Some early research examining the use of computer-generated animation (CGA) in legal settings [e.g., Kassin, S., & Dunn, M.A. (1997). Computer-animated displays and the jury: facilitative and prejudicial effects. Law and Human Behaviour, 21, 269–281] has suggested that whilst this type of evidence can be beneficial, it can also exhibit a strong prejudicial effect upon estimations of plausibility and accuracy. To address these problems, Feigenson and Dunn propose a number of key areas for further exploration and this experiment examined the extent to which a different angle of view can affect people's perceptions of culpability [Feigenson, N., & Dunn, M.A. (2003). New visual technologies in court: directions for research. Law and Human Behaviour, 27, 109–126]. Results indicated that, when viewing an animated sequence depicting a two-vehicle automobile collision, the three viewpoints presented (overhead, facing and internal) had a significant impact upon these judgements. No differences were found for estimations of vehicle speed. The results suggest that caution should be taken when presenting such evidence in court to address the potential for CGA to bias judgements depending upon the angle of view presented.