"Nothing grabs a juror by the throat better than a good computer animation," declares Thomas E, Liptak, a Buffalo, New York-based litigation attorney.

And for a growing number of high stakes cases these days, trial lawyers like Liptak are turning to fancy, computer-generated animation to help them score points in the courtroom. "If you bring in something that's done well, and the production end of it is run smoothly, you've got everybody's undivided attention, no question about it," Liptak says.

The primary advantage of a computer animation is it's ability to captivate and hold a lay jury while making complex, technical issues understandable, proponents say. In most cases, the animations are used to support the opinion and testimony of expert witnesses. Some attorneys who have used the technology are lavish in their praise. "Without the computer graphics, I don't know if I could have done it," says Edward J. Walsh Jr., a Wheaton, Illinois-based personal injury lawyer who went to trial with the technology this past spring (1991).

In the case, Walsh sued a home health care firm, a hospital, and a doctor on behalf of a 10-year-old girl who suffered a debilitating stroke at the age of 15 months after being placed on a home ventilator system. The little girl suffered from a congenital malfunction of the brain stem, which prevented her from breathing adequately at night.

After seven years of preparation, Walsh went to trail in March, 1991 in Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois, armed with, among other things, a 2D computer animation that shows in color how the respiratory and circulatory system works.

The animation, produced by Legal Graphic Communicators, Grand Rapids, Michigan, a demonstrative evidence firm, was only five minutes in length. But it was onscreen in the courtroom for a day and a half, as it was replayed, slowed down, paused, and replayed again while Walsh's medical expert testified.

Walsh was pleased with the results. "As far as allowing the jury to understand the physiology of how the damage took place to the brain, it was probably one of the most important pieces of demonstrative evidence we had." says Walsh. In May, 1991, Walsh's side won a $10 million jury verdict in the case.

A 2D computer animation showing the respiratory and circulatory system was one of the tools used by Ed Walsh and Jim Knippen, representing a young girl who suffered a debilitating stroke after being placed on a home ventilator system.

Ed Walsh and Jim Knippen faced the challenge of showing the jury that the child's disabilities resulted from inadequate ventilation caused by negligence in her care, not by the underlying disease.