By George S. Pearl
  In this highly technical world of demonstrative evidence production where many trial lawyers are using video and animations in an attempt to get their message to the jury, an advocate should give serious consideration to the use of a scale model.
   There are three forms of courtroom models. They may either be static, active or interactive. Static models are the simplest type of model and are not designed to have moving parts. Static models merely illustrate whatever they are designed to depict. Scale models that are active may move under their own power (i.e., electrically, air driven, wind-up, etc.). For courtroom use one of the best methods for showing movements in an active model is people power. This allows the demonstrator to push or move the parts at the desired speed and control. Interactive models are the most complex because these type litigation models have two or more parts, which interact with each other and/or the person exhibiting the model to the court and jury. Each of these three types of models is adapted to different types of cases and the static models may be equally as effective when correctly employed as the more sophisticated active or interactive variety.

The Case For Using Models
   Models for use in litigation, unlike animations, can in some cases cost only a nominal sum. Understandably, in more involved cases applying active and interactive models the cost will be considerably higher. In a recent case where a little girl fell from a bicycle, impaling her left eye into a hose-bib water faucet stem, the model was made for a very low cost. In that case, the apartment manager had removed the knob from the faucet so that no one could get free water. The model of that faucet stem sticking out of a concrete block was visible on the attorney’s table throughout trial. Although the cost was nominal, this simple model was highly effective.
   One of the best things that a scale model can accomplish in a civil trial is to instantly demonstrate how one area of one object could have made contact or caused damage to another object or person, thus injuring someone. These type models are commonly employed in electrocution cases.
   Models can be used to impeach the credit ability of a witness who has a ”theory” which when demonstrated with scale models just doesn’t physically fit! For example, in a recent case against a hospital, a scale model was made showing the whole hospital and surrounding parking lots to demonstrate the lack of an adequate helicopter landing pad due to the obstruction of trees, light poles and a huge antenna on top of the hospital. With use of a scale model, witnesses were able to show the flight path and how the helicopter hit a light pole on take off.
   Some years ago our firm made a Shiley 60 Degree Convex / Concave Heart Valve model for use in connection with class action litigation. The model was used over and over again in case after case, as well as on several television news documentaries. This was an active model with a moving disc part. After years of use, the attorney who purchased the model indicated that the model was going to be needing some refurbishing. When questioned as to what was going wrong with the model, he informed me that the same exact thing was happening to the big model as did to the actual heart valves involved in litigation. The retaining rods were starting to break off on the model the exact same way they did on the real heart valves. This was not an isolated occurrence, since a scale model is an exact replica of the original. The scale model may not be the same size or made out of the same type of materials as the original, but generally if there is a real engineering design flaw in the original, the same problem will often surface in the scale model.
   Often, a scale model can be employed to demonstrate both the nature of a design defect, and the design change needed to correct the defect causing injury. In a recent case involving a working log loader, a scale model was used to demonstrate how when a hydraulic line lost power to the loader arm a log could swing down and into the cab killing the operator. Also produced was an attachable safety cab guard to defect the log and demonstrate the simple cure for this obvious problem. The largest manufacturer of log loaders in the world now has cab guards on their loaders, which they saw on the scale model! The model was a focal point in the settlement conference resulting in a substantial award to the family.

Practice Pointers For Use Of Models At Trial
   Once a scale model is produced, in many cases it is useful to make a series of pictures of the model showing how the incident occurred. These photos can then be enlarged, mounted on a large foam board and numbered in sequence. This kind of procedure can be taken one step further and the models can actually come to life with stop motion animation. Depending on how natural the flow of the animation needs to be to get the particular point across, it is possible to have an animation of the event and the scale models for close to the same cost or less than the cost of an actual computer animation. The beauty of this logic is the layering / diversification of your demonstrative evidence. Rather than putting all your eggs in one basket with a computer animation, the lawyer will also have the scale models to use or fall back on if the animation were not admitted into evidence for some reason.
   Never infer, refer or call any courtroom or litigation model a ”TOY!” Aside from slighting the model maker, referring to the model as a ”toy” diminishes the credibility of this meticulously prepared exhibit. Models of this type must be and are built from the same type of plans as the real modeled object. The model maker is generally knowledgeable in mechanical drawing, engineering, dynamics, architectural design, codes and building procedures, mathematics, physical science, hydraulics, stress analysis, and other sciences to be able to produce precisely made-to-order models. Many times just explaining what you want built with an expert who constructs courtroom models will produce interesting results. The model maker may be able to give you practical insight for example, as to what part in a machine was incorrectly designed or constructed while engineers are still back at the initial review phase.
   Juries and Judges are usually very receptive to scale models. There should be a proper foundation laid as to the correctness of the model, the labor involved in its production, and the overall expense for its production. You want the court and jury to know that the model is unique and that the case is sufficiently important that the lawyer cared enough to have the very best model prepared. The model can help you to get that all-important point across to the jury. The model should be handled with due respect at all times during the trial as it will become a focal point to be used over and over again by witness after witness.

Conclusion
   Courtroom models are one of the best demonstrative evidence tools going. Generally speaking they can be used anytime and any place without any special monitors or other devices. Anytime a juror can touch something, study it from all angles, view it up close, and see it work or fail, they have a heightened understanding of the case at issue. There is both a power and convenience in scale models that can be used to your benefit in questioning witnesses, consulting with experts use in settlement conferences, video depositions and at trial. Because of their versatility and utility, models should be ordered in the early stages of a case so the lawyer and client can realize their full value and potential throughout the litigation process.

George Pearl, president of Atlanta based ALPS Evidence & Photo, is a certified evidence photographer and a fellow of the Evidence Photographers International Council and Certified Professional Photographer of the Professional Photographers of America. He is a Certified Questioned Document Examiner and Handwriting Expert with the Association of Forensic Document Examiners. He also serves as a Board member of the Demonstrative Evidence Specialist Association, dedicated to maintaining the highest standard in the production of demonstrative evidence.

* This article was first published in THE VERDICT of November / December of 1992.