A view might also include the observation of such things as the operation of machinery. Generally, efforts are made before a view takes place to make the site of the view look as similar as possible to its appearance at the time that events relevant to the litigation occurred, and to exclude extraneous information. Nonetheless, a court, as well as attorneys, lose some control over the information that is presented to a jury on a view, and each juror is able to take in virtually whatever he wishes, using all of his senses. One alternative to a live view that is less disruptive to court proceedings is a videotaped view. Another alternative would be a virtual reality view.
Virtual reality is a diverse and multi-faceted medium.
It cannot be predicted which types of virtual reality evidence, and which mix of components of virtual reality, might become useful in all of the many different types of litigation. Attorneys wishing to admit virtual reality evidence will have to argue that, in a particular case, the use of virtual reality will provide relevant information to a jury that cannot be presented as well, or that cannot be presented at all, by alternative forms of evidence. Proponents of virtual reality evidence will also have to argue against assertions that the virtual reality medium will arouse fears and prejudices not stirred as much by other forms of evidence. Those who argue for the exclusion of virtual reality evidence in a particular case should focus on its potential for creating prejudicial effect. That is, opponents of the evidence should argue that, while the evidence may be persuasive because it offers useful information, it will also arouse biases on the part of the jury that could cause the jury to lean inordinately in one direction in deciding a particular issue.