Forensic Expert Scott Roder and The Evidence Room Redefine Post-Conviction Justice Through 3D Reconstruction and Demonstrative Evidence — Case Study: People Vs. Champagne Smith
New York, NY — October 31, 2025
The recent testimony of Scott Roder, founder of The Evidence Room, in the case of People v. Champagne Smith before the New York Supreme Court, underscored how cutting-edge forensic reconstruction and 3D animation are transforming the landscape of post-conviction litigation.
Roder, a nationally recognized crime scene reconstruction expert, delivered compelling testimony that challenged the reliability of eyewitness accounts through scientifically grounded 3D models and visual exhibits. His analysis—anchored in trajectory geometry, stippling patterns, and autopsy data—demonstrated inconsistencies between the eyewitness narrative and the physical evidence, ultimately suggesting that the defendant, Champagne Smith, was wrongly identified.
During the hearing, Scott Roder stated that —
“For example, just off the top of my head, Mr. Bethea indicates that the assailant came from behind Nazon, and when he turned around, the gun was at Nazon’s head, and then he shot Nazon. And then he pointed the gun, the assailant, at Mr. Bethea. And then Mr. Bethea ran. But because the assailant tripped on the curb, he fell on his face, and that is why Mr. Bethea was able to escape the scene without being shot. Now, there are many problems with the statement, based on my review of the evidence. The first problem with that statement, based on a review of the evidence, is the position of the dead body, Mr. Nazon.
Based on the observation of where blood is on the scene, that’s where Mr. Nazon was at the time the bullet penetrated his head. Based on my personal experience and all of the records, he would have been immediately incapacitated based on the pathway of the bullet.
The Court: You mean medically?
Roder: He would have been dead.
The reason I say that is because that’s where the blood is. And the blood is a verifiable objective piece of data that lets us know where the deceased was at the time that he got shot. That is inconsistent with Mr. Bethea’s testimony that the assailant tripped on the curb because the curb is about thirty feet behind the blood spot; okay? So it’s impossible to shoot somebody and then trip on something that is thirty feet behind you. So that’s an inconsistency.”
Next, Scott was asked what his conclusion was in regards to the possibility that Mr. Smith committed the crime —
“It is more probable that Mr. Smith did not commit this time based on the physical and forensic evidence. Furthermore, it’s probable that Donald Bethea is actually the shooter.” When asked why, Roder states, “Because of his height. We all know he was there, and his description… he is basically describing himself.”
Roder later describes that Mr. Smith’s height would change the angle of the shot and the stippling that occurs when a shot is fired. Since Mr. Smith is about 6 feet 4 or 6 feet 5, there should have been a downward angle to the entrance wound as well as stippling above the wound instead of below it.
Due to the inconsistencies between Mr. Bethea’s testimony and the evidence at the scene, Scott Roder believes that there is reasonable doubt in regards to Mr. Smith being responsible for the shooting.
⸻
A New Era of Post-Conviction Forensics
The Evidence Room’s role in this case reflects a growing national trend toward the use of demonstrative evidence and forensic animation in post-conviction review, innocence projects, and cold-case reinvestigations. By reconstructing legacy crime scenes with today’s technology, Roder and his team can re-evaluate the physics of an event decades later—offering a second chance at justice where eyewitness testimony or incomplete data once led to wrongful outcomes.
Regarding Champagne Smith, Roder’s team:
• Built a 3D model of the crime scene based on photographic archives, autopsy reports, and original NYPD records.
• Simulated multiple shooting scenarios, comparing eyewitness testimony to objective physical data.
• Demonstrated that the bullet trajectory and muzzle-to-target distance were inconsistent with a 6′5″ shooter—the height of the defendant—and instead pointed to a much shorter assailant. The team also utilized forensic animation to visualize the event in motion, enabling the court to see where words and evidence diverged.
The resulting presentation, comprised of six digital exhibits, was admitted into evidence without objection and praised by courtroom observers for its precision and professionalism.
⸻
Science Over Speculation
For more than two decades, The Evidence Room has combined forensic science, digital visualization, and expert testimony to bring truth to light in both criminal and civil cases. From high-profile homicide trials to wrongful conviction reviews, Roder’s work bridges the gap between data and understanding.
“Post-conviction science isn’t about relitigating emotion—it’s about re-examining math, physics, and anatomy,” Roder explained. “Evidence doesn’t expire. The tools to see it clearly just keep getting better.”
“It’s not about creating new evidence—it’s about revealing the truth that’s already there,” Roder said. “Modern reconstruction allows us to translate hard science into visual clarity. When juries, judges, and attorneys can see the evidence come alive in 3D, truth becomes undeniable.”
Recent Comments