Scientific research bears this assertion out. Thus animators like Gold and the lawyers they work for turn to forensic animation to help juries understand and remember their arguments. The projects are most commonly used to reconstruct vehicular accidents, detail architectural elements in civil lawsuits, demonstrate the workings of technology in patent cases, and explain the spatial relationships involved in a crime scene in criminal cases. Gold is quick to point out, however, that forensic animation can never replace expert testimony and is always created in cooperation with experts. I will take the information that they use in their testimony and produce a visualization of that.
Gold goes on to note that there are drawbacks to using forensic animation.
For one thing, it can put defendents and plaintiffs with less money at a disadvantage. What we're heading towards basically is dueling animators. Gold also warns that animations can be so persuasive and realistic as to be prejudicial, leading jurors to believe they've actually witnessed a crime rather than a version of it. Its power, he says, has little to do with its veracity. What you are doing is converting your jurors into witnesses.