We’ve all seen the CSI effect in action — clients want a clean answer in 42 minutes. That has made managing expectations with computer and cell phone forensics a bit tricky with our non-lawyer clients. AI is making that expectation worse, not better.
Here’s what I am starting to see: firms deploy AI tools and treat the output like it came off the Gutenberg press. The AI flagged it, therefore it’s true. That’s Minority Report logic — acting on a prediction before a human has confirmed anything. Opposing counsel’s question is simple: can you explain exactly how you got here? If the answer involves a black box, you’ve got a problem.
Chain of custody is the other issue. Forensic tools pushing evidence through cloud-based AI pipelines create real exposure — data retention, third-party access, your case files potentially training the next model version. Think of it like Severance — your data goes through a door, work happens on the other side, and what comes back has no memory of the journey. That’s not a chain of custody. That’s a gap in it. (Not that your outie would know.)
At some point you have to decide whether you’re taking the red pill or the blue one. The red pill means asking hard questions about your tools — where data goes, how outputs are generated, whether findings can survive cross-examination. The blue pill is easier. Until it isn’t.
The best investigators I know treat AI like a surgical instrument, not a surgeon. It doesn’t make the call. It doesn’t go on the stand. It doesn’t look the jury in the eye. The human does all of that.