At Multus Medical, we’ve seen it time and time again, defense counsel objecting to animations and illustrations with phrases like:
🛑 “This animation is too graphic or emotional.”
🛑 “The visuals are speculative or misleading.”
🛑 “It’s not based on real evidence.”
These objections follow a familiar pattern: if it helps your client’s case, they’ll argue it’s unfair.
So how do you rebut? Here’s how trial attorneys can push back, effectively and confidently:
✅ Tie your visuals directly to expert testimony, diagnostic imaging, and the medical record. Your visuals shouldn’t stand alone, they should be rooted in facts already in evidence. When they reflect MRI scans, CT results, operative reports, and deposition testimony, they’re far less vulnerable to claims of speculation.
✅ Clarify that the animation illustrates, not replaces, what is already admissible. Courts understand that a picture is worth a thousand words. If a jury is entitled to hear the evidence, they can also be shown what that evidence looks like.
✅ Secure expert validation. Have your medical expert or testify that the animation is a fair, accurate, and helpful depiction of the injury or event. This is one of the strongest ways to establish reliability.
✅ Lean into the trend: courts increasingly allow visuals that clarify, not dramatize. Judges and jurors are more comfortable than ever with demonstratives, especially when they help decode complex medical or technical evidence.
The takeaway: Powerful visuals help win cases. The key is to ensure they’re grounded in real evidence, guided by expert testimony, and presented as tools of understanding, not drama.
If you’re facing objections to your demonstratives, don’t back down. Instead, be prepared, with facts, strategy, and the right visual partner.
