A suspected deepfake video can be excluded or sharply limited in a California civil case by timely evidentiary objections, targeted discovery, and expert authentication challenges under the Evidence Code. Deepfakes raise unique risks of fabrication, altered metadata, and misleading “reality cues” that can sway juries if not addressed early. This article explains a step-by-step California […]
California courts can exclude AI-generated audio evidence unless the prosecution proves it meets the Kelly-Frye “general acceptance” standard and Evidence Code reliability requirements. As deepfakes and voice-cloning spread, criminal cases increasingly feature disputed recordings, jail calls, and “confessions.” This article explains how to challenge AI audio in California criminal court—motions, hearings, experts, and cross-examination strategies
California courts can admit blockchain time-stamps as evidence if you can authenticate the underlying document and explain the system’s reliability under the Evidence Code. In civil cases, blockchain often helps prove “when” a file existed and whether it was later altered—especially in contract, trade secret, and business tort disputes. This article explains practical workflows, California
Californians can challenge AI-generated evidence by attacking authentication, relevance, reliability, and prejudice under the California Evidence Code, and by invoking due process when the defense cannot meaningfully test the system. As AI outputs appear in criminal and civil cases—from deepfakes to automated “risk” scores—courts are being asked to decide what qualifies as trustworthy proof. This
