The influence of vehicle model and colour on assessments of speed and culpability: the case for (and against) Computer Generated Exhibits (CGE)

Abstract

Computer Generated Exhibits (CGE) are frequently deployed in legal contexts under the rubric of demonstrative evidence, i.e. to facilitate juror comprehension. However, a number of legal and academic commentators have suggested that the nature of the computerised moving image could exert undue prejudice on decision makers, e.g. judge and/or jury. The current study aimed to assess the manipulation of vehicle characteristics (make and colour) when a road traffic accident was presented in the format of a computer generated animation (CGA). In experiment 1, two groups of subjects watched two different makes of car, a Range Rover Sport and a Volkswagen Touran in a black-and-white format; no significant differences emerged over vehicle model with regards to vehicle speed or overall responsibility for the accident. Experiment 2 presented the same vehicles to four groups of participants in full colour, with the cars in contrasting red or beige; significant differences emerged with regards to culpability for vehicle make only. The findings could have implications for the format and style of CGE used in legal settings.

Keywords:

• forensic animations
• computer generated evidence
• demonstrative evidence

Notes

McKeone, M. 1992. Making or breaking the case: computers in court. Law Society of ACT Gazette 139: 63–64.

Horton, W. 1994. The Icon Book: Visual Symbols for Computing Systems and Documentation. New York: Wiley.

Donoghue, R.D. 1992. Demonstrative exhibits: a key to effective jury presentations. PLI Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, and Literary Property Course Handbook Series No. G4-3892.

Imwinkelreid, E.J. 1997. The next step in conceptualizing the presentation of expert evidence as education: the case for didactic trial procedures. International Journal of Evidence and Proof 1: 128–148; Twining, W. 2003. Evidence as a multi-disciplinary subject. Law, Probability and Risk 2: 91–107.

Galves, F. 2010. Where the not-so-wild things are: computers in the courtroom, the federal rules of evidence, and the need for institutional reform and more judicial acceptance. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 13: 161–302.

Feigenson, N. and Spiesel, C. 2010. Law on Display. New York: NYU Press.

Kassin, S. and Dunn, M.A. 1997. Computer-animated displays and the jury: facilitative and prejudicial effects. Law and Human Behaviour 21: 269–281.

Kassin and Dunn, ‘Computer-animated displays’, 279.

Morell, L.C. 1999. New technology: experimental research on the influence of computer-animated displays on jurors. Southwestern University Law Review 28: 411–415.

Bennett, R.B., Leibman, J.H., and Fetter, R.E. 1999. Seeing is believing; or is it? An empirical study of computer simulations as evidence. Wake Forest Law Review 34: 257–294.

Feigenson, N., and Dunn, M.A. 2003. New visual technologies in court: directions for research. Law and Human Behaviour 27: 109–126.

Feigenson and Dunn, ‘New visual technologies’, 117.

Sommers, S.R., and Ellsworth, P.C. 2000. Race in the courtroom: perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26: 1367–1379.

Davies, G.M., and Patel, D. 2005. The influence of car and driver stereotypes on attributions of vehicle speed, position on the road and culpability in a road accident scenario. Legal and Criminological Psychology 10: 45–62; Davies, G.M. 2009. Estimating the speed of vehicles: the influence of stereotypes. Psychology, Crime & Law 15: 293–312.

Davies, ‘Estimating the speed of vehicles’.

Davies and Patel, ‘The influence’, 59.

Bodenhausen, G.V., and MaCrae, C.N. 2005. Stereotype activation and inhibition. In Stereotype activation and inhibition: advances in social cognition, ed. R.S. Wyer, 152. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Davies and Patel, ‘The influence’.

Davies and Patel, ‘The influence’.

Davies and Patel, ‘The influence’.

Galves, ‘Where the not-so-wild things are’; Feigenson and Spiesel, ‘Law on Display’; Kassin and Dunn, ‘Computer-animated displays’.

Feigenson and Dunn, ‘New visual technologies’.

Groscup, J., and Tallon, J. 2009.Theoretical models of jury decision making. In Jury psychology: social aspects of trial processes, eds. J.D. Lieberman and D.A. Krauss. Surrey: Ashgate; Pennington, N. and Hastie, R. 1986. Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 242–258.

Davies and Patel, ‘The influence’.

Davies, ‘Estimating the speed of vehicles’.

Feigenson and Dunn, ‘New visual technologies’.

Byrd v. Guess. 137 F.3d 1126, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 1998). Friend v. Time Manufacturing Co., 2006 WL2135807, at 5-7 (d. Ariz. July 28, 2006).

Mason, S. 2007. Electronic evidence: disclosure, discovery and admissibility. London: Lexis-Nexis.

Dahir, V.B., Richardson, J.T., Ginsburg, G.P., Gatowski, S.I., Dobbin, S.A., and Merlino, M.L. 2005. Judicial application of Daubert to psychological syndrome and profile evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11: 62–82.

Mason, Electronic evidence.

Fielder, B. 2003. Are your eyes deceiving you? The evidential crisis regarding the admissibility of computer generated evidence. New York Law School Law Review, 48: 295–321; O'Flaherty, D. 1996. Computer generated displays in the courtroom: for better or worse? Web Journal of Legal Issues 2; Selback, J. 1994. Digital litigation: the prejudicial effects of computer-generated animation in the courtroom. High Technology Law Journal, 9: 337. Feigenson and Spiesel, ‘Law on display’; Galves, ‘Where the not-so-wild things are’; O'Flaherty, ‘Computer generated displays’.

Faigman, D.L., and Monahan, J. 2005. Psychological evidence at the dawn of law's scientific age. Annual Review of Psychology 56: 631–659.

Gardner, B. 2009. Incentivised snowballing. The Psychologist, 22(9): 768–769; Hewson, C. 2003. Conducting research on the internet. The Psychologist, 16: 290–293.

Feigenson and Dunn, ‘New visual technologies’. Galves, ‘Where the not-so-wild things are’.

Davies and Patel, ‘The influence’.

Noond, J., Schofield, D., March, J., and Evison, M. 2002. Visualising the scene: computer graphics and evidence presentation. Science and Justice 42: 89–96.

Risinger, D., Saks, M., Thompson, W., and Rosenthal, R. 2002. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effect in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. California Law Review 90: 1–56.