Court Denies Man's Bid To Testify With AI Assistance
Urgent call for AI guidelines
Technology has increasingly become a part of our daily lives, sometimes in surprising ways. Recently, it even made an unusual appearance in a courtroom, leading to unexpected drama and confusion.
On March 26, during a hearing at the New York State Supreme Court, something out of the ordinary happened. Jerom Dewald was scheduled to present his case regarding an employment dispute, but instead of speaking himself, Dewald decided to let technology do the talking - quite literally.
When Justice Sallie Manzanet-Daniels announced, "The appellant has submitted a video for his argument. Okay, we will hear that video now," no one expected what came next. A friendly-looking young man appeared on the courtroom’s screen, neatly dressed in a shirt and sweater, smiling warmly.
The digital man began confidently: "May it please the court, I come here today a humble pro se before a panel of five distinguished justices."
The video had barely started when the judge quickly sensed something was off. Interrupting the video presentation, she asked, "Okay, hold on. Is that counsel for the case?"
At this point, Dewald was forced to admit what he had done. "That's not a real person," he clarified, confessing that the speaker was, in fact, an AI-generated avatar.
Dewald apologized to the court, saying that he used an AI video to present his argument more effectively and not to deceive or disrespect anyone.
Realizing his misstep, Dewald later submitted an apology to the court, explaining that his intention was not to deceive or disrespect anyone. Rather, lacking legal counsel, Dewald had hoped the AI-generated video could express his argument more clearly and effectively than he could himself.
He explained that speaking in court often made him nervous, causing him to stumble over his words and lose his thoughts mid-sentence.
Pexels
Unfortunately, the court wasn't prepared for such a novel use of technology. The incident has sparked broader discussions about how far technology should be allowed in official settings.
While courts increasingly rely on technological tools, such as virtual hearings and digital filing systems, the appearance of a virtual representative proved a step too far.
Dewald’s bid to innovate by using an AI lawyer backfired.
The unusual case involving Dewald highlights important questions about AI's role in our legal system. As AI and technology become more common, clear guidelines may be needed to determine appropriate uses and ensure fairness and transparency.
Dewald's attempt at innovation backfired. While his intentions might have been sincere, the method he chose clearly crossed a line, at least according to the court.
The hearing continued without his digital representative, and Dewald had to present his arguments on his own without technological assistance.
Pexels[ADVERTISEMENT]
This case shows how we must balance innovation with the rules that keep our legal system fair. When an AI avatar appeared in a New York courtroom, it exposed gaps in our procedures, gaps that could let technology move faster than our ability to oversee it.
To prevent a repeat, judges, lawyers, and litigants need clear guidelines for using digital tools: limits on AI’s role, a requirement that we always know when a person is speaking, and an open dialogue about new tech. That way, we can harness AI’s benefits without compromising fairness or trust in the justice system.
Damjan
