Antalya: The courtroom, long defined by human judgment and professional expertise, is now facing a technological test: can artificial intelligence (AI) step into the role of an expert witness? As AI tools reshape how evidence is processed and presented, legal and medical experts remain divided on whether technology can ever replace human testimony.
According to Anadolu Agency, Prof. Dr. Mohammed Ranayava of Marshall University, a physician and attorney, commented on the revolutionary change AI brings to various sectors during the 20th International Forensic Medicine Days held in Antalya, Turkey. This event gathered nearly 800 experts from 27 countries. He highlighted how AI has significantly reduced the time forensic experts spend analyzing medical records, turning a previously labor-intensive task into a swift process.
Ranayava elaborated on how AI has transformed the work of expert witnesses in medicine, a field that once relied on meticulous reviews of patient records and accident reports. However, he cautioned about the privacy and reliability risks that come with increased efficiency, citing strict laws like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the US.
Prof. Ali Kocak from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York views AI as a powerful tool rather than a witness. He explained that AI is utilized in various tasks within the justice system, such as facial recognition and predictive policing. These outputs are considered 'non-testimonial data' and can be admitted in court without affecting a defendant's right to confrontation.
Kocak noted that AI cannot yet serve as an expert witness due to its inability to explain reasoning and methodology transparently. Recent court cases illustrate this, as AI-generated evidence is being treated as machine-generated data or routine business records, thus requiring no cross-examination.
Looking to the future, Kocak suggested that AI could broaden forensic analysis but emphasized the need for legal reform and transparency. He warned of the risks associated with relying heavily on AI outputs without proper scrutiny. Ranayava agreed, stressing the importance of credibility and the potential risk of AI 'cherry-picking' evidence.
Both experts concluded that for AI to play a larger role in the courtroom, technological and legal advancements are necessary to ensure that AI enhances justice while safeguarding fundamental rights.