I was trying to figure out if this has been ruled on. So far, all I found was right before openings, John Guy brought out that they object to it. The judge asked O'mara if he was going to use it in opening. He said he had a screengrab from it but he wasn't going to mention the animation. The judge had O'Mara show Guy the exhibit and it seemed like he didn't object. But it wasn't the animation, just a shot from it, he wasn't objecting to.
I recall that, and was looking for a still that looked computer generated. I thought that one of the views of the walkway area behind the buildings looked computer generated. If that speculation is correct, the CG animation would be of the paths the two took. That content of a visual aid fits with using the timeline too. The point of that would be to show that Martin confronted Zimmerman, not the other way around as the state alleges. The animation would, in that sense, not be any new evidence (other than assuming velocities for Zimmerman and Martin), it would rehashing existing evidence from phone log timestamps and Zimmerman statements introduced into evidence.
There seems to be an uptick in chatter about the last 2-5 seconds of Zimmerman's account being impossible, for various reasons. Can't grab his gun if he is on his back; can't grab his gun if Martin has grabbed his hand; Martin could not have seen the gun; and so on. I don't think the CG reenactment covers that point.
Mantei's motion in opposition does not explain how the GC animation fails to represent a complete or accurate record of the evidence upon which the animation is required to be based, (or how the animation is speculative and irrelevant) but that seems to be the linchpin of his argument. I can't imagine how a video animation that combines phone log timestamps with Zimmerman's recreation and Rachael's testimony is prejudicial, or an Mantei likes to remind the court "danger of unfair
prejudice." Interestingly, Mantei also doesn't directly argue that the CG animation should be disallowed because allowing it could result in "confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence," the other bases for exclusion under in Rule 90.403.
I think Nelson will allow it, unless the state can point to aspects that are unsupported by direct or circumstantial evidence. The position of Martin at various points in time can be taken from Rachael and Zimmerman testimony. The speculative nature of that at various points in time can easily be addressed by attaching "if you take so-and-so's testimony as true, then ...", and for the periods of time when Martin's position is unknown, admit it is unknown. That fits Zimmerman's account, he doesn't know where Martin is from before hanging up with NEN until Martin appears from Zimmerman's left rear.