AI in the Courtroom: Navigating Rule 107 and the Use of Illustrative Aids

AI in the Courtroom: Navigating Rule 107 and the Use of Illustrative Aids

In a Bloomberg Law article, Arnold & Porter’s Diana Sterk and Sarah Prather explore the evolving role of AI in the courtroom, particularly its impact on the use of illustrative aids under the new Federal Rule of Evidence 107. Rule 107 explicitly governs the use of demonstrative materials—such as visuals, graphics, and simulations—that help jurors understand admitted evidence, but are not themselves evidence. This rule replaces earlier reliance on Rule 611(a), offering clearer guidance on how such aids should be handled at trial.

The authors highlight the importance of balancing clarity and fairness: Rule 107(a) applies a standard similar to Rule 403, requiring courts to weigh whether the value of an illustrative aid is “substantially outweighed” by the risk of prejudice or confusion. Cases like Science Applications International Corp. and Roland Corp. demonstrate how courts are beginning to apply the rule, though judicial interpretation remains limited.

AI-generated aids can offer time and cost efficiencies, but they raise specific concerns about digital manipulation and authenticity. As Sterk and Prather explain, while Rule 107 doesn’t restrict the use of AI, it requires that all aids, whether AI- or human-created, accurately and fairly represent the facts. Litigants should validate AI-generated visuals, disclose their origin where appropriate, and stay alert to standing orders or evolving judicial preferences.

For attorneys, Rule 107 creates a path for integrating AI into trial strategy, but it also imposes a duty to ensure accuracy, transparency, and fairness. As courts continue to interpret the new rule, law firms must be proactive in compliance and client counseling to avoid missteps in courtroom presentation.