AI and Criminal Proceedings: Defences Against Algorithmic Evidence
Last updated:
listIn this article
lightbulbKey Takeaways
- check_circleBias in police algorithms
- check_circleAuditing the 'black box'
- check_circleForensic detection of Deepfakes
- check_circleEU AI Regulation
Quick answer
Artificial intelligence reaches criminal proceedings mainly as evidence, and that is where the defence acts. Three fronts dominate: predictive-policing tools (such as VioGén for gender-violence risk or VeriPol for false reports), whose algorithmic alerts must be auditable and traceable, because evidence hidden behind a black box or a trade secret cannot be contradicted and breaches the right of defence; deepfakes, where any unauthenticated audio or video must be challenged through computer-forensic analysis of its digital noise, frame inconsistencies and spectral metadata rather than its content; and the EU AI Act, which bans certain uses (such as real-time facial recognition in public spaces) and supports the radical nullity of evidence obtained through prohibited or high-risk AI systems.
Need help with your case? Talk to a criminal defense lawyer at Alonso Sala.
The emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the forensic and judicial spheres is not science fiction; it is an operational reality that poses unprecedented constitutional challenges. As a specialist criminal law firm, at Alonso Sala we are observing an exponential increase in the use of algorithmic tools in both police investigations and the generation of prosecution evidence. This forces us to rethink traditional defense strategies and incorporate advanced technological expertise to ensure the right to a fair trial.
Predictive Policing and Algorithmic Bias
Law enforcement agencies are increasingly using "predictive policing" algorithms (such as the VioGén system for gender violence risk or VeriPol for false reports) to make decisions that affect personal liberty. The problem lies in the "black box bias". These algorithms are trained on historical data that may contain racial, socioeconomic, or gender biases. If the police arrest or investigate a person based on an "algorithmic alert", the defense must demand the traceability and auditing of the algorithm.
It is not enough for the police report to say "the system indicated high risk". We demand to know the input parameters and the decision logic. If the algorithm is opaque, the right of defense is violated, as one cannot contradict evidence whose operation is hidden under trade secrets.
The Threat of Deepfakes as False Evidence
Generative AI allows the creation of synthetic audio and video (deepfakes) indistinguishable from reality to the human eye. This introduces reasonable doubt about any unauthenticated digital evidence. In family proceedings, fraud, or defamation cases, we have seen attempts to provide cloned voice recordings to falsely incriminate a party.
Deepfake Challenge Protocol
Our strategy against suspicious recordings involves an immediate computer forensic analysis that analyzes not the content, but the "digital background noise", frame inconsistencies, and audio spectral metadata, unique to synthetic voices.
Towards an Algorithmic Defense
Paradoxically, AI is also a tool for the defense. We use massive data analysis software (Big Data) in macro-corruption or economic crime cases to process terabytes of information (emails, invoices) in hours, looking for exculpatory evidence that would be humanly impossible to find. Equality of arms in 21st-century criminal proceedings requires that the defense has the same technological capacity as the Prosecution.
The European AI Regulation
With the approval of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, certain uses of AI are prohibited (such as real-time facial recognition in public spaces for law enforcement purposes, with very serious exceptions). As lawyers, we monitor that these red lines are not crossed by the investigation, requesting the radical nullity of any evidence obtained through prohibited or high-risk AI systems that have not passed mandatory conformity assessments.
Frequently asked questions
Can the police investigate me based only on an algorithm?expand_more
An algorithmic alert (for example from VioGén or VeriPol) cannot stand on its own. The defence is entitled to demand the traceability and auditing of the system: its input parameters and decision logic. If the algorithm is an opaque black box protected as a trade secret, the alert cannot be contradicted and the right of defence is breached.
How do you challenge a deepfake used as evidence?expand_more
Generative AI can produce synthetic audio and video that is indistinguishable to the human eye, so any unauthenticated recording is open to challenge. The forensic analysis focuses not on the content but on the digital background noise, frame inconsistencies and audio spectral metadata that betray a synthetic voice or image.
Is evidence obtained with AI always valid?expand_more
No. The EU AI Act prohibits certain uses, such as real-time facial recognition in public spaces for law enforcement, with very narrow exceptions. Evidence obtained through prohibited or high-risk AI systems that have not passed the mandatory conformity assessment can be attacked with a request for radical nullity.
Can AI also help the defence?expand_more
Yes. In macro-corruption or economic-crime cases the defence uses big-data analysis to process terabytes of emails and invoices in hours and locate exculpatory evidence that would be humanly impossible to find by hand. Equality of arms requires the defence to have the same technological capacity as the prosecution.
gavelDo you need criminal defense in this area?
We are criminal defense lawyers specializing in ai and digital evidence in criminal process. We act urgently to protect your rights.