3D printed evidence has been used for presentation of evidence to Juries pertaining to criminal matters. 3D printing technology has been used to create foot print impressions, enlarged 3D fingerprints, and even inspect internal injuries caused by bullets and stabbing. Therefore, it is not a technology that is not totally unfamiliar in Court Rooms.
It may not be a technology that is commonly used in court rooms at this time, but it certainly should. The information provided by 3D printed evidence is extremely accurate. Indeed, it is more accurate than any other sort of demonstrative or even substantive evidence pertaining to injuries. That is because 3D prints of injuries are based on data coming from scientifically established technologies like MRIs. However, a 3D printed injury is much more accurate than a blow up of an MRI still or X-ray. A 3D printed injury presents layers of complex data that cannot be represented by a simple still picture. It’s as close as one can get to injury without needing to perform surgery.
This technology is so accurate that it being used by cardiologist and cardiac surgeons to treat patients with complex heart issues. Certainly, if this technology can be relied on by cardiac surgeon, then it should be sufficient for a Jury to evaluate and consider as evidence. Some argue that Federal Rule of Evidence 403 may bring a challenge:
“Perhaps more importantly, Federal Rule of Evidence 403 and its state-level counterparts may create evidentiary challenges. For example, in Commonwealth v. Serge the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania encountered a challenge to the use of a computer-generated animation used at trial to depict the prosecution’s theory of the fatal shooting. 586 Pa. 671. According to the defendant/appellant, the cost of creating the animation and its use of a combat-style crouch were unfairly prejudicial.”
Challenges to 3D printed exhibits could be made, but will most likely fall short. This can be seen in the above example where a 3D simulation is let in. Note that 3D printed injury is not a simulation, but an exact representation of an individual’s anatomy.
It is hard to argue that this evidence is prejudicial when physicians are using it to the benefits of patients. By the same token, 3D printed evidence of injuries can assist a Jury better understand injuries. It may be simpler for a jury to understand a physical object, then to comprehend a confusing blown up image on a cardboard.
In Florida it is required that a demonstrative exhibit, “constitute an accurate and reasonable reproduction of the objects or matters involved in the actual case.” Brown v. State of Florida, 557 So. 2D 527 (FLA 1st DCA 1989). Certainly, this standard has to be met by a 3D printed images that are created using accurate data derived from tried technologies like MRI’s and CT-scans.
3D printed evidence is extremely accurate and will help get your point across to a Jury. We are here to assist with your 3D printed injury evidence needs.