V. Conclusion

Lorraine may have a profound impact on the field of general electronic evidence for its clear guidance to lawyers and even judges.78 However, it carries a mixed message for computer animations and simulations.79 The Lorraine decision takes a progressive approach to Rule 403 and unfair prejudice, allowing for necessary protections against such prejudice while still granting broad discretion to the courts to admit computer animations as evidence.80 Lorraine seems to take a step backward, however, in the ultimate push for more technology in the courtroom through its stringent analysis of computer simulations.81

The real effect of Lorraine is yet to be seen, but its mixed message regarding computer animations and simulations may stir confusion as to the intended future of electronic evidence of this sort, rather than serve as a useful resource for lawyers. In the face of this confusion, lawyers need to be prepared, as Lorraine advises, to defend computer animations and simulations against allegations of unfair prejudice. Furthermore, lawyers must be wary when submitting computer simulations as scientific evidence. Rather than meeting the “particular degree” of acceptance for scientific evidence as stipulated by Daubert, lawyers should be prepared to meet the more stringent “general acceptance” standard. Lawyers can protect themselves and their clients by paying careful attention to these tests, and by looking beyond Lorraine to discover the standards used in their own jurisdictions. Ultimately, Lorraine will perhaps be most useful because it makes lawyers aware that they must be extremely conscientious when submitting electronic evidence for admissibility.