Expert Demonstrative Evidence - Bogoroch & Associates

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Treatment Chronologies Calic v. Aitchison et al, [1996] O.J. No. 154 (Gen. Div.). Justice Hockin stated, “Mr. Calic’s medical history since the accident is lengthy and complicated. Counsel for Mr. Calic usefully summarized the history by tracing Mr. Calic’s five year journey from one specialist to another in documentary form (Exhibit 5).” page 38
Computer Generated Animations Owens v. Grandell, [1994] O.J. No. 496 (see above) McCutcheon v. Chrysler Canada Ltd., [1998] O.J. No. 5818 stated criteria for admissibility: 1. the computer animation is relevant to the issues in the proceeding; 2. the hardware and software methods employed by the animator are verified by the animator; page 39
Page 1 and 2: Expert Demonstrative ce Richard M.
Page 3 and 4: Demonstrative Evidence is essential
Page 5 and 6: Admissibility of Demonstrative Evid
Page 13 and 14: Demonstrative Evidence • Probativ
Page 15 and 16: Demonstrative Evidence Risks “con
Page 17 and 18: page 17
Page 19 and 20: Cost Benefit Analysis Expert Opinio
Page 21 and 22: Cost Benefit Analysis Expert Opinio
Page 23 and 24: Integrity of Evidence The introduct
Page 25 and 26: Integrity of Evidence page 25
Page 27 and 28: Admissibility Computer-generated re
Page 29 and 30: Admissibility Lancaster (Litigation
Page 31 and 32: Guidelines Uses and Abuses of Demon
Page 33 and 34: Appendix Forms of Demonstrative Evi
Page 35 and 36: Photographs Draper v. Jacklyn (1970
Page 37: Video Tapes R. v. Nikolovski (1994)
Page 41 and 42: Computer Generated Animations 6. th
Page 43 and 44: Anatomical Illustrations or Models

Expert Demonstrative Evidence - Bogoroch & Associates

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?