Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 271–294 | Cite as

Can animations be safely used in court?

  • Ajit Narayanan
  • Sharon Hibbin

Abstract

As courts become increasingly technologically sophisticated, it can be expected that the use of the latest visualisation techniques will also increase to make the most of this technology. In particular, the use of computer-generated animations can be expected to become more dominant. There is, however, very little research into the effects of animated evidence on jurors and other members of the judicial process. This paper investigates whether there is a difference in the quality and robustness of memories formed by either hearing an oral testimony or seeing an animated version of it. Also, the paper investigates whether different opinions and attitudes are produced when testimony is presented as an animation as opposed to being verbally presented. Preliminary results reported here indicate that there is indeed a difference in attitude (and therefore potential bias) when animations are used instead of verbal testimony, but that this difference is only apparent in the long term (four weeks or more after the presentation of the animated evidence). The results point to the need for improved knowledge structures for mapping verbal testimony into animations, where issues of implicit knowledge and potential bias are explicitly referenced in the knowledge structure. The paper argues that, until and unless such issues are addressed, it is not safe to use animations in court except to present purely factual information.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baddeley, A. (1990). Human Memory-Theory and Practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Berkoff, A. T. (1994). Computer Simulations in Litigation. Marquette Law Review 77: 829-855.Google Scholar
  3. Borelli, M. (1996). The Computer as Advocate: An Approach to Computer-Generated Displays in the Courtroom. Indiana Law Journal 71. Available from http://www.law.indiana.edu/ilj/v71/no2/borelli.html.Google Scholar
  4. Casper, J. and Benedict (1993). The Influence of Outcome Information and Attitudes on Juror Decision Making in Search and Seizure Cases. In Hastie R. (ed.) Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making. Cambridge University Press, 65-83.Google Scholar
  5. Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ? Foresight: The Effect of Outcome Knowledge on Judgement Under Uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1: 288-299.Google Scholar
  6. Gillund, G. and Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Free Recall of Complex Pictures and Abstract Words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 20: 575-592.Google Scholar
  7. Goldstein, W. M. and Hogarth, R. M. (1997). Research on Judgements and Decision Making-Currents, Connections and Controversies. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Groger, J. A. (1997). Memory and Remembering-Everyday Memory in Context. Longman.Google Scholar
  9. Hant and O'Shanick, G. J. (1993). Forgetting Rates for Verbal, Pictorial and Figural Stimuli. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Psychology 15: 245-265.Google Scholar
  10. Hastie, R. (ed.) (1993). Inside the Juror-the Psychology of Juror Decision Making. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hawkins, S. A. and Hastie, R. (1990). Hindsight: Biased Judgements of Past Events after the Outcomes are Known. Psychological Bulletin 107: 311-327.Google Scholar
  12. Henderson, L. (1996). Lord Woolf and Information Technology. Information & Communications Technology Law 5(1): 45-56.Google Scholar
  13. Hibbin, S. (1999). The Use of Animations for Presenting Legal Evidence. MPhil Dissertation. Department of Computer Science, University of Exeter, UK.Google Scholar
  14. Hoey, A. (1996). Analysis of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act s.69-Computer Generated Evidence. Web Journal of Current Legal Issues. Available from http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/1996/issue1/hoey1/html.Google Scholar
  15. Houston, J. M., Joiner, C. L., Uddo, F., Harper, C. and Stroll, A. (1995). Computer Animation in Mock Juries' Decision Making. Psychological Reports 76: 987-993.Google Scholar
  16. Kaplan, M. F. and Miller, L. E. (1978). Reducing the Effects of Juror Bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology 36: 1443-1455.Google Scholar
  17. Kennedy, A. and Wilkes, A. (eds.) (1975). Studies in Long Term Memory. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  18. Kinnear, P. R. and Gray, C. D. (1999). SPSS for Windows Made Simple. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lederer, F. I. (1996). Technologically Augmented Litigation. Information & Communications Technology Law 5: 215-225.Google Scholar
  20. Loftus, E. F. and Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction. An Example of the Interaction between Language and Memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 13: 585-589.Google Scholar
  21. McKevitt, P. (1995). Artificial Intelligence Review (Ed.). 9, Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Narayanan, A., Ford, L., Manuel, D., Tallis, D. and Yazdani, M. (1994). Animating Language. Integration of Natural Language and Vision Processing: Workshop Notes. American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94) Workshop Programme, 55-65.Google Scholar
  23. Narayanan, A., Manuel, D., Ford, L., Tallis, D. and Yazdani, M. (1995). Language Visualisation: Applications and Theoretical Foundations of a Primitive-Based Approach. Artificial Intelligence Review 9(2-3): 215-235.Google Scholar
  24. Narayanan, A., Penny, G., Hibbin, S., Lochun, S. and Milne, W. (1999). On Using Animations in Court. Information & Communications Technology Law 8(2): 151-163.Google Scholar
  25. O'Flaherty, D. (1996). Computer-Generated Displays in the Courtroom: For Better or Worse? Web Journal of Current Legal Issues. Available from: http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/1996/issue4/oflah4.htmlGoogle Scholar
  26. Roediger, M. K. and McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating False Memories: Remembering Words that Were not Presented in Lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology; Learning, Memory and Cognition 21, 803-814.Google Scholar
  27. Schank, R. C. (1972). Conceptual Dependency: A Theory of Natural Language Understanding. Cognitive Psychology 3: 552-631.Google Scholar
  28. Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynamic Memory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Standing, L. (1973). Learning 10,000 Pictures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 25: 207-221.Google Scholar
  31. Widdison, R. (1997). Beyond Woolf: The Virtual Court House. Web Journal of Current Legal Issues. Available from http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/1997/issue2/widdison2.html.Google Scholar
  32. Woolf Report (1996). Access to Justice: Final Report. London: HMSO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ajit Narayanan
    • 1
  • Sharon Hibbin
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of ExeterExeterUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations