Forensic Animation
The 21st Century Eyewitness

JOHN L. SUCHOCKI

Reprinted from National Trial Lawyer Magazine

Editor's Note: Animation is not designed to show why an event happened or whether a person is guilty, says Jack Suchocki, president of Eyewitness Animations. Rather, animation is designed to show how an event occurred. "The determination of guilt or innocence should be left to the judge or jury," he says. And such was the case concerning Kenneth Pierce, who was found guilty of a hit-and-run accident that left a six-year-old girl dead. "The purpose of the animation was not to prove that Pierce was the driver--just that the accident could, and did, happen," concludes Suchocki. The animation in the Pierce case cited in this article cost an estimated $5,000 to produce. Even though the prices continue to fall, Suchocki believes that animation services will continue to be provided by outside firms in order to maintain an objective view point in court.

That Fateful Night

It was a balmy warm evening with light rain falling, typical of South Florida in late June. School was out for summer recess, and like most six-year-old children Nicole Walker was spending most of her free time with friends. However, this evening was not typical for Nicole or her friends Joel Mansey, 12, his sister Brooke, 10, and twins Michele and Gina Vitello, 11.

Just after sunset the children began walking through a puddle along a suburban Ft. Lauderdale street on their way to Joel and Brooke's house. Suddenly, a 1980 Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck swerved into their path, through the puddle they were standing in, and struck the children--hitting three of the girls and leaving Nicole fatally injured. The Silverado then sped from the scene without anyone having seen the driver's face.

Four months later the driver was identified. Kenneth Pierce, whose extensive police record included DUI's, hit and-run, drug trafficking, and other charges, was arrested and charged with vehicular homicide, leaving the scene of a fatal accident, and tampering with evidence. At the time of the accident, Pierce's driver's license was under suspension due to a previous DUI charge.

The case of The State of Florida vs. Kenneth Pierce went to trial on March 8, 1993. Ironically, it would have been Nicole Rae Walker's seventh birthday.

Although tragic, this case is typical of many DUI cases that come before juries each year. What was not typical, however, was that the State of Florida was to enter as evidence a computer-generated re-enactment of this hit-and-run accident in its argument against Kenneth Pierce. Although computer-generated reenactments and simulations have been more commonly used in civil cases over the past few years, this was to be a case of prima facie for the Florida Criminal Courts.

On April 16, 1993, in a media-packed courtroom, Broward County Circuit Judge Mark A. Speiser sentenced Kenneth Pierce to 60 years in the state penitentiary. The testimony in this case coupled with the animation developed by Eyewitness Animations of Pompano Beach, FL., eventually convinced the jury that Pierce was guilty of all charges.

The Ultimate Becomes Affordable

As few as three years ago the cost of forensic animation was typically $1,500 to $3,000 per second, clearly prohibiting use in all but the most significant cases--usually aviation accidents with impressive awards at stake. Then came the introduction of the powerful Intel 486 microprocessor and software packages like Autodesk's 3D Studio, and suddenly the world of computer-generated animation changed forever. The same animation that had cost $3,000 per second on expensive graphic work stations and dedicated software could now be produced on less expensive PC platform computers and software for less than $150 per second. Additionally, these animations could now be produced in a third or less of the time with no loss in accuracy or quality.

Considering that today the reenactment of a typical automobile accident represents an investment somewhere between $3,000 to $7,000, it often makes logical economic sense to employ these visual aids in cases with as little as $50,000 at stake. Also, with this powerful presentation tool at a cost no more than that of an average expert, this technology is starting to show up in cost-conscious criminal courts as evidenced in the Pierce case. Affordability now also expands the use of this technology beyond the courtroom. Perhaps the greatest value and most effective application is in pre-trial negotiations where these compelling animations provoke a more reasonable settlement offer from the opposing party.

What is "Forensic Animation"?

Forensic animation is a technically accurate computer-generated visualization of a complex event. The presentation of that event can take one of three forms: demonstrative, where the animation is a visualization of an expert's opinion; a simulation, where a scenario representing what could have happened or should have happened is portrayed; and finally, a tutorial, whose purpose is to instruct or educate the jury on a procedure or scientific principle.

Forensic Animation Primer

Introduction

To understand the basic principles of animation we must first understand the physics of human vision, or perhaps even more important, the limitations.

The human eye can normally separate and decipher no more than 10 images per second. Beyond this limit the brain sees these discrete images as continuous motion. From 10 to approximately 16 images per second this motion or movement appears to flicker or seem jerky. Beyond 16 images per second this movement appears smooth and natural. For this reason motion pictures are typically displayed at 24 images per second while television and other forms of video recordings in the Unites States are shown at 30 images per second.

Each of these images is called a frame, and their rate of display is usually referred to as frames per second or "fps.'' For this discussion the important number is 30 fps since forensic animation is most often recorded and displayed on television monitors at this rate.

Production

It is probably appropriate to distinguish the difference between the two basic types of computer animation: 2-D and 3-D. Two-dimensional (2-D) animation is very much like the traditional cartoon we are all used to seeing and has normally been the realm of the graphic artist or cartoonist. Each frame or image is individually created or drawn in two dimensions. Three-dimensional (3-D) animation on the other hand is created in an actual computerized three dimensional world requiring greater technical skill. The creator of a 3-D animation need not be an artist in the traditional sense since the computer and software supplies all of the basic elements of the animation, such as simple shapes, colors, lights and cameras. Instead, the 3-D animator needs to take these basic tools and from them create accurately scaled complex three-dimensional objects. He then defines or programs the relationship of these elements and effects in a three dimensional world.

Once the animator creates and imports complex objects, such as human figures, automobiles and aircraft into the three dimensional world, he can then arrange them to accurately represent their spatial relationships as they will appear in the first frame of the animation. The animator has now formed the opening scene of the animation. With all the elements of the scene in place, he can now define the lighting characteristics with complete control and position the source of the lighting anywhere within the scene. General illumination or ambient lighting, as well as streetlights, headlights, room lighting, etc., can also be controlled. The intensity and dispersion of this lighting can be manipulated with absolute accuracy. With this kind of control at an animator's fingertips, the actual lighting conditions that may have existed during an event or accident can be reproduced with eerie accuracy. It is even possible to recreate the lighting conditions for a specific geographical location on a particular day of the year and time of day. Shading and shadows are automatically calculated and assigned to the objects within the scene by the computer.

With the scene now complete, and all of the objects in place for the beginning of the animation, the animator now turns to defining or programming the movement of the objects and lights within the scene. Motion can be created in several ways. The most common being keyframing, defined as a stored location and orientation of an object at a particular point in time, or more precisely a frame. For example, if an automobile is to be located at a particular location along a roadway at precisely two seconds into the animation, that position and orientation would be recorded by the computer on frame 60. Once the animator has established a series of keyframes, an interpolating curve or path is created through these points (refer to illustration below). After the path is created, an object can be constrained to move along this path. This process is repeated for each object, light and camera in the animation.

The next step for the animator is to select the perspective from which the animated scenario will be viewed. Since the scene exists within a three dimensional world, the animator can place the viewpoint, more commonly referred to as a camera, in any location with any perspective. Also, once the scene has been created and the movement of all the objects and lights have been programmed, the event can be viewed from several different perspectives. For example, an overhead view of an accident, can provide a clear understanding of the dynamics of the accident whereas a driver's view from one of the vehicles involved, or a view from the perspective of an eyewitness, can portray an entirely different perspective of the event. It is even possible to place a camera in a location that would be impractical or impossible in the real world. For instance a camera could be placed within an engine to show its internal components or the operational failure of one of those components.

Finally, environmental conditions that might restrict visibility such as fog, rain and snow may be added to complete the accuracy of the scene.

Take It To Tape

Once all of the objects, lights, cameras, effects and keyframes have been defined, the computer can then be instructed to begin the process of rendering (creating images) and taping. It is during this process that the three dimensional motion and model descriptions are converted into images and finally into animated sequences on videotape. Once programmed, the computer positions all of the objects and elements of the scene for the first frame of the animation sequence and then calculates the effective light and its characteristics, including reflectivity, shadows and shading, on each object in the scene. Once that single image has been created or rendered, which may take 15 minutes or longer, it is saved as a single frame on videotape or other video storage media. This process repeats itself over and over again until each frame of the animation has been calculated, rendered and saved on videotape. The process itself is called "single frame animation," and because of the regulated playback standard of 30 fps, it guarantees that the effects of time, speed and distance will be exact. Some animators transfer their animations to videotape via direct computer playback. However, these animations do not insure accuracy of time, speed or distance during playback due to their low frame rate (less than 15 fps), nor do they represent professional quality video.

Post Production

Post production is where the final editing is performed. This may be as simple as adding title and descriptive text screens to the animation, or as complex as editing in sequences of video footage and implementing advanced video special effects. Audio may also be added at this time if deemed appropriate. For example, in the reconstruction of an aviation accident, items such as CVR (cockpit voice recorder) tapes and Air Traffic control radio transcripts can be precisely synchronized into the animation.

Why Forensic Animation?

When presented with oral testimony each juror visualizes the presentation differently depending upon his educational background and life experiences. However, when presented with an animated visualization, each and every juror will now have exactly the same understanding and visualization of the event as described and intended by the expert.

Another common problem is that testimony offered by an expert is often highly technical and too difficult for the typical juror to clearly understand. The problem becomes even more profound when several experts from various technical fields are required to testify. For example, in an aviation case it may be necessary to call upon experts in the fields of aerodynamics, meteorology, metallurgy, and power plants. Any one of these areas of expertise would be difficult enough to understand by itself, but when a juror must bring these complex technical opinions together the challenge becomes almost insurmountable. A forensic animation can bring these separate opinions and testimonies together into one cohesive presentation, making each one understandable and consistent with the others.

While an animation can tremendously strengthen a case, it does have its limitations. It cannot make an unsupported or ill-prepared case into a winner. Also, as in any computer-generated product, the animation is only as accurate as the information upon which it is based. Therefore, the reliability of the data used in the re-enactment is crucial to both its admissibility and its effectiveness on the jury.

In the Pierce case, the animation was based completely on physical evidence found at the crime scene, eyewitness testimony and the opinions of the state's experts. The task of the forensic animation firm was to take those facts and opinions and translate them into a fair and accurate visualization of the event.

In Summary…

If your decision is to use forensic animation, these are a few of the things you should be aware of or consider:

Deal with a reputable forensic animation firm with professional facilities, experience and certified technical expertise.

Verify that the software and hardware used by that firm in the production of the animation is recognized as an industry standard in quality, acculacy and reliability. · Ensure that the animation is produced using the single frame animation process, since it's the only way to guarantee the accuracy of time, speed and/or distance.

To save valuable time, have your "experts" prepared and available to work with the forensic animator.

Allow a minimum of six to 12 weeks for the production of an animated reconstruction. The amount of time will depend upon complexity, detail and length.

It should be understood that in most cases, unless specifically designed to do so, a computer-generated forensic animation can only show "what happened" and not determine "why it happened."

Forensic animation is the beginning of the high-tech revolution taking place in the courtroom today.

Nicole Walker's Untimely Death

(Comments from Kenneth Padowitz, prosecutor in the Kenneth Pierce case)

She was six years old. Long platinum-blonde hair down her back. Little round glasses framed her face. On June 23, 1992, Nicole Rae Walker had her whole summer vacation ahead of her. She had her whole life ahead of her.

Kenneth Pierce had 20 prior convictions. Two separate prior convictions for hit-and-run. Burglaries, smuggling, conspiracy and DUl's among others. He had been in and out of jail and prison most of his life. On June 23, 1992, Pierce had been out on parole four days from a Florida prison when his 1980 blue Silverado pickup truck veered off S.W. 33rd Avenue and crashed into a garbage can, spewing garbage everywhere. Five minutes later, the blue Silverado came southbound careening into five children, leaving Nicole to die in a puddle.

No one could see who was driving. A month-long manhunt yielded the death truck. Paint chip analysis and vehicle parts would confirm it. Then came the confession to a mechanic who had attempted to fix the front grill. "You're the only one I could trust, buddy. I was drunk in that area. I hit a garbage can. I don't think I hit those kids."

When I reviewed this case for a filing decision, it was obvious my case against the driver was built mostly on circumstantial evidence and a confession. If I was going to have the likelihood of conviction at trial, I needed to tie in the defendant's confession of hitting the garbage can to the collision with the children. I needed to use something that hadn't been used before in a Florida criminal courtroom: computer animation.

In the courtroom during trial we attempt to recreate an event that has occurred in the past through physical and testimonial evidence. We attempt to recreate this event in the minds of the jury. Sometimes a jury recreates the full picture, visualizing the scene we attempted to paint, and sometimes they don't. What is revolutionary about computer animation evidence is that it recreates the picture of the events at issue from sometimes lengthy testimony and boils it down to seconds or minutes on video in the courtroom. The jury can then compare this computer animation picture to the one in their minds. It is the advocate's hope that these two pictures will become one and the same.

I determined that if I could convince the jury Kenneth Pierce was driving the truck when it hit the garbage can, then they would also believe he struck the children. A computer re-enactment would tie them together.

A three-minute computer animation was produced that depicted the truck striking the garbage can and then the children. Various angles showed different perspectives of the scene.

I set down a Motion in Limine on the admissibility of computer animation evidence prior to trial to allow the trial court to scrutinize the video outside the presence of the jury. The argument for admissibility was whether the animation shown came before the jury as substantive evidence or demonstrative evidence.

Diagrams and photographs have consistently been considered substantive evidence that can go back with the jury during deliberations.

Knowing that Florida courts have allowed maps and photographs in as substantive evidence, I began to formulate my argument for admissibility of computer animation. We all know that motion pictures are really just an illusion; the appearance of motion. Thousands of photographs are run at high speed to create the appearance of movement on the screen. My computer animation consisted of 3,200 maps run at high speed to animate or create the appearance of movement of the collision for the jury. If one or more maps could come in as substantive evidence at trial, why wouldn't 3,200 maps viewed in a matter of minutes at high speed also have the same evidentiary value?

Demonstrative evidence, on the other hand, demonstrates a witness testimony for the jury. The main requirements are that the evidence be relevant to the issues in the case and be reasonably exact replicas of the object involved.

A reasonably exact replica of the collision with the children required an accident reconstruction expert coupled with a computer animation expert. My accident reconstruction expert would bring it to life on the screen. Hence, my reasoning to the court was that if an expert witness can testify to his opinion as to the reconstruction of the deadly collision on June 23, 1992, and if the reconstruction expert testifies that the computer animation depicts his opinion as to how the collision occurred, then the video is merely a visualization of my accident reconstructionist's opinion, a substitution for a verbal description.

The computer animation was ruled admissible as demonstrative evidence at the pretrial hearing. At trial, the video was played for the jury on a large screen television. I knew as the jury watched the collision unfold before them that this evidence had a substantial impact. I knew I was watching the beginning of a revolution in the courtroom.