Deepfakes in Court: Real-World Scenarios and Evidentiary Challenges
In a recent article, we explored the pressing need for the legal system to adapt to the challenges posed by deepfake technology. We discussed how the ease of creating convincing fake videos, audio recordings, and manipulated images necessitates a reconsideration of our current legal standards and procedures. But are deepfakes truly making their way into our courts? The answer, unfortunately, is yes, and the implications are profound.
Let's examine two hypothetical scenarios that illustrate the potential dangers of deepfakes and manipulated evidence in legal proceedings:
Scenario 1: The Fabricated Voicemail
In a contentious divorce and child custody case, a woman provides her attorney with what she claims is a voicemail from her estranged husband. The message contains threats and abusive language, seemingly strong evidence for a protective order and emergency custody request. Without questioning the authenticity of the evidence, the attorney immediately files the necessary pleadings.
However, the voicemail is a sophisticated deepfake. The wife had used readily available technology to clone her husband's voice and spoof his phone number. In reality, the husband had alleged infidelity as the reason for divorce, and the wife fabricated this evidence to gain an advantage in the custody battle.
This scenario exposes several critical issues in our legal system's current approach to digital evidence. It highlights the ease with which individuals can now create convincing fake audio evidence. Voice cloning technology, once the domain of high-tech labs, is now accessible to the general public through various apps and online services. Similarly, phone number spoofing is a simple process that can lend credibility to fabricated communications.
Moreover, it underscores the potential for deepfakes to be weaponized in personal disputes, potentially destroying reputations and familial relationships. In family law cases, where emotions run high and the stakes involve the welfare of children, the temptation to use such technology maliciously may be particularly strong.
Scenario 2: The Manipulated Accident Photos
In a personal injury case following a car accident, a plaintiff provides his attorney with photographs of the accident scene, supposedly taken immediately after the incident, that he printed at the local Walgreens. The attorney, seeing no reason to doubt the authenticity of the physical prints, uses these as a basis for filing suit.
What the attorney doesn't know is that the client has selectively deleted key objects from some of the photos and manipulated others using sophisticated but user-friendly editing features available on his smartphone. The remaining photos, while appearing genuine and bearing accurate timestamps, present a misleading narrative of the accident.
This case demonstrates how even non-technical clients can easily manipulate digital evidence using commonplace technology. Modern smartphones come equipped with powerful photo editing tools that can remove objects, alter lighting conditions, or even change the apparent time of day in a photograph. These manipulations can be subtle yet significant in altering the perceived narrative of an event.
Furthermore, it highlights the inadequacy of relying solely on printed photographs as evidence. Digital images generally contain metadata – information about when and how the photo was taken and subsequently modified. This crucial information is lost when photos are printed, making it easier to present manipulated images as genuine.
Current Evidentiary Practices: A Troubling Scenario
It's crucial to understand how these scenarios would likely play out in court under current evidentiary practices. The typical process reveals concerning vulnerabilities in our legal system when confronted with sophisticated deepfakes.
In the case of the fabricated voicemail, the current evidentiary process would likely unfold as follows:
The attorney seeking to introduce the voicemail as evidence would play it for the wife in court. She would be asked to identify the voice and confirm whether it has been modified in any way. The wife would simply state, "Yes, that's my husband's voice. I recognize it. That's his phone number, and it hasn't been modified in any way."
Given this testimony, the court would likely admit the evidence. Any objection from the husband's attorney claiming the voicemail is fake would probably be dismissed, with the judge ruling that the authenticity dispute goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.
Similarly, in the case of the manipulated accident photos, the attorney would present the printed photos and ask the plaintiff to confirm they accurately represent the accident scene. The plaintiff would testify that these are indeed the photos he took immediately after the accident, and they have not been altered in any way.
Again, the court would likely admit the photos as evidence. Any concerns raised by the defense about potential manipulation would be considered issues of credibility, to be evaluated by the jury, rather than barriers to admissibility.
These scenarios highlight a critical flaw in our current evidentiary practices: they rely heavily on the testimony of the person providing the evidence, without requiring independent verification of digital content. This approach, while historically sufficient, is dangerously outdated in an era where deepfakes and digital manipulation are increasingly sophisticated and accessible.
The current system assumes that witnesses will be truthful and that their ability to recognize voices or confirm the authenticity of photos is reliable. However, as our scenarios demonstrate, this assumption may no longer be safe. A person intent on deceiving the court can now create fake audio or manipulate photos that can fool even those closest to the purported source.
Moreover, the legal principle that disputes over authenticity go to the weight rather than the admissibility of evidence is problematic when dealing with deepfakes. Once a convincing fake is admitted into evidence, the damage to the case and to justice may already be done, even if it's later proven false.
This gap between our evidentiary practices and technological reality underscores the urgent need for reform in how we handle digital evidence in court. It may call for a shift from relying solely on human testimony to incorporating technological solutions and expert analysis in the authentication process. This, of course, would come with its own issues, not to mention increased costs.
As technology continues to advance, the legal community must remain vigilant and adaptive. The integrity of our justice system depends on our ability to authenticate evidence and maintain trust in legal proceedings. The deepfake dilemma is not a future problem—it's here now, and we must act accordingly to ensure that our pursuit of justice is not derailed by technological deception.
Subscribe to my Substack newsletter today so you don’t miss out on a post. https://judgeschlegel.substack.com
