Visual Evidence

Abstract

photographs, drawings, maps, and models, has long been used in court to illustrate the oral testimony of eyewitnesses and experts (Mnookin, 1998).1 It has become increasingly prevalent in recent years, in large part because digital technology has made it easier to record or, in the case of computer animations, to recreate legally relevant reality visually (Feigenson & Spiesel, 2009). A dashboard camera video, for instance, provided the dispositive evidence in a recent Supreme Court decision on the police’s authority to use deadly force to terminate a car chase (Scott v. Harris, 2007),2 and a cell phone video will be critical should a lawsuit brought against a New York City police officer for assaulting a bicyclist proceed to trial (Weichselbaum, 2009).3 Although there have been efforts to document courtroom technology generally (e.g., Center for Legal and Court Technology, 2007) and to instruct judges and lawyers in its use (e.g., Federal Judicial Center/National Institute for Trial Advocacy, 2001), there have been relatively few experimental studies of the effects of visual and multimedia evidence in legal settings. As a consequence, little is known about when and how this kind of evidence affects legal decision making. A better understanding should be not only of intrinsic interest to cognitive psychologists but also extremely useful to the legal system, helping policy makers and judges to regulate the use of such evidence more wisely and informing advocates as they decide when and how to present it.