury believing that they are seeing a recreation of the actual event and a jury understanding that they are seeing an illustration of someone else’s opinion about what happened. Knowing this there was no reason for the jury to credit the illustration more than they credit the underlying opinion.)

Admissibility of PowerPoint

ARIZONA v. SUCHAREW 4-11-03

Although a computer was used in the presentation, the actual presentation did not include any computer simulation or other similar evidence; rather, it was essentially a slide show of photographic exhibits. The photographs included in the presentation were the same ones disclosed to defendant during pretrial discovery and later admitted into evidence at trial. Moreover, even though the photographs included superimposed descriptive words and labels, the words and labels simply tracked the subject matter of the prosecutor’s opening statement to the jury, and defendant made no objection to any of the content or substance of the actual opening statement. We conclude, therefore, that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in permitting the State’s use of the “PowerPoint” presentation. See People v. Green, 302 P.2d 307, 312 (Cal. 1956) (holding trial court had discretion to permit use of motion picture and photographs later admitted into evidence during opening statement), disapproved on other grounds in People v. Morse, 388 P.2d 33 (Cal 1964).

Composite Photoshop Image Not Admissible

STATE V SWINTON May 11, 2004 (Connecticut_SC 16548)

A case in which the use of two different software packages are discussed by the Court. One image developed through the software was admissible, but another image developed using Photoshop was found not to be admissible. While this case may be limited to its specific facts, it could be a potentially dangerous case because how it could be used to limit images edited in Photoshop. It boils down to the wrong witness was put on the stand to authenticate what had been done with the image. Essentially, the witness could not explain, because he did not know, what had been done with the image.