Yes. Evidence that is generated, enhanced, or analyzed using artificial intelligence can be challenged in a court-martial, and the existing Military Rules of Evidence give the defense several established tools to do so. There is no special carve-out that lets artificial intelligence output bypass the ordinary gatekeeping that applies to all evidence. If anything, the novelty and opacity of these tools give the defense well-recognized grounds to demand that the proponent prove the material is what it claims to be and that any analytical method behind it is reliable.
The military, like civilian courts, is still adapting its evidentiary framework to a world in which images, audio, video, and analytical conclusions can be produced or altered by software. While the rules have not been rewritten specifically for artificial intelligence, the tools already in the Military Rules of Evidence are flexible enough to address it. The sections below explain the main avenues for contesting such evidence.
Authentication Is the First Hurdle
Before any item of evidence is admitted, the party offering it must authenticate it. Military Rule of Evidence 901 requires the proponent to produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. For a photograph, recording, or video, that traditionally means showing it is a fair and accurate representation of what it depicts and that it has not been altered.
Artificial intelligence complicates authentication in two directions. First, software can fabricate convincing images, audio, and video that depict events that never happened. Second, even genuine media can be enhanced or modified by algorithms in ways that change its meaning. The defense can therefore insist that the government do more than assert the file is authentic. Counsel can probe the source of the file, the chain of custody, whether any software touched it, and whether the proponent can rule out fabrication or manipulation. Where the defense raises a genuine question about whether a recording is real or synthetic, the burden remains on the proponent to satisfy the authentication standard.
Reliability of Analytical Tools and Expert Testimony
A different problem arises when artificial intelligence is used not to create an image but to draw a conclusion, such as identifying a person, matching a voice, detecting a pattern, or scoring a probability. When the government relies on that kind of analytical output, it usually must do so through an expert witness, which brings Military Rule of Evidence 702 into play.
Rule 702 allows expert testimony only if specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact and if the testimony rests on sufficient facts or data and reliable principles and methods reliably applied. Military trial and appellate courts use the reliability framework associated with the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals to assess scientific and technical evidence. That framework looks at factors such as whether the method can be and has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review, its known or potential error rate, and whether it is generally accepted in the relevant field.
These factors give the defense a powerful line of attack against artificial intelligence analytics. Many tools are proprietary, their inner workings are not disclosed, their error rates are unknown or undisclosed, and they may not have been validated for the specific conditions of the case. The defense can challenge whether the underlying method is reliable, whether it was applied correctly to the facts at hand, and whether the expert can explain and defend it under cross-examination. If the proponent cannot establish reliability by a preponderance of the evidence, the military judge can exclude the testimony.
Relevance, Prejudice, and the Judge’s Gatekeeping Role
Even when evidence clears authentication and reliability, the military judge retains discretion to exclude it. Under the rules governing relevance and the balancing of probative value against unfair prejudice, the judge can keep out material whose tendency to mislead or inflame the panel outweighs its legitimate value. Artificial intelligence evidence can be particularly susceptible to this concern, because panel members may assume that anything produced by a computer is objective and accurate. The defense can argue that a polished but unverified output carries an aura of false precision that would unfairly sway the factfinder.
The military judge serves as the gatekeeper for all of these issues. The judge decides authentication and admissibility, may hold a hearing outside the presence of the panel to evaluate reliability, and may require the government to lay a proper foundation before the evidence reaches the members.
Practical Defense Strategies
Several concrete steps follow from this framework.
Counsel can demand discovery about the source and handling of any digital media, including whether artificial intelligence tools were used to create, enhance, or analyze it, and can seek the underlying data and any validation information for the tools involved.
Counsel can retain a defense expert to examine the material for signs of fabrication or manipulation and to scrutinize the reliability of any analytical method the government relies on.
Counsel can litigate the issue through pretrial motions, asking the military judge to exclude the evidence for failure to authenticate, for lack of reliability under the expert testimony rule, or because its prejudicial effect outweighs its value.
Counsel can also cross-examine the government’s witnesses about error rates, validation, the limits of the technology, and whether the conditions in the case match those under which the tool was tested.
A Field Still in Development
It is worth being candid that this is an evolving area. Rulemaking bodies have studied whether the authentication rules need amendment to address synthetic media, and proposals have circulated, but as of now the established rules continue to govern, and courts are applying existing principles to these new problems. The absence of a tailored rule is not a gap that favors the government; it means the ordinary, defense-friendly requirements of authentication and reliability remain fully in force.
Conclusion
Artificial intelligence evidence can absolutely be contested during a court-martial. The defense can challenge it on authentication grounds under Military Rule of Evidence 901, on reliability grounds under Military Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert framework, and on grounds that its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. The military judge acts as gatekeeper and can exclude evidence that fails any of these tests. Because the technology is new and often opaque, these challenges are not merely theoretical; they go to the heart of whether the factfinder can trust what it is being shown. A service member who suspects that artificial intelligence material may be used against them should raise it with defense counsel promptly so the foundation can be tested at every stage.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and related military administrative processes work as a matter of public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular case, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified military defense attorney who can evaluate the specific facts and command, service, and jurisdictional circumstances involved.
Reading this article, or contacting any website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author. Every court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, administrative separation, and security-clearance matter turns on its own facts, the charged articles, the convening authority, the service branch, and the evidence, and outcomes vary widely from one case to another.
Military law also changes over time. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (effective January 1, 2019) and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts renumbered and rewrote many punitive articles, revised the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and altered sentencing, clemency, and appellate procedures. Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and decisions of the service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may have been amended, superseded, or reinterpreted after this article was written, and article numbers or procedures cited here may have changed.
For these reasons, no reader should act or decline to act based on this content without first consulting a licensed attorney experienced in military justice about their own situation. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or current applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. If you are facing investigation, charges, or an adverse administrative action, time limits may apply, and you should seek qualified counsel promptly.