STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING COMPUTER ANIMATION

Transcription

1 e IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, 18th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CFA STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, Defendant / STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING COMPUTER ANIMATION The State of Florida, by and through the undersigned Assistant State Attorney, hereby moves this Honorable Court for an Order governing forthcoming trial proceedings in the instant case. In support of the instant Motion, the State submits the following: (1) On June 21, 2013, Defendant scheduled the deposition of a recently-disclosed defense expert witness. During that deposition, the witness (for the first time) indicated that he had prepared, and intended to testify regarding, a computeranimated "reenactment" of some purported events in reference to the above-captioned case. On July 2, 2013, the deposition ofthis witness was completed. Less than thirty (30) minutes prior, Defendant furnished additional still-frame captures from the animation, and a few hours earlier, a second, newly-generated animation.

2 e (2) Initially, the State would request the court conduct a hearing related to the violation of Defendant's reciprocal discovery violation by virtue of the late disclosure of this proposed exhibit, by a late-disclosed witness who did not author any report or similar document. (3) Further, the State would request that the Court prohibit mention of during trial of any such exhibit, including the display of such an item as a demonstrative exhibit. Under Florida law, in order to admit a demonstrative exhibit, illustrating an expert's opinion, such as a computer animation, the proponent must establish the foundation requirements necessary to introduce the expert opinion. Specifically, (1) the opinion evidence must be helpful to the trier of fact; (2) the witness must be qualified as an expert; (3) the opinion evidence must be applied to evidence offered at trial; and (4) pursuant to section , Florida Statutes, the evidence, although technically relevant, must not present a substantial danger of unfair prejudice that outweighs its probative value. Kruse v. State, 483 So.2d 1383, l384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), cause dismissed, 507 So.2d 588 (Fla.1987). Further, the proponent must establish that the facts or data on which the expert relied in forming the opinion expressed by the computer animation are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the subject area.... Finally, the computer animation must be a fair and accurate depiction of that which it purports to be. This is, of course, the same foundation that must be established to admit any pictorial representation, be it videotape, motion picture, or photograph. Pierce v. State, 718 So. 2d 806, 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). (4) The item in question has not been examined at any pretrial hearing (as the Pierce court had done), nor does it represent a complete or accurate record of the evidence upon which it is required to be based. The State would be irremediably prejudiced by the injection of such speculative and irrelevant evidence. (5) For example (the following list is non-exhaustive), the animation:

3 ...::: e a. Artificially depicts lighting conditions which the witness admitted bear absolutely no resemblance to the actual conditions; in fact, no attempt whatsoever was made to account for lighting. b. Relies in part upon statements in police reports, some of which were in fact contrary to testimony repeated by the same witness in court, and wholly fails to include statements from other witnesses of a contradictory nature; c. Purports to depict the murder committed by Defendant in the instant case but deliberately fails to show or even symbolize the murder weapon; in fact, the witness testified that he deliberately omitted any depiction of the firearm in question at the direction of defense counsel. d. Depicts the angle of two figures struggling, the percentage of the figures in certain locations such as a sidewalk, the number of blows being depicted, the angles and reactions to those blows, the behavior of the figure representing Victim after the fatal gunshot was inflicted by Defendant, and the position of one body relative to another based completely on "approximations" made by the witness; e. Is based upon data collected when the witness journeyed to the scene of the murder and instructed two unnamed employees of Defendant's law firm to don "motion capture" suits while the witness directed them where to position themselves and what actions to take, again based upon the aforementioned approximations;

4 - f. Purports to correlate certain actions occurring during the animation with particular portions of 911 calls, and overlays the animation with audio from those calls, without any foundation for such speculation; g. Premises the location of two struggling figures on the location of a shell casing, which the witness assumed (without knowing the type of firearm or having any expertise in ballistics) was ejected to the right of the firearm; assumed (without foundation) ejected a particular distance and direction from the firearm; and assumed that the figures arrived in their initial position from which the shot was fired without having any idea how that arrival occurred. h. Purports to show the location of a witness at a specific point on a patio, which the witness admitted was an assumed perspective; i. The witness admitted that the exhibit was created only using items provided by defense counsel and that he had "no idea" whether there might be additional evidence, statements, or items bearing on the accuracy of the depiction; nor did the witness make any such inquiry. J. The witness changed the location of the figures in the animation, as well as their orientation, based upon what defense counsel relayed to him about what a witness said in court; k. The animation purports to depict Victim as being left-handed; without factual basis;

5 .:.-~ (4) In addition, any such references would be far more prejudicial and confusing to the jury than warranted by their limited probative value of the issues in the instant case. WHEREFORE, the state requests this Honorable Court prohibit mention by counselor Defendant in any form of the above-referenced matters. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ido certify that a copy hereof has been furnished to, Attorney for Defendant, by MMt this 2. day of j v "-t Z()13 tfrblj) L~~ Richard W. Mantei, Assistant State Attorney 114Z(ft,