Juries are seldom accustomed to visit crime scenes. There are exceptions, usually in difficult, high-profile murder cases such as the O.J Simpson trial in 1995 in the US and the Jill Dando murder trial in 2001 in the UK. But asking jurors to become fact finders in this way comes with myriad problems, from accessible biases to the logistical and aegis challenges of taking them to the crime scene.

A site visit by the Dando jury needed a convoy of five cartage to carriage the jurors, lawyers, judge and their police escorts to the scene, casual through police barricades amidst by neighbours, journalists and other spectators. It became a media spectacle. But rapidly advanced technology in imaging, robotics and bogus intelligence may be able to avoid these issues by around teleporting judges and jurors to crime scenes after even abrogation the courtroom.

Such visits can help juries to assess the case and defence cases. For example, in the murder trial of music ambassador Phil Spector in 2007, the defence attorneys claimed a large bubbler at the scene caused a attestant to mishear Spector admit to the crime. By visiting the scene, the jury were able to judge how likely this was, as well as accepting a better compassionate of how the arrangement of events may have unfolded.

But when a jury visits a crime scene, it may not be in the same state as when the crime originally occurred. During the Simpson trial, for example, there were austere complaints apropos the scene being staged and items rearranged. And the longer the time after the crime has taken place, the greater the chance that things will have changed.

Courts have commonly relied on argumentative science units to aftermath visual affirmation in court as an another to crime scene visits. Crime scene board (CSIs) gather and use affirmation to charm the absolute arrangement of events that occurred during the course of a crime. Part of this about-face action is photography and sketching, with the latter still abundantly done by hand.