Originally Posted by Ataturk
Is there a specific rule that applies?
Like retro said, if this was a reenactment expert in an area where expertise would benefit the jury, that'd be one thing--he could use the animation to explain or illustrate his findings. But this guy's only expertise seems to be at making animations. If they had shown the video to the pathologist and he'd said it was consistent with his findings, that'd be another story.
FRE 702 and 703 generally.
I didn't watch all 6 hours of argument last night but my understanding was that the defense was going to use Dr. DiMaio to validate the animation as consistent with the forensic examination of the wounds and photographs. The animation guy would just have to testify that he created the animation, he wouldn't be the expert, Dr. DiMaio would be.
EDIT - And again, the video would almost never come in as substantive evidence, merely as demonstrative evidence of an expert's opinion.
FURTHER EDIT - And this also assumes FLA follows the Federal Rules of Evidence to some degree, which I haven't looked too deeply into. It's entirely possible that the same state that accidentally banned all cell phones and computers has some cocked-up rules of evidence that don't make any sense.