By Jordan Bigda
During the summer of 2016, augmented reality (AR) suddenly became a household term with the development and unprecedented popularity of the game Pokémon Go, in which players use the cameras on their cell phones to see and interact with a virtual world invaded by Pokémon characters. AR is defined as, “a composite, or false view of the world created by computer-generated images, in real time.” (Jennifer Shore, Where Did Augmented Reality Come From?, MASHABLE, http://mashable.com/2012/09/24/augmented-reality/#kalX5XjjZPqi). Although AR may seem too many like a revolutionary new concept, it has actually been a functioning tool since the first AR device was produced in 1968. An Associate Professor at Harvard, Ivan Sutherland, created the first AR, The Sword of Damocles, and the application was envisioned as being used for trainings in medicine, manufacturing, and other high tech sectors. It was not until 2000 that the idea of using AR in video game applications became a mainstream idea.
With the advent of AR, courts have been left with dozens of decisions involving safety and the rights of people who choose to use AR as a source of entertainment. Undoubtedly, we have all seen the constant stream of tragic stories as people throughout the world have been injured, robbed, and emotionally scarred using AR technology and specifically, Pokémon Go. Surely, courts and legislators will make tough decisions that will affect the future of AR. However, a lesser-known controversy currently unraveling in the court system is the direct use of AR in the courtroom.
At face value, the application of AR in the trial process is fairly simple, jurors put on a headset and see what the lawyer wants them to see. This could include transporting the jury to the crime scene and walking them through the evidence, viewing exhibits, viewing animations that allow them actually to see an expert’s recreation of the events in question, or even animating live parts of the body for medical testimony. These uses will bring evidence to life and make the trial process more immersive than ever before. (Litigation In Virtual And Augmented Reality, RCO LAW (July 8, 2015)).
More unexpected applications could include using AR to allow witnesses, who would be impossible to transport to the trial, testify in real time, while the jurors watch their reactions. Additionally, some experts even think we may see AR applications allowing jurors who otherwise would be excluded due to medical or physical limitations as being able to enter the legal process by allowing them to be jurors from a remote location and use this technology to participate.
AR adds a completely new level of reality to the normally detached experience a juror goes through at trial and it has the potential to be extremely effective, but it also has the potential to distract jurors from the facts of the case. Courts need to head the lesson provided in the embarrassment of People v. Collins, in which a court allowed a DA to admit botched statistics into a robbery trail, which resulted in a conviction and eventually an acquittal of two defendants. Courts and lawyers need to be conservative to test the water and admissibility of AR applications in the courtroom. New technology is exciting and lawyers should embrace the opportunity to create better-informed jurors, but be careful not to mislead and overstate, or distract from what really matters, the facts of the case.
AR would be a big jump in what courts across the country are using in terms of technology. In general, the use of technology in the courtroom has been a very slow start compared to other professions and practices. However, courts are moving towards incorporating more and more technology, especially in trial presentation. Courts should be receptive to new and emerging technology because “it streamlines trial presentation and presents information in a format that jurors are more receptive to.” (Nicole Black, Today’s Tech: Trial Technology In The Classroom And Courtroom, ABOVE THE LAW, (Apr 21, 2016)).
Massachusetts has been particularly slow in incorporating technology in the courtroom. One of the more recent technological changes seen in Massachusetts has been the yearlong switch to a new digital recording system, which eliminates the need for a court reporter in every courtroom. This change began at the start of 2016 and continues to be implemented until “455 courtrooms in 100 courthouses” has this technology. (Michael Levenson, Objections Raised As Courtrooms Go Digital, BOSTON GLOBE (Jan. 2, 2016)). However, Massachusetts courts are trying to improve this downfall in its tech-savvy nature.
The Massachusetts Court Technology Visiting Committee met in 2016 to propose its Strategic Plan 2.0 to be implemented over the next three to five years to incorporate more technology in its courts. This plan pushes Massachusetts courts “toward real time, paperless, user centric and seamless administration of justice.” (Anne Margulies, et. al., Report of The Massachusetts Court Technology Visiting Committee, HARV. UNIV. INFO. TECH. (2016)). The committee stresses its urgency in making these changes, but notes that it is simply unfeasible in the immediate future due to lack of funding. For Massachusetts, we will see some changes in improving technologies, but the change will not likely be drastic. Unfortunately, this means that the implementation of AR in Massachusetts’ courtrooms is not likely anytime soon, but hopefully at some point in the future Massachusetts lawyers, juries, and court personnel will be able to utilize this exciting and innovative technology in trials.
Student Bio: Jordan is a staff member on the Journal of High Technology Law and a current second year law student at Suffolk University Law School.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.
