Thanks for the link! The video animation issue is fascinating and the Murtha example is great.

I must say that if I’d brought the case I would have focused the jury’s attention on the officer’s feet at the critical moments. Isolating this dynamic one sees him clearly move toward the path of the vehicle, not away from it. In other words, he does the exact opposite of what a person fearing that he is about to be hit would do. (On a somewhat related note, Dr. Paul Morris at the University of Portsmouth has done some interesting work on real and feigned fouls in soccer (see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090915202242.htm). When a soccer player is actually tripped, his arms go down to cushion the fall or are thrust to the side to provide balance; a player feigning a trip, throws his arms up in the air with open pals and bends his legs at the knee. Just like Chelsea striker Didier Drogba’s “archer’s bow” dive, Officer Murtha’s body language gives him away.)

Following the article, three experienced trial consultants specializing in visual evidence talk about why this particular video is flawed/biased and how they would do it differently OR damage the credibility of the video/animation in the eyes of the jurors. Worth a read. See the article at: http://www.astcweb.org/public/publication/article.cfm/1/22/1/Law-on-Display

Rita Handrich, Editor
The Jury Expert