From Foam Board to Virtual Reality: A Judge's Perspective on the Latest Evolution in Demonstrative Evidence

For years, I've watched the evolution of demonstrative evidence in the courtroom, from simple foam boards to complex digital presentations. Each advancement brought with it new challenges, and I predicted last year that we'd soon see virtual reality (VR) in the courtroom. I envisioned it debuting in a civil case though—a plaintiff's immersive "day in the life" video designed to persuade a jury by vividly illustrating his pain and suffering. But reality often surprises us, as it did recently in a Florida courtroom where VR made its first major appearance in a criminal case.

In a groundbreaking moment reported by Christina Vazquez of Local 10 News, Broward County Judge Andrew Siegel became the first American judge to use a VR headset during a stand-your-ground hearing. The defense used VR to reconstruct the events leading up to his aggravated assault charges, which they believe is the first instance of VR evidence being admitted in any U.S. court.

This case is a testament to how far we've come—but also a stark reminder of the unique challenges that accompany new technology. VR's potential to immerse users in a recreated reality is both its greatest strength and its most significant risk.

The Power of Immersion and the Technical Tightrope Walk

According to the Google News Lab's 2017 study on VR cited in the article, what makes virtual reality uniquely powerful is that viewers don't just observe a story - they live it. They called this "storyliving," where the experience becomes a personal memory rather than just observed information. As one participant explained, "In a novel or movie you are not really there. It is an interpretation ... In VR, you are the character." This shift from passive observation to active participation makes VR evidence particularly potent in legal settings, where the line between experiencing and witnessing becomes blurred.

Additionally, the 2023 Cambridge University Press study cited reveals that experiences in virtual reality become integrated into users' autobiographical memory - meaning they are remembered as personal experiences rather than simply observed events. What’s more concerning is that the study noted “the act of experiencing VR stories can be employed to manipulate memory and mould the user's self in alignment with the intentions of the creators behind the VR narrative.” And unlike watching a traditional video, which creates more shallow episodic memories, VR experiences are processed as something that personally happened to the user.

The Google study also found that VR creates memories that are more emotional than informational. Users often struggled to recall specific details but vividly remembered how an experience made them feel. As the study notes, "[s]tories were also remembered through their poetic elements, tied to the memory of the story, its events and its characters." This has profound implications for courts considering VR evidence - while it may powerfully convey emotions and perspective, it may be less reliable for conveying specific factual details that are crucial in legal proceedings.

But beyond the psychological impact, we must grapple with the technical complexities. Creating accurate and unbiased VR reconstructions requires meticulous attention to detail and a deep understanding of the technology. How do we ensure the data used to create these environments is complete and untampered with? What expertise is needed to verify the accuracy of a VR recreation? These are not trivial questions. Subtle alterations, intentional or not, in lighting, object placement, or even the speed of events could significantly alter a viewer's perception and, consequently, their judgment. We need to establish clear standards and best practices for the creation, validation, and presentation of VR evidence in court.

The Legal Challenge and the Looming Digital Divide

The use of VR evidence raises profound questions for the legal system. How do we ensure the accuracy of VR reconstructions? Could subtle details, intentionally or unintentionally altered, mislead fact-finders? How do we balance the probative value of such evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice created by its emotional intensity?

The good news is that our legal system already provides tools to address these concerns. Rule 403's balancing test, which weighs probative value against potential prejudice, has guided courts in evaluating relevant evidence, from photographs to video reenactments, for a very long time. For instance, a judge might need to weigh whether a VR recreation that allows jurors to "experience" a defendant's perspective in a self-defense case, while highly probative of the defendant's state of mind, risks creating such a powerful emotional connection that it unduly prejudices the jury against the prosecution's case. Judges might also need to carefully consider whether to admit graphic crime scene photos and a recreation of the actual murder through VR because VR's immersive nature could improperly sway decision-makers through emotional impact rather than factual merit.

As judges, we must prepare for VR's expanding role in our courtrooms. The next wave might include VR depositions, virtual crime scene visits, or interactive accident reconstructions. Each new application will require us to carefully balance technological innovation with fundamental fairness. We might soon see attorneys requesting to call accident reconstruction experts who offer jurors the ability to "step into" different positions at a crash site through a VR presentation. These developments could enhance understanding of complex evidence, but they will also raise new questions about authenticity, reliability, and the preservation of traditional procedural safeguards.

A Pivotal Moment: Charting the Course Ahead

This landmark case also highlights the critical role of trial court judges, who serve as the gatekeepers. Judges like Andrew Siegel are tasked with making quick decisions about new technologies every day now while ensuring fairness and due process. Their ability to adapt to innovation without sacrificing the integrity of the evidence being presented is vital to the evolution of our justice system.

As VR and other immersive technologies become more prevalent, the legal community must remain vigilant. While these tools offer exciting opportunities to enhance understanding, they also pose unique risks that must be carefully managed. We must establish clear guidelines for the creation, validation, and presentation of VR evidence, and develop training programs for judges and lawyers.

Whether we're looking at a foam board or through a VR headset, the courtroom's mission remains the same: to uncover the truth while safeguarding the rights of all parties. With thoughtful consideration and careful application of existing legal frameworks, we can ensure that technology serves justice rather than undermining it. We stand at a pivotal moment in the evolution of our legal system, and the choices we make today will shape the future of the courtroom for generations to come.

For more posts like this visit JudgeSchlegel.com.