Just my guess but I think the shock and awe is because the Judge required the Plaintiff to keep the doll covered totally with only hands and ankles displayed when used for demonstrative purposes during trial. It was not entered as an exhibit and then the Plaintiff exposed it's life-like nudity for 'shock and awe' during closing arguments in what appeared to be an attempt at re-creation. I know closing arguments can't be considered as evidence by the jury. It's possible the closing arguments of attorneys are covered under completely separate "rules" of the court. We will have to see how it comes out on appeal.
Further to my previous post, here are additional comments from the appellant courts ruling regarding considerations on the use of a ‘demonstrative‘ and your comments regarding how the appellant court may consider and ‘see how it comes out on appeal’
( it is important to note that the judge gave several very clear and concise instructions to the jury as how the demonstrative could be and should be interpreted, and the court transcript will reflect this fact, and no doubt be a factoring consideration of the appellant court should this be proposed by the defense)
“...As noted the trial court viewed Exhibit No. 4 before it was shown to the jury, and because of the superior vantage point occupied by the trial court for balancing the probative value and prejudicial effect of demonstrative evidence of this type, it necessarily is vested with a broad discretion in admitting or rejecting such evidence. State v. Love, supra at p. 452.
Demonstrative evidence which tends to establish any fact in issue or throw light on the controversy and aid the jury in any way in arriving at a correct verdict is admissible within this rule, and if it accurately portrays the event or circumstances sought to be shown, it should not be rejected because by presenting an accurate portrayal it tends to be inflammatory. State v. Swenson, 551 S.W.2d 917, 921 (Mo.App.1977).
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk