This is where all download will be listed, utilizing the Page Add plugin.
File Name | S22-Policy-Stoa-36-NEG-ExculpatoryDisclosure.docx |
File Size | 1.30 MB |
Date added | January 17, 2022 |
Category | Policy (Stoa) |
Author | Vance Trefethen |
Resolved: The United States federal government substantially reform the use of Artificial Intelligence technology
Case Summary: The Supreme Court in the 1963 case of Brady v. Maryland required as a matter of constitutional law that prosecutors in criminal cases must hand over to the defense any potentially exculpatory information they find. “Exculpatory information” means evidence or information that would tend to help prove the defendant is innocent. For example, if the prosecutor has a star witness who is going to testify he saw the defendant at the scene of the crime, but the prosecutor also has a video tape from a security camera on the other side of town that shows the witness was 5 miles away when the crime occurred, the prosecutor must disclose that “exculpatory” video tape to the defense. Such exculpatory evidence is often referred to in the literature as “Brady material,” named after the court case above.
The increasing use of facial recognition software means more criminal cases hinge on evidence coming from the results of an AI program. When facial recognition says the picture from the camera at the scene of the crime matches suspect “Jimmy,” and Jimmy then gets arrested, Jimmy’s defense attorney might like to know some key facts: How many other people did the AI program also name as possible matches to the crime scene picture? What was the confidence level that the AI assigned to the match? For example, did the AI say it was a 30% likelihood that Jimmy matched the picture, but that was the highest percentage match they had, so they went with it and arrested him, even though it’s a 70% chance he’s innocent?
These additional facts beyond just “The AI identified Jimmy as the suspect” should be disclosed to the defense, under the Brady rule, since they might tend to prove Jimmy is innocent. AFF will argue that they are not being disclosed. They’re probably right, but here’s the problem: Status Quo law already requires it to be disclosed. So… what does the plan do that Status Quo isn’t already trying to do?
All the debate about evidence standards is a waste of time anyway, since 97% of federal and 94% of state criminal cases never go to trial and the evidence is never brought out in court. Most cases are handled by plea bargain. So evidence rarely matters and among the rare cases when it does, facial recognition evidence is rarely an issue. This impact of this case would be microscopic.
In the modern era, with ‘big data’ becoming more and more a part of investigations, there will always be multiple names that will come up in database searches. The standards of what constitutes “exculpatory” information under the Brady standards are so vague and contested that adding more standards is a sure formula for endless litigation and clogged courts.