[marta_morena_25]

It will be inadmissable because of the psychological effects. Imagine having someone claim you murdered someone. Also you happened to drive by that park where the person was murdered at the same time.

Now someone wants to frame you, perhaps because you are a celebrity or a person with money to extort from. So they claim that they saw you murder this person.

Normally, this wouldn't hold any water and no jury would convict you, we are not in the medieval ages anymore. There would be no evidence of you around the crime scene, because of course, you weren't there.

Now imagine that they are able to produce audio recordings of a conversation you had with the victim, screaming at them and saying "you are gonna pay for this". And then they also happen to have video evidence of a smart phone camera that happened to capture you stabbing the victim.

Now tell me, if the jury sees all this and then it gets dismissed, because of "deepfake" claims or whatever, how will it affect the outcome of this trial?

If you are truly innocent, this might still work out alright, unless you are not white. But imagine there is even the SLIGHTEST connection to the real world. It doesn't have to be completely fake. Maybe you had some fight with that victim earlier, or there are witnesses who testify under oath that you had several heated arguments with them, etc.

Deepfakes can change the entire outcome of trials, by biasing the jury and proceedings against you. That's why any audio and video evidence essentially needs to be rejected without a very very thorough forensic analysis of its authenticity. And even then you would still not know for sure.

[ed25519FUUU]

Deepfakes will change the entire outcome of trials the same way photoshop changed the entire outcome of trials before it.

Also you should see the type of video evidence used in court. It’s grainy 5 FPS surveillance footage that doesn’t even show their face. Deepfakes are not necessary if you want to frame someone.

[staticautomatic]

The jury wouldn’t see it if it got dismissed, typically by a Motion in Limine. Opposing counsel also gets to object to evidence before it’s shown to the jury during trial. If the trial judge allowed it and, on appeal, the appellate court decided it shouldn’t have been shown to the jury, there would be a new trial.

[mdorazio]

In your examples, it would most likely be a Mistrial scenario, the jury would be dismissed, and the prosecuting team would have to start over again from scratch later, assuming they aren't themselves in trouble for introducing faulty evidence.

[stallmanite]

I’d be really curious to hear about a case where prosecutorial misconduct was punished. Don’t they have something akin to the “qualified immunity” that the police enjoy?