While in the Washington case, it was defendant Joshua Puloka seeking to introduce the evidence to support his claim of self-defense, it’s more often prosecutors pushing courts—often successfully—to admit evidence generated or enhanced by technology, criminal law professor Rebecca Wexler of University of California at Berkeley said. “It’s an opportunity to fix general problems that apply to AI technology and also have applied to forensic software for a long time,” said Wexler, who has testified before Congress on AI-based evidence. But courts have no definition for what counts as “peer review,” Wexler said, and that imprecision leaves judges a lot of discretion that often weighs in favor of prosecutors admitting evidence hinging on technology.