The primary relevance concern with computer-generated evidence for trial is Fed.R.Evid. 403, which confers broad discretion on the trial judge to exclude evidence on the grounds of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury. For example, a computer-generated exhibit, especially an animated re-creation or simulation, might make such a powerful impression on the trier of fact as to risk undue prejudice. A trial judge who admits a computer-generated exhibit over an Fed.R.Evid. 403 objection might give the jury a limiting instruction about the purpose for which the exhibit is admitted.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdfs:label
| |
rdfs:comment
| - The primary relevance concern with computer-generated evidence for trial is Fed.R.Evid. 403, which confers broad discretion on the trial judge to exclude evidence on the grounds of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury. For example, a computer-generated exhibit, especially an animated re-creation or simulation, might make such a powerful impression on the trier of fact as to risk undue prejudice. A trial judge who admits a computer-generated exhibit over an Fed.R.Evid. 403 objection might give the jury a limiting instruction about the purpose for which the exhibit is admitted.
|
sameAs
| |
dcterms:subject
| |
dbkwik:itlaw/prope...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
abstract
| - The primary relevance concern with computer-generated evidence for trial is Fed.R.Evid. 403, which confers broad discretion on the trial judge to exclude evidence on the grounds of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury. For example, a computer-generated exhibit, especially an animated re-creation or simulation, might make such a powerful impression on the trier of fact as to risk undue prejudice. A trial judge who admits a computer-generated exhibit over an Fed.R.Evid. 403 objection might give the jury a limiting instruction about the purpose for which the exhibit is admitted.
|