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
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
called ―Ghost‖ videos—
constitute undulyprejudicial evidence. Fifth, the sixth video
—the ―Pisani view‖ video—
constitutes a needlesspresentation of cumulative evidence.
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
(3dEd. 2001) § 11. 1, pp. 796-
State v. Swinton
, supra, 268 Conn. 781, 802