Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Defense Seeks to Exclude Computer Simulation

Defense Seeks to Exclude Computer Simulation

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6,128 |Likes:
Published by Brian Mccready

More info:

Published by: Brian Mccready on Sep 07, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/20/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
D
OCUMENT
1
   L   Y   N   C   H
 ,
   T   R   A   U   B
 ,
   K   E   E   F   E    A   N   D    E   R   R   A   N   T   E
 ,
   P
 .
   C
 .
 
  -
 
DOCKET NO. AAN-CR09-00140703-T : SUPERIOR COURTAAN-MV09-0314416-TSTATE OF CONNECTICUT : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OFANSONIA-MILFORDV. : AT MILFORD JASON ANDERSON : AUGUST 31, 2012
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE
#1 RE:
STATE’S COMPUTER ANIMATION
 
Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book § 15-3, the defendant, Jason Anderson, herebymoves to preclude the admission of all nine computer simulation videos on the grounds that itis: hearsay evidence, unfairly prejudicial and needlessly cumulative.
1
 
I. Factual Background
In the early morning of June 13, 2009, the defendant was operating a motor vehicle thatcollided with a motor vehicle being operated by David Servin. The defendant, a Milford policeofficer, was operating a police cruiser at the time of the collision. Mr. Servin was operating a2008 Mazda. Both Mr. Servin and the passenger in his vehicle, Ashlie Krakowski, died from
1
 
The defendant hereby reserves his right to challenge the State‘s witnesses as to the blatant lack of a proper
foundation for the admission of demonstrative evidence.
 
 
D
OCUMENT
1
2
   L   Y   N   C   H
 ,
   T   R   A   U   B
 ,
   K   E   E   F   E    A   N   D    E   R   R   A   N   T   E
 ,
   P
 .
   C
 .
 
  -
 
injuries sustained as a result of the accident. As a result of the accident, the defendant wasarrested and charged Manslaughter in the First Degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55(a) (3).On August 13, 2012, the state requested the court to allow it to offer a computersimulation of the motor vehicle accident as demonstrative evidence. The intended animationconsists of nine separate videos
each of a different angle
of the same accident and twoseparate text boxes.
2
 
The first video is titled ―Overall view facing northerly.‖ The second videois titled ―Overall view facing easterly.‖ The third video is titled ―Fly over view from east.‖ Thefourth video is titled ―Servin view.‖ The fifth video is titled ―Anderson view.‖ The sixth videois titled ―Pisani view.‖ The seventh, eighth and ninth videos are not individually titled, but areintroduced by a text box as ―Ghost‖ or ―What
-
if‖ scenarios. All nine videos and both text boxes
are inadmissible under Connecticut law and should be excluded from evidence.
II. Legal Argument
The videos should be excluded from evidence for several reasons. First, all of the videos
constitute hearsay evidence under the Supreme Court‘s decision in
State v. Swinton
, 268 Conn.
2
It should be noted here that the state intends to offer this animation in addition to
actual
real-time video of theaccident taken from a camera attached to a police vehicle
(―cruiser
-
cam video‖)
.
 
 
D
OCUMENT
1
3
   L   Y   N   C   H
 ,
   T   R   A   U   B
 ,
   K   E   E   F   E    A   N   D    E   R   R   A   N   T   E
 ,
   P
 .
   C
 .
 
  -
 
781, 847 A.2d 921 (2004). Second, because all of the videos are animations of a real video thatmay also be offered into evidence, their probative value is very low, and their prejudicial valueoutweighs it. Third, all of the videos constitute a needless presentation of cumulative evidence.Fourth, the seventh, eighth and ninth videos
the so-
called ―Ghost‖ videos—
constitute undulyprejudicial evidence. Fifth, the sixth video
—the ―Pisani view‖ video—
constitutes a needlesspresentation of cumulative evidence.
A.
 
All of the videos are hearsay and should be excluded
The court should exclude all of the videos and both text boxes on the grounds that theyconstitute hearsay evidence. Unlike some other jurisdictions, in Connecticut, computergenerated reconstructive animation is considered substantive evidence.
―[T]hese items wereadmitted as evidence, and as such, constitute demonstrative evidence. ‗Demonstrative evidence
is a pictorial or representational communication incorporated into a witness's testimony. . . .However, demonstrative evidence is not merely 'illustrative'; it is just as much substantiveevidence of the facts it depicts or portrays as is real or testimonial evidence.
Tarquinio v. Diglio
,
175 Conn. 97, 98, 394 A.2d 198 (1978).‘ (Citatio
n omitted.) [C. Tait, C
ONNECTICUT
E
VIDENCE
(3dEd. 2001) § 11. 1, pp. 796-
97].‖
(Emphasis added.)
State v. Swinton
, supra, 268 Conn. 781, 802

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->