© Joseph L. Chernicoff, CST
The idea behind demonstrative evidence is that the target audience - in this case, the trier of fact and/or adversary attorney- easily understands the information presented. That data should be incontrovertible; the material presented then stands firmly on its own legs. I would imagine that everyone is aware that the truth of facts is questionable. A witness makes an initial statement to the police following the incident, then modifies or rebuts that statement at deposition or in court many months later, thereby making opposites of those "accurate facts" possible. However, when a fact is presented based upon a demonstrable opinion, then the chance of rebutting that data is greatly reduced. Thus the roles of forensic photographer, videographer, and expert.
There is a symbiotic relationship between still photography and motion photography, i.e., video. The photo can be made into a movie; the video frame can become a photo. The photo can be integrated into the video presentation, either with its original print data, or enhanced for demonstrative purposes. Both the still photo and video frame can be incorporated into a hard copy print format. Both can be transmitted via e-mail, can be shown over the Internet, or delivered via floppy disk. The question, therefore, is not necessarily what media should be used, but more importantly, what is the objective of the photograph or video.
Every photograph or video which will be used in the production of an evidentiary exhibit has to be made with an objective in mind. Bear in mind that I am writing from the perspective of a security consultant/expert; the needs in this area of expertise are or may be somewhat different than for medical or product liability issues, for example. Notwithstanding those differences, knowing how the photograph or video is to be used should affect just what and how the pictures are to be shot.
Photographers and videographers working for clients using experts should know whether or not that expert will be making use of the finished product. If that is the case, the photographer/videographer should confer with the expert, who, hopefully, will explain what is needed. Although I will often do the photography or video work for my clients, it is not unusual for the attorney to have his or her investigator provide the incident scene photos.
Too often, the resulting work is unusable for my purposes (report/opinion writing, exhibits), and I then have to confer with the investigator, laying out a detailed description of what photographs or video scenes I need. Additionally, too many investigators do not have the skills necessary for shooting good videos, so some of my time is spent in reviewing the basics with them. The major reason the original work is not acceptable is that the investigator does not understand what my objective is as the client's security expert. Remember, the final product serves to enhance the testimony of a witness-in this case, the expert-and therefore must be presented as the work of, or under the direction of, the testifying witness.