## Facts

- Larry Bowoto sued Chevron Corporation in federal court over a May 1998 incident involving a seagoing barge connected to Chevron’s operations.
- Witnesses who were on the vessel during the incident testified that the barge’s deck was cluttered with cargo, cranes, and other equipment at the time.
- For trial, Chevron retained two computer-graphics professionals who created a three-dimensional computer model of the barge.
- The model was built using aerial photographs the professionals took and measurements they made of the vessel in late 2005.
- The model depicted the barge itself, but it did not include the temporary deck clutter witnesses described as present in 1998.
- Chevron sought to use the model as a demonstrative aid and to present testimony that the model accurately depicted the barge and allowed jurors, through the model, to view the deck from positions similar to those of eyewitnesses.
- Bowoto moved in limine to exclude both the 3-D model and the related testimony, arguing the stripped-deck depiction was unfairly prejudicial and likely to mislead the jury.

## Issues

1. Whether Chevron’s 3-D computer model of the barge, created from 2005 photographs and measurements and showing an uncluttered deck, was admissible as demonstrative evidence.
2. Whether the probative value of the model and the accompanying testimony was substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, juror confusion, or misleading the jury under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
3. Whether testimony from the computer-graphics witnesses about the model’s accuracy and its use to show potential viewpoints from the deck was sufficiently reliable and helpful for its limited demonstrative purpose.

## Decision

- The court denied Bowoto’s motion in limine.
- The court permitted Chevron to use the 3-D computer model as a demonstrative exhibit and to offer related testimony to explain how it was created and what it showed.
- The court required the presentation to make clear the model’s limits, including that it depicted the barge without the deck clutter described by eyewitnesses, so the jury would understand what the model did and did not represent.

## Legal Principles

- Demonstrative computer models may be admitted when they assist the jury in understanding physical layout, distances, and viewing locations described by witnesses, so long as the proponent lays an adequate foundation.
- A demonstrative exhibit need not recreate every condition present at the time of the events to be admissible; omissions or differences typically affect weight, not admissibility, when they can be exposed through cross-examination and competing proof.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the court may admit demonstrative evidence even where a party claims it could mislead the jury, if the risk can be controlled through clear explanation of the model’s assumptions and limits and through adversarial testing at trial.
- Testimony supporting a demonstrative model may be allowed when it is directed to authenticating how the model was made (such as from measurements and photographs) and to explaining the model’s proper, limited use for aiding the jury’s understanding.

## Conclusion

In *Bowoto v. Chevron Corp.*, the district court allowed Chevron to present a 3-D computer model of the barge and testimony describing its creation and use as a visual aid, concluding that the model could help the jury understand the vessel’s layout and potential viewing locations and that any risk of confusion from the model’s omission of deck clutter could be handled through clear disclosure, cross-examination, and controlled use at trial.


Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., 2006 WL 1627004 (2006)