See also: ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION
INJURIES—Demonstrations; EXPERIMENTS; REENACTMENTS
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

In determining the admissibility of demonstrations, courts have applied the analysis used in the context of experiments.{footnote}United States v. Birch, 39 F.3d 1089 (10th Cir. 1994) (on cross-examination by the prosecution, defendant properly asked to demonstrate his version of the shooting); United States v. Wanoskia, 800 F.2d 235, 237-38 (10th Cir. 1986) (approving in-court demonstration of alleged suicide by model pointing gun to own head); United States v. Gaskell, 985 F.2d 1056, 1061 (11th Cir. 1993) (probative value of demonstration in which witness shook a representation of infant substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice in trial for involuntary manslaughter of infant).{/footnote}  Courts have recognized that demonstrations can have a very strong impact on the jury.{footnote}United States v. Wanoskia, 800 F.2d 235, 237-38 (10th Cir. 1986) (approving in-court demonstration of alleged suicide by model pointing gun to own head); United States v. Gaskell, 985 F.2d 1056, 1061 (11th Cir. 1993) (probative value of demonstration in which witness shook a representation of infant substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice in trial for involuntary manslaughter of infant).{/footnote} The court must take special care to ensure that the demonstration fairly depicts the events at issue.{footnote}United States v. Wanoskia, 800 F.2d 235, 237-38 (10th Cir. 1986) (approving in-court demonstration of alleged suicide by model pointing gun to own head).{/footnote}  The decision to admit or exclude a demondtration will be reversed only if the court abused its discretion.{footnote}Petty v. Ideco, 761 F.2d 1146 (10th Cir. 1985) (filmed demonstration of how machine normally operates held admissible where there was a question of whether it was being properly used); United States v. Wanoskia, 800 F.2d 235, 237-38 (10th Cir. 1986) (approving in-court demonstration of alleged suicide by model pointing gun to own head); United States v. Rackley, 742 F.2d 1266 (11th Cir. 1984) (demonstration of drug-sniffing dog’s ability to detect drugs held admissible).{/footnote}