MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W36457722 · doi:10.5414/alx02333e

The Admissibility of Graphics and Presentations as Demonstrative Aids in Canadian Court Proceedings

2012· article· en· W36457722 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sean McKee, J. Michael Lawrie, Robin L. Reinertson, Nicole J. Henderson

Notice bibliographique

RevueDefense Counsel Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCriminal Law and Evidence
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésContext (archaeology)LawJuryDemonstrativeComputer sciencePsychologyPolitical scienceHistory

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This article originally appeared in the April 2012 Trial Techniques and Tactics Committee Newsletter. We are often asked by our international colleagues and clients what use, if any, can be made of computer graphics and presentations demonstrative aids during Canadian court proceedings. (2) The use of simple demonstrative aids (3) is becoming commonplace in Canadian trials. But even very recently, Canadian counsel may have advised that the use of computer graphics and presentations is unusual, and largely limited to criminal and complex personal injury cases. While this is a valid perception, it is our view that the traditional reluctance to use demonstrative aids in Canadian courtrooms outside of that context is no longer warranted. There is a sparse, yet expanding, body of case law that can be applied to support new and effective uses of computer graphics and presentations at trial. The growing complexity of litigation, combined with cases involving complex scientific, medical, financial and other technical issues, have led to a growing acceptance among the bench to innovative, electronic forms of organizing and presenting evidence and argument at trial. However, the movement towards increasing use of trial graphics and presentations has not changed the very formal nature of Canadian trial practice. All demonstrative aids are potentially subject to strict requirements to their admissibility and use, particularly in jury trials. (4) Counsel and clients from outside Canada should be aware of the nuances of this emerging area of Canadian law and practice, well the potential pitfalls, in order to maximize the power of graphics and presentations. Ultimately, counsel may not be able to simply import or use graphics or presentations from other jurisdictions as is, but may be able to use such aids with appropriate revisions for the Canadian context. In this article, we address the following issues: (1) the admissibility and use of graphics and presentations demonstrative aids, (2) presenting factual evidence using these types of demonstrative aids, (3) presenting expert evidence using these types of demonstrative aids, (4) the use of demonstrative aids in opening argument, and (5) the use of demonstrative aids in closing argument. 1. The Admissibility of Demonstrative Aids Demonstrative aids can be utilized in Canadian trials to present, illustrate, simplify or summarize other evidence. In order to be admissible, demonstrative aids must: 1. be relevant to the issues, 2. assist the trier of fact to better understand the evidence, and 3. have probative value that is not outweighed by the potential prejudicial effect. (5) Additionally, a proper evidentiary foundation must be established. There are some specific requirements for certain types of demonstrative aids (e.g. computer animated reconstructions), but generally, a demonstrative aid must be authenticated by a witness, either factual or expert, who can testify to the method of preparation of the aid, verify that the aid in question is a fair and accurate representation of what it purports to represent, and affirm that the aid was created without any intention to mislead. (6) In some circumstances, counsel may be able to have the demonstrative aid admitted into evidence a summary of other information or data already admitted evidence. (7) There is a significant difference in practice, if not in law, in the approach to demonstrative evidence in a judge-alone trial than in a jury trial. In a jury trial, the prejudicial effect and usefulness of the demonstrative aid are the primary, competing factors to be considered in determining whether to allow its use. More extensive scrutiny of the nature and preparation of the aid are warranted, because even a simple demonstrative aid, such a chart or a diagram, may give the evidence an aura of cogency which on close analysis it does not deserve. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,839
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,793

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,037
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,004
Communication savante0,0120,003
Science ouverte0,0030,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,4440,109

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,035
Tête enseignante GPT0,347
Écart entre enseignants0,313 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDefense Counsel JournalMême sujetCriminal Law and EvidenceTravaux en français237 207