Attorney Search
Advocacy at a Higher Level

Horvitz & Levy is a solutions-based firm focused on appellate success. We are distinguished by our commitment to responsive service and on-going innovation in the areas of civil appellate litigation, amicus curiae support, and trial strategy consultation.

Our firm history, honors and awards, and locations speak to our collaborative approach and commitment to serving clients as well as the outstanding legal resources we bring to bear.

LEARN MORE ABOUT HORVITZ & LEVY

June 15, 2020

People v. Hung Tran (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 171

A jury convicted the defendant of assault. 

At trial, the prosecution presented video evidence compiled by a forensic video analyst. The video, a composite of various security videos that captured the assault from different angles, was enhanced to synchronize the various video clips, correct blurring, and add color coded arrows to identify certain individuals. The trial court admitted the video at trial.

The defendant claimed the trial court abused its discretion under the Kelly-Frye test by admitting this evidence because the forensic video enhancement was not universally accepted and the law regarding its use was unclear.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Under the Kelly-Frye test the proponent of the evidence derived from a new scientific technique must establish that “(1) the reliability of the new technique has gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community, (2) the expert testifying to that effect is qualified to give an opinion on the subject, and (3) the correct scientific procedures were used.” The court noted, citing People v. Duenas (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1, that a “computer animation” which is “merely used to illustrate an expert's testimony,” does not need to be analyzed under the Kelly-Frye test, while a “computer simulation” which is itself substantive evidence “contain[ing] scientific or physical principles requiring validation,” does require application of the Kelly-Frye test. The Court of Appeal found the video evidence was a form of computer animation, not a computer simulation. Moreover, the forensic analyst simply assisted the jury in understanding the raw video footage by modifying and highlighting specific areas of that footage. Therefore, the court found the Kelly-Frye test did not apply and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video.

The decision in Tran is likely to be of significance in civil as well as criminal cases because of the widespread use of computer animation and computer simulation in presentations to juries.