Opinion ID: 663165
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Video Animation

Text: 14 MoPac contends that the district court erred by admitting into evidence, and allowing the jury to view, the videotape prepared by Pipkin. Although the issue is a close one, we reject the claim of error in the circumstances of this case. 15 Pipkin created the video by first making a scale model of the accident scene. He based the model on his examination of the physical evidence, photographs of the wreckage, and observations made during visits to the crossing. Pipkin's model included a train and car which could be moved, along with crossing gates, structures and shrubs simulating the immediate surroundings. Pipkin then had the video camera track the scene every 1/10 of a second as he moved the model vehicles by hand. In making the tape, Pipkin moved the train at a scaled speed of 49 m.p.h., as testified to by Engineer Potts, and the car at a comparative speed of 13 m.p.h., a speed selected randomly based on Pipkin's opinion that the car could not have been going more than 20 m.p.h. The simulation resulted in a dramatic two-minute silent color video which first depicts the Turnbulls' theory--car enters crossing with gates up and is struck broadside by the train, then MoPac's theory--car weaves around lowered gates and is hit by the train. In the videotape's gates-up scenario, the car is pushed straight down the track. In the gates-down scenario, the car spins off the tracks in a southwesterly direction. Prior to the jury's viewing of the tape, Pipkin explained that he prepared the models and thereafter fashioned the videotape by incrementally moving the train and car. The Turnbulls offered Pipkin's video for the purpose of illustrating their expert's theory of the accident. The trial court instructed the jury: 16 Again, I want to emphasize to you that you're not to take this as a recreation of the accident because there's no way that a year or two years after the fact that an accident could be recreated. 17 The only reason this is shown is that the witness will testify about certain principles that he feels that this video would show to the jury and perhaps it would be helpful to you. So just bear in mind that you cannot recreate an accident. 18 (Tr. of Proceedings (5/15/91) at 25.) 19 Following the showing to the jury, Pipkin testified to his conclusion--that the impact occurred at a perpendicular angle--and his foundation for that conclusion. Pipkin testified without objection to the following opinion relating to the accident: 20 Q [Mr. Kirksey, Darwin Turnbull, III's attorney]. Why is a 90 degree angle impact significant or that the car was straight over on the road? 21 A. Well, this wreck only happened one of two ways; either the car went around the gates or the gates weren't up when the lady went across. If it was a perpendicular impact and the gates were down she would have to break one of the gates off. It's that simple. 22 (Id. at 47.) 23 The animation's first scenario shows the vehicle entering the track area at a 90 degree angle (meaning perpendicular to the train) when struck by the model engine. This scenario conforms with the expert's opinion on the angle of impact, the theory that the vehicle entered the track area with the gates up, and the physical fact that the vehicle came to rest butted against the train approximately 2000 feet beyond the intersection. 24 MoPac's objections to certain missing or inaccurate details--for example, lights on the crossing sign, sound, unproven vehicle speeds--do not bear on the purpose of the exhibit which was to illustrate the expert's theory. The trial judge did not err in admitting the first scene of the animation as a matter within his discretion 2 and in light of his cautionary instruction to the jury. The cases in this circuit support affirmance of the district court's ruling relating to the animation as illustrative of the expert's testimonial theory of the accident. See Brandt v. French, 638 F.2d 209, 212 (10th Cir.1981) (Where an experiment is offered for demonstrative purposes only, the trial judge should make clear to the jury that even though there is not similarity to the events of the accident that the information is received on a theoretical basis for the limited purpose for which it is offered.). See also Gilbert v. Cosco, Inc., 989 F.2d 399, 402 (10th Cir.1993) (experiments which purport to recreate an accident must be conducted under conditions similar to that accident, while experiments which demonstrate general principles used in forming an expert's opinion are not required to adhere strictly to the conditions of the accident.). 25 The second portion of the tape raises a more difficult problem as to admissibility. That scenario depicted the collision with the westbound car crossing the tracks with its front angled north toward the approach of the train; at impact the vehicle rotated clockwise and spun off the track a short distance southwest of the crossing. 26 This portion of the tape, according to the expert, shows the car if, in fact, it had went around the gates. (Tr. of Proceedings (5/15/91) at 26.) Thus, the theory goes, the physical fact that the train pushed the car straight down the tracks shows the car must have been hit on the perpendicular, because the car would have spun off the tracks to the southwest if it had been struck at an angle. 27 This theory ignores that on impact, the violent crash may have impaled the vehicle on the front plow of the train, making it impossible for the vehicle to spin off the track. The theory as illustrated by the animation would, however, illustrate the movement of an angled car hit by a train but not impaled by the train on impact. 28 Appellant did make an additional objection to this part of the videotape to which the record refers as the second scenario, 3 by stating: It is a staged deliberate moving of the car to the right. It implies that that's what would happen in nature and it just does not. I feel it is highly prejudicial particularly the one with the angle. I just don't think it should be shown. (Tr. of Proceedings (5/15/91) at 24-25.) This objection invokes Fed.R.Evid. 403, which gives the district judge considerable discretion to evaluate whether the probative value of the offered relevant evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. Fed.R.Evid. 403. 29 Given the limited, solely illustrative purpose for introducing the exhibit, the cautionary instruction to the jury, and the opportunity for vigorous cross-examination, we do not believe the district court abused its discretion in admitting the second scenario. 30 Moreover, whatever undue prejudice might have existed in the initial admission of this second scenario clearly did not survive the entire trial. Defense expert Walker later clearly explained to the jury his opinion that on impact, regardless of angle, the train and car would have become locked together, causing the train to push the interlocked vehicles south on the tracks to their ultimate stopping point. Moreover, the verdict itself, which attributed some fault to the driver of the vehicle, indicates that the jury did not fully accept the animation scenes as a recreation of the accident. 31 Having determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion, we add some additional comment. Video animation adds a new and powerful evidentiary tool to the trial scene. McCormick's work on evidence observes that with respect to one party's staged reproduction of facts not only is the danger that the jury may confuse art with reality particularly great, but the impressions generated by the evidence may prove particularly difficult to limit ... 2 McCormick on Evidence 19 (4th ed. 1992) (footnote omitted). 4 Because of its dramatic power, trial judges should carefully and meticulously examine proposed animation evidence for proper foundation, relevancy and the potential for undue prejudice. Normally, the trial judge should review the video outside of the jury's hearing. Brandt v. French, 638 F.2d 209, 212 (10th Cir.1981). Courts in appropriate circumstances may permit demonstrative use of audio or visual presentations which may assist the jury. Datskow v. Teledyne Continental Motors Aircraft Prods., 826 F.Supp. 677 (W.D.N.Y.1993). 5 32 The Supreme Court's recent opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), reinforces the trial court's special role as gatekeeper with respect to expert evidence and opinion. Cf. Datskow, 826 F.Supp. at 683 (discussing admissibility of accidentologist's testimony). 33 Commenting on Fed.R.Evid. 702 and the admission of scientific testimony in Daubert, Justice Blackmun stated that 34 the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable. 35 ... The adjective 'scientific' implies a grounding in the methods and procedures of science. Similarly, the word 'knowledge' connotes more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation. 36 Daubert, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2795. 37 In the case before us, the expert has, in part, based his opinion on the science of physics. In cases presenting opinions grounded in science, as observed in Daubert, the trial judge assumes a most important function relating to expert scientific testimony:[T]he trial judge must determine at the outset, pursuant to Rule 104(a), whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue. This entails a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue. We are confident that federal judges possess the capacity to undertake this review. 38 Id. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2796 (footnotes omitted). 39 Here, the physical phenomena of crash movements may be explained on scientific principles but an argument can be made that it is outside scientific knowledge to opine in a crash such as this one that a car struck at an angle will necessarily leave the railroad tracks on impact. 40 Concerning future similar issues under Rule 702, we suggest that as gatekeeper the district court carefully and meticulously make an early pretrial evaluation of issues of admissibility, particularly of scientific expert opinions and films or animations illustrative of such opinions. Recent amendments to the federal discovery rules will permit an early and full evaluation of these evidentiary problems. 6 41 In considering proposed evidence based on scientific and technical evidence, the trial judge should observe that the evaluation under Fed.R.Evid. 702 is a flexible one and [i]ts overarching subject is the scientific validity--and thus the evidentiary relevance and reliability--of the principles that underlie a proposed submission. Daubert, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2797. 7