"When machine-generated evidence is offered without an expert witness and would be subject to Rule 702 if testified to by a witness, the court may admit the evidence only if it satisfies the requirements of Rule 702(a)-(d). This rule does not apply to the output of simple scientific instruments. Rule 702 deals with the standards by which expert testimony and evidence is to be determined to be admissible."
"According to the Committee Notes on the proposed Rule, the idea is that the same standards for admissibility should apply to "machine-generated evidence" offered by a layperson as to that offered by an expert. The Committee reasoned that a lay witness might apply a "program" but know little or nothing about its reliability. The Committee seemed to be thinking about a technician who would enter a question and then print out the answer and then testify about what they found."
A proposed Federal Rule 707 would require machine-generated evidence offered by a lay witness to satisfy Rule 702(a)-(d) before admission, excluding simple scientific instruments. Rule 702 requires expert evidence to be helpful to the trier of fact, grounded in reliable principles, and reliably applied. The Committee justified the requirement by noting lay witnesses might operate programs without understanding their reliability, imagining technicians printing program output and testifying. A January 15, 2026 hearing revealed broad opposition from plaintiffs' class-action lawyers and in-house counsel. Critics argue the proposal regulates a non-problem and fails to address the judiciary's actual challenges with AI evidence.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]