Demonstrative evidence involves the use of evidence that offers a physical illustration of a fact in a case (Howard & Barnum, 2015 ). Therefore, demonstrative evidence is derived from expert opinion and helps clarify facts to the judge and jury to enable them to gain an in-depth understanding of a crime (Joseph, 2018 ). Demonstrative evidence act as "aids" to help jurors memorize the evidence presented ( Gardner & Anderson, 2015). Therefore, a judge has the liberty to exclude such evidence if they would be more prejudicial to the jury than helpful. The aspects of demonstrative evidence that will be discussed include the existing types, effective use, and importance.
The commonly used types of demonstrative evidence include charts, photographs, or models. Chats include graphs and diagrams used to summarize major points or key facts. Charts are usually used by witnesses during an opening statement to explain, illustrate, and supplement their oral testimony (Jones & Kovera, 2015). Models, on the other hand, are used to make an expert's testimony to be more intelligible to the jury. For instance, skeletal and anatomical models used by experts to present medical testimony to the jury. Photographs may include pictures of victims or crime scenes before and after a crime has been committed ( Vatrapu et al., 2015) . Demonstrative evidence can be effectively used by combining it with verbal testimony. Demonstrative evidence is also be rendered appropriate if it is a relevant and accurate reproduction of the object involved. It is also crucial for the evidence to outweigh any possible prejudicial effect likely to arise from its presentation. Demonstrative evidence provides visual stimulation, thereby making the brain to prove visual evidence faster, interestingly provides information, and simplifies and clarifies issues and facts. Strategies for effective use of demonstrative evidence include the installation of TVs and DVDs in the courtroom. Teleconferencing is another innovation of demonstrative evidence that could help solve cases quickly. The outline section of the topic will have the following components: topic name, the definition of terminologies, history of demonstrative evidence, current strategies, and current and pending advancements and innovations. Other items in the outline are the “recommended advancements and innovation, the justification for recommendations, plausibility, and logistics of the implementation of recommendations and anticipated impact of the implementation of recommendations regarding the collection and utilization of criminal evidence in the criminal justice system.” While discussing the subtopics listed in the outline, constitutional amendments, exclusion of admissible and inadmissible evidence will also be incorporated. The discussion will also factor the existing variations in the collection of criminal evidence due to the crime location. Finally, a reference section comprising of ten relevant and up-to-date scholarly peer-reviewed materials will be provided and cited in APA format. The topic name for this assignment is the relevance of demonstrative evidence to the strategies, advancements, and innovations in criminal justice. Key terms that will be used throughout the assignment include a trial, real evidence, demonstrative evidence, and a jury. Demonstrative evidence refers to evidence that offers a physical illustration of a fact presented in a courtroom (Cappellino, 2020) . A trial is a process where all facts relating to a case are presented to a jury for hearing. Real evidence refers to physical material or object introduced as evidence in litigation matters (De Sa & Amarshi, 2017 ). A jury refers to a body of people appointed to render an impartial verdict or set a penalty in a court of law. The use of demonstrative was introduced in the 1960s by Melvin Belli and Earl Rogers. Before then, lawyers only relied on the use of pure testimonial or substantive evidence. However, for demonstrative evidence has to be relevant before it is accepted in court ( Jones & Kovera, 2015. ) The court should first mark the evidence for identification purposes before it is included in the official record of a case (Chapman, 2015) . The next step that follows after the evidence is marked for identification is laying a foundation to establish the authenticity of the demonstrative evidence. Current strategies of demonstrative evidence used in courtrooms include the installation of television sets and DVD players were in watching evidence related videos. The use of demonstrative evidence is evolving, and there is a possibility that courts will begin using teleconferencing services to access evidence from investigators who are far away to access court sessions. The court should also allow the manipulation of demonstrative evidence provided to develop simulations and animations to enhance the effective interpretation of the evidence presented ( Webster & Bourn III, 2016) . The use of 3D printed models in place of the originals should also be increasingly accepted. 3D printed models will help solve problems of damaging sensitive objects used as evidence due to improper handling by jury or judge (Baier et al., 2018) . Simulations and animations help solve real-world problems safely by providing a method of analysis that is easily verified, communicated, and understood. Implementation of the above recommendations should not be challenging because demonstrative evidence is handled and prepared by experts who possess technical knowhow to design animations, 3D printed models, and simulations (Webster & Bourn III, 2016) . All that is needed is a laptop and computer program to edit the features in the simulations and animations. Provided the recommendations are relevant, factual, and authenticated adequately before being admitted into evidence, they would have observed all the requirements stipulated in the amendments of the constitution relating to admissible and inadmissible evidence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
References
Baier, W., Warnett, J. M., Payne, M., & Williams, M. A. (2018). Introducing 3D printed models as demonstrative evidence at criminal trials. Journal of forensic sciences , 63 (4), 1298-1302.
Cappellino, A. (2020). Demonstrative Evidence: How It Can Help Expert Testimony . Expert Institute. Retrieved 24 April 2020, from https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/demonstrative-evidence-how-it-can-help-expert-testimony/ .
Chapman, N. S. (2015). The Jury's Constitutional Judgment. Ala. L. Rev. , 67 , 189.
De Sa, C., & Amarshi, H. (2017). Reconsidering Calder: Re-Evaluating the Rule of Absolute Exclusion in the Context of Real Evidence. Available at SSRN 3013748 .
Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2015). Criminal evidence: Principles and cases . Nelson Education.
Howard, M. A., & Barnum, J. C. (2015). Bringing demonstrative evidence in from the cold: The academy's role in developing model rules. Temp. L. Rev. , 88 , 513.
Jones, A. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2015). A demonstrative helps opposing expert testimony sensitize jurors to the validity of scientific evidence. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice , 15 (5), 401-422.
Joseph, G. P. (2018). Modern visual evidence . Law Journal Press.
Vatrapu, R., Hussain, A., Lassen, N. B., Mukkamala, R. R., Flesch, B., & Madsen, R. (2015, July). Social set analysis: four demonstrative case studies. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Social Media & Society (pp. 1-9).
Webster, V., & Bourn III, F. E. (2016). The Use of Computer-Generated Animations and Simulations at Trial. Def. Counsel, J. , 83 , 439.
