Senate Bill 655 would pilot AI evidence clinics to help courts authenticate digital evidence

Senate Bill 655 would create and fund an AI evidence clinic pilot program within the Administrative Office of the Courts to give judges access to scientific expertise about whether images, audio and video have been altered by artificial intelligence.

Sen. Clarence Hester, the bill's sponsor, told the Judicial Proceedings Committee the initiative is modeled on law clinics and would allow Maryland colleges and universities with AI expertise to "assist in civil cases by providing expert opinions concerning the likeness of an image, audio or video and whether it is original or has been manipulated through the use of AI." Hester said the bill prioritizes civil cases in which parties lack counsel or resources to retain experts.

Chief Justice Matthew Fader testified in support, saying the democratization of generative AI has made it far easier to produce convincing fakes and that courts often lack the budget to retain experts. "We rely on parties to retain their own experts in cases," Fader said. "This pilot program would establish an innovative effort to address this concern by developing resources that could be used as court-appointed experts to assess the likelihood that a particular piece of digital evidence has been altered."

Gabriela Waters of the Center for Equitable AI and Machine Learning Systems said the clinic would "ensure that our judges have access to specialized knowledge that will enable them to make informed decisions when confronted with AI-related evidence." Supporters urged amendments the sponsor had offered that would require a competitive selection of a Maryland institution of higher education and replace broad procurement language with a more targeted scope of work.

During questions, senators pressed for details about how the pilot would operate, whether it would simply compile a list of experts and how liability/indemnity concerns would be handled in vendor contracts. Chief Justice Fader and the bill's supporters said the intent is not merely to compile a roster but to build curriculum, train students and certify supervised faculty-led teams so they can serve as court-appointed experts; they also favored making indemnity language discretionary so procurement remains feasible.

The committee did not take a final vote during the hearing. Supporters said the pilot aims to expand equitable access to expert testimony in cases where parties cannot afford private experts and asked the committee to move the bill with the sponsor's technical amendments.

Sources: Committee testimony from Sen. Clarence Hester, Chief Justice Matthew Fader and Gabriela Waters; committee questioning.