Opinion ID: 2142638
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Use of Chart and Skeleton.

Text: During the course of the trial the plaintiff offered as exhibits a chart of the muscles of the body and a model skeleton of a spinal column made out of plastic. The medical witness testified that the use of the two exhibits would be helpful in clarifying and explaining his testimony. Upon objection by the defendants, the trial court refused to permit the use of such visual aids. In his memorandum opinion, the trial judge stated: Neither the model nor the chart were admissible in evidence because they were not exact reproductions of the  plaintiff's anatomy. They were likely to give a wrong impression or create undue sympathy or prejudice on the part of the jury. There was no substantial, legitimate reason for their use. The first reason relied upon by the trial judge would effectively bar almost all physical evidence, and we do not consider that the trial judge was justified in rejecting the chart and skeleton on such grounds. Almost all courts have recognized that whether demonstrative evidence is to be received rests largely in the discretion of the trial judge. Walker v. Baker (1961), 13 Wis. (2d) 637, 651, 109 N. W. (2d) 499; Gordon, Demonstrative Evidence, 32 Wisconsin Bar Bulletin (February, 1959), p. 11. It has been observed that many people learn and understand better with their eyes than they do with their ears. It would seem that the alignment of bones and muscles is sufficiently obscure to the average juror so as to make a visual demonstration helpful. Smith v. Ohio Oil Co. (1956), 10 Ill. App. (2d) 67, 134 N. E. (2d) 526. We are of the opinion that it would have been preferable for the trial court to have permitted the use of the chart and skeleton in the instant case. Its refusal to do so, however, was not prejudicial.