{"id":532,"date":"2012-06-16T17:17:57","date_gmt":"2012-06-16T17:17:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/\/?p=532"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:54:27","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:54:27","slug":"lorraine-v-markel-an-authoritative-opinion-sets-the-bar-for-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-except-for-computer-animations-and-simulations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/articles\/lorraine-v-markel-an-authoritative-opinion-sets-the-bar-for-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-except-for-computer-animations-and-simulations\/","title":{"rendered":"Lorraine v. Markel: An Authoritative Opinion Sets the Bar for Admissibility of Electronic Evidence (Except for Computer Animations and Simulations)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>Lorraine v. Markel<\/em> may have a profound impact on the world of electronic evidence admissibility for its guidance to lawyers, but in the area of computer animations and simulations, it carries a mixed message. The opinion takes a progressive approach to the unfair prejudice standard, granting broad discretion to courts to admit computer animation and simulation into evidence. However, the opinion takes a conservative approach to the treatment of computer simulations as scientific evidence. Lorraine\u2019s real effect is yet to be seen, but its on-the-fence approach to computer animations and simulations may cause confusion. Lawyers should therefore use extra caution in meeting all relevant standards when introducing these forms of evidence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Lorraine v. Markel may have a profound impact on the world of electronic evidence admissibility for its guidance to lawyers, but in the area of computer animations and simulations, it carries a mixed message. The opinion takes a progressive approach to the unfair prejudice standard, granting broad discretion to courts to admit computer animation and <a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/articles\/lorraine-v-markel-an-authoritative-opinion-sets-the-bar-for-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-except-for-computer-animations-and-simulations\/\" class=\"more-link\">&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,25,28],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/532"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=532"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/532\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7822,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/532\/revisions\/7822"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=532"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=532"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=532"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}