Tag: Evidence

AI & Marginalized Communities Symposium

DLTR Blog, Scholar Interviews Leave a comment

By Joshua Angelo Last month, Duke Law’s Center on Law, Race & Policy hosted numerous scholars and experts for its AI & Marginalized Groups Symposium. I had the pleasure of attending both the Symposium’s Lunch Keynote and its Criminal Justice panel. In the Lunch Keynote, Dr. Charlton McIlwain discussed his concerns about the impact of artificial intelligence on marginalized communities. In the Criminal Justice panel, numerous experts, including Duke’s own Professor Brandon Garrett, explored AI’s often concerning implications for law enforcement and criminal justice. Lunch Keynote: Dr. Charlton McIlwain is the Vice Provost for Faculty Engagement and Development at New York University, as well as a Professor of Media, Culture, and Communications, and Founder of the Critical Race and Digital Studies Program. Dr. McIlwain began his presentation by noting that he approaches matters both as a historian and as a social scientist, with each perspective informing his viewpoint regarding technology. The presentation then turned to Dr. McIlwain’s concerns about AI, beginning with the prospect of algorithmic discrimination. Dr. McIlwain first discussed the targeted advertising of predatory mortgage loans to Black and Hispanic individuals, a practice known as “reverse redlining.” He noted the role that digital advertising can play in facilitating

Continue

The GPTJudge: Justice in a Generative AI World

Alternative Intelligence, eDiscovery, Intellectual Property, Science & Technology 2 comments

By: Maura R. Grossman, Paul W. Grimm, Daniel G. Brown, and Molly Xu Generative AI (“GenAI”) systems such as ChatGPT recently have developed to the point where they can produce computer-generated text and images that are difficult to differentiate from human-generated text and images. Similarly, evidentiary materials such as documents, videos, and audio recordings that are AI-generated are becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate from those that are not AI-generated. These technological advancements present significant challenges to parties, their counsel, and the courts in determining whether evidence is authentic or fake. Moreover, the explosive proliferation and use of GenAI applications raises concerns about whether litigation costs will dramatically increase as parties are forced to hire forensic experts to address AI-generated evidence, the ability of juries to discern authentic from fake evidence, and whether GenAI will overwhelm the courts with AI-generated lawsuits, whether vexatious or otherwise. GenAI systems have the potential to challenge existing substantive intellectual property (“IP”) law by producing content that is machine, not human, generated, but that also relies on human-generated content in potentially infringing ways. Finally, GenAI threatens to alter the way in which lawyers litigate and judges decide cases. This article discusses these issues, and offers a

Continue

Forensic Evidence and Rule 3.8: What Does the Use of Bite Mark Evidence Tell Us About Prosecutorial Ethics?

eDiscovery, Science & Technology Leave a comment

By: Brendan Clemente Rule 3.8 of the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct should include rules that specifically address unethical uses of forensic evidence in criminal prosecutions. Forensic evidence is common in criminal trials. But the traditional rules of ethics do not effectively address the use of forensic evidence. Rule 3.8 should include a rule requiring prompt and full disclosure of information about expert witnesses whom the prosecutor plans to call and all relevant information that the prosecutor knows about a forensic method’s application in the case. Rule 3.8 should also include a requirement that the prosecutor use reasonable diligence to learn about a forensic method and possess a good faith belief that the method’s application in the case will be reliable before introducing the evidence at trial. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 22 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 1

Continue

Professor Brandon Garrett on Exposing the Flaws in Forensics

DLTR Blog, Scholar Interviews Leave a comment

By Brendan Clemente This past March, Duke Law’s Professor Brandon Garrett released his newest book, Autopsy of a Crime Lab: Exposing the Flaws in Forensics. Professor Garrett founded the Wilson Center for Science and Justice and studies the use of forensic evidence in criminal cases. Brendan Clemente, Duke Law & Technology Review’s (DLTR) Managing Editor, sat down with Professor Garrett to discuss the book. Thank you for joining DLTR to discuss your new book, Autopsy of a Crime Lab: Exposing the Flaws in Forensics. What made you want to delve into this topic in this book? My introduction to forensics came after law school. I took evidence in law school, for which I am glad now that I am now teaching it. We did not cover expert evidence. I did not take law and science classes, and I went to law school having turned away from math and science, like most of us lawyers do. When I was in practice, I worked at a civil rights firm where there were two types of cases one could gravitate toward: police brutality cases and wrongful conviction cases. I told the partners I wanted to work on the police brutality cases. The wrongful

Continue

Damned Lies & Criminal Sentencing Using Evidence-Based Tools

Data Analytics Leave a comment

By: John Lightbourne The boom of big data and predictive analytics has revolutionized business. eHarmony matches customers based on shared likes and expectations for romance, and Target uses similar methods to strategically push its products on shoppers. Courts and Departments of Corrections have also sought to employ similar tools. However, the use of data analytics in sentencing raises a host of constitutional concerns. In State v. Loomis, the Wisconsin Supreme Court was faced with whether the use of an actuarial risk assessment tool based on a proprietary formula violates a defendant’s right to due process where the defendant could not review how the various inputs were weighed. The opinion attempts to save a constitutionally dubious technique and reads as a warning to lower courts in the proper use of predictive analytics. This article explores certain equal protection and due process arguments implicated by Loomis. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 15 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 327

Continue

Authenticity and Admissibility of Social Media Website Printouts

Media & Communications, Uncategorized

By: Wendy Angus-Anderson Social media posts and photographs are increasingly denied admission as evidence in criminal trials. Courts often cite issues with authentication when refusing to admit social media evidence. Cases and academic writings separate recent case law into two approaches: The Maryland Approach and the Texas Approach. The first method is often seen as overly skeptical of social media evidence, setting the bar too high for admissibility. The second approach is viewed as more lenient, declaring that any reasonable evidence should be admitted in order for a jury to weigh its sufficiency. This Brief addresses the supposed differences between the two sets of cases and suggests that courts are not actually employing two distinct approaches. The Maryland Approach courts are not holding social media content to a higher standard than the Texas Approach courts, but are merely responding to a lack of evidence connecting the proffered content to the purported author. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 14 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 33

Continue