Artificial intelligence is creating new opportunities for litigation teams to work more efficiently and present complex evidence more effectively. But in the courtroom, where credibility can influence how jurors perceive everything they see and hear, the way AI is used may be just as important as what it can accomplish.
In a recent IMS Elevate conversation, IMS Senior Client Success Advisor Adam Bloomberg welcomed Senior Technology Consultant and experienced hot seat operator Josh Stanhill to discuss the responsible use of AI in trial preparation and presentation. They explored practical applications for enhancing existing evidence, the risks of altering visual content, the importance of attorney oversight and transparency, and how increasing juror awareness of AI may change the way visual evidence is perceived.
Enhancing Evidence Without Changing It
One of the most practical applications of AI in trial presentation involves improving the clarity of existing evidence rather than creating or altering substantive content. Josh shared an example from a recent trial involving decades-old contracts and facility diagrams that were difficult to read. AI tools helped improve their legibility, allowing the trial team to present the existing information more clearly and efficiently.
The same principle can apply to video evidence. Security footage is often low quality, making important details difficult for jurors to see. AI tools may help sharpen details, improve visibility, or blur confidential information that should not be presented to a jury.
In these situations, the underlying evidence remains unchanged. AI is being used as a presentation tool to make existing evidence easier to see and understand. The distinction is important: enhancement can support comprehension, while alteration can create questions about the integrity of the evidence itself.
Knowing Where Enhancement Becomes Alteration
The potential risks become more significant when AI moves beyond improving evidence and begins changing how people or events are represented. Josh described a case in which opposing counsel used AI-generated headshot tools to modify photographs of witnesses for an organizational chart. The images were altered to make the individuals appear younger, healthier, friendlier, and more sympathetic. The trial team objected, and the judge ultimately ruled the slides out.
Beyond the evidentiary issue, the example illustrates a broader credibility concern. If jurors recognize that an image has been manipulated, their attention can quickly shift away from the evidence and toward the methods used to present it. Instead of asking what the evidence means, they may begin questioning whether they can trust what they are seeing.
For trial teams, the lesson is straightforward: a visually compelling presentation has limited value if the technology behind it creates doubt about the authenticity of the material.
Keeping Attorneys in Control
Responsible AI use begins with oversight. As Josh explained, AI should remain attorney-directed, with counsel understanding what is being done, why it is being done, and how the final product will be used in court.
Transparency is equally important. When AI is used to enhance evidence or prepare presentation materials, those decisions should be documented and discussed with the trial team. Where appropriate, counsel should also address the use of those materials with opposing counsel before bringing them before the court. This approach can help identify potential concerns before trial rather than allowing an unexpected objection or disclosure to become a courtroom issue.
The goal is not to avoid AI simply because it introduces new considerations. Instead, trial teams should establish a process for determining when its use is appropriate, what safeguards are necessary, and how its use should be disclosed.
Accounting for a More AI-Aware Jurors
Jurors are also becoming increasingly familiar with AI-generated and AI-enhanced content in their everyday lives. They know that images can be altered and videos can be manipulated, which may lead them to scrutinize visual evidence more closely than they have in the past.
Josh described jurors as both fascinated by and skeptical of AI. That combination creates a new consideration for trial teams: a demonstrative needs to not only be effective but also appear trustworthy. An overly processed or artificial-looking graphic could raise questions even when the underlying evidence is legitimate. Once jurors begin wondering whether a visual has been manipulated, the presentation itself can become a distraction from the case.
For this reason, restraint may be just as important as technical capability. The most effective use of AI may not be the one that produces the most dramatic result, but the one that makes evidence clearer without calling attention to the technology behind it.
Protecting Confidential and Sensitive Information
AI use also raises important questions about where case information goes when materials are uploaded to an AI platform. Litigation teams may work with sealed, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise sensitive evidence. Before using AI to process those materials, attorneys should understand how a platform handles uploaded information, including how data is stored, processed, and retained.
Josh noted that not all AI platforms provide the same protections and emphasized the importance of using controlled environments appropriate for sensitive case materials. The broader point is that technology decisions should account for data security alongside functionality.
Confidentiality considerations become particularly important when AI is incorporated into workflows involving experts or other third parties. Understanding AI technology's data practices should be part of the decision-making process before sensitive information is submitted.
Building Practical AI Practices Through Experience
As AI becomes more common in litigation, trial teams will need practical guidelines for determining how and when to use it. Josh suggested that real-world experience can help shape those practices.
Attorneys can examine how AI was applied in prior trials, why it was used, what workflows were involved, whether its use was disclosed, how opposing counsel responded, and whether the material generated objections or questions from jurors. This helps organizations move beyond hypothetical concerns and develop guidelines grounded in actual courtroom applications.
AI technology continues to evolve, but the questions surrounding its use in case preparation are consistent:
- What is the purpose?
- What has changed?
- Who has reviewed it?
- How will it be presented?
- Can the trial team explain and defend the process if challenged?
Preparing for the Next Phase of AI in Litigation
AI will likely become a more standard component of litigation support, much like video editing, graphics software, and trial presentation technology have become established tools. As that happens, the central question will shift from whether law firms use AI to prepare cases to how responsibly they use it.
For trial teams, that means balancing efficiency with transparency, technological capability with human judgment, and innovation with the fundamental need to preserve trust in the courtroom. AI can help make difficult evidence clearer and more accessible. But technology should support the evidence, not become the focus of the presentation.
Balancing Innovation with Courtroom Credibility
In addition to understanding what the technology can do, responsible use of AI in litigation requires careful consideration of its effects on evidence, juror perception, confidentiality, and courtroom credibility.
IMS helps litigation teams evaluate and implement technology with those considerations in mind, from enhancing visual evidence to developing effective trial presentations. Our team combines technical experience with an understanding of how information is presented and perceived in the courtroom.
Partner with IMS to strengthen your trial strategy. Explore our integrated litigation support solutions and connect with our team below.
