video and photo evidence will never be the same again.
getty
A man spent more than five years in prison for a double murder he didn’t commit. Not because the evidence was planted. Not because witnesses lied. Because a trial judge looked at pixelated surveillance footage, compared it to photos of the defendant, and decided the blurry figure on screen was the shooter.
No forensic video examiner was retained. No scientific methodology was applied. The judge simply looked.
In January, the Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously overturned Gerald Benn’s two murder convictions in R. v. Benn, finding what it called “serious flaws” in the trial judge’s analysis. The CCTV footage was low-resolution and pixelated. The trial judge acknowledged as much, then went ahead and drew identification conclusions from it anyway, conducting his own visual comparison without any of the training, tools, or protocols that forensic video analysis requires.
The appellate court’s full ruling covered more ground than the video analysis alone, but the video failure is what matters here. A judge evaluated pixelated surveillance footage without forensic methodology, without a qualified examiner, and without the sequencing that prevents a predetermined conclusion from driving the result. That single gap contributed to a verdict the appeals court found unreasonable. It also isn’t rare.
Video Evidence Was Never Self-Explanatory
The Benn case comes out of Canada, but the evidentiary gap it exposes is not a Canadian problem. A 2025 report from the University of Colorado Boulder’s Visual Evidence Lab found that more than 80 percent of U.S. court cases now involve video evidence to some degree. Yet there are no mandatory federal standards governing how that evidence should be analyzed.
NIST’s forensic video examination workflow standard remains in proposed form, not finalized, not required. The Department of Justice has published Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports covering DNA, fingerprints, even firearms, but has no equivalent guidance for forensic video analysis. We are relying on video evidence more heavily than ever while regulating it less than almost any other forensic discipline.
The assumption driving that gap is that video is self-explanatory. That anyone can watch footage and understand what it shows. What gets skipped is whether the footage was captured, stored, and transmitted in a way that preserves what actually happened. Whether the resolution supports the conclusions being drawn. Whether the person evaluating it has any scientific basis for the identifications they are making.
Here’s what should have happened in the Benn case. A qualified forensic video examiner would have evaluated the surveillance footage independently, before ever looking at known images of any suspect. That sequencing matters. It is how you prevent your brain from finding what it is already looking for.
Untrained Eyes Get Video Evidence Wrong
The research on this is consistent, and the findings are not favorable to how courts currently operate.
A 2021 study published in Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation tested 53 digital forensics examiners on identical evidence. Examiners given contextual information suggesting guilt found more incriminating traces than those given neutral or innocence-suggesting context. None of the 53 found all the relevant traces. These were trained professionals working the same evidence. The study’s authors called for “serious and urgent” quality assurance reforms in the field.
When a judge has already heard testimony, reviewed fingerprint evidence, and formed a working theory of the case, evaluating surveillance footage without forensic guidance puts human cognition in exactly the conditions where confirmation bias takes hold. The science on this is well documented, and it applies regardless of experience or intent.
A National Institute of Justice study analyzing 732 wrongful conviction cases found that most forensic errors were not made by forensic scientists at all. Investigators and prosecutors caused errors by discounting, ignoring, or misrepresenting exculpatory forensic results. When examiner did make errors, they were typically linked to inadequate scientific foundations and organizational failures in training and governance. The study also found that in approximately half of those wrongful convictions, improved technology, testimony standards, or practice standards could have prevented the conviction at the time of trial. The methodology to get it right existed. The system had no requirement to use it.
AI Doesn’t Create This Problem. It Detonates It.
I’ve been working in digital forensics for almost two decades. The Benn case isn’t surprising. What has changed is the stakes.
Courts have been asked to evaluate video evidence without the standards infrastructure that exists for other forensic disciplines. The system never built the guidance framework that would give judges, attorneys, insurers, and investigators reliable tools for that evaluation. Now that same unprepared system faces something far more demanding. Generative AI can produce footage that looks sharper, clearer, and more definitive than anything a surveillance camera ever recorded, without that footage being accurate. The distance between “looks convincing” and “is accurate” has never been greater, and it is being measured by people who were already working without a reliable framework for making that call.
We are already seeing it play out. In a 2024 Washington state triple homicide case, the defense presented surveillance video that had been “enhanced” using AI software from a company that explicitly warned against forensic use of its product. The defense’s expert was a filmmaker with no forensic training.
A qualified prosecution examiner testified the AI created what he called an “illusion of clarity.” The video looked sharper without actually being more accurate. The judge excluded the evidence, but the fact that it reached that stage should concern every attorney, insurer, and investigator whose cases touch digital footage.
The Device Is the Only Thing You Can Still Trust
When video authenticity is in question, the device that recorded it is the only place the answer lives. Metadata embedded at the moment of capture, file system artifacts, and application logs on the source device can establish whether footage is original, whether it has been processed, re-encoded, or manipulated, and whether what is being presented in court matches what the device actually recorded. That analysis requires the physical device, a forensically sound acquisition, and an examiner with the training to interpret what the data shows.
AI-enhanced and AI-generated footage breaks the visual record entirely. The pixel data no longer reflects what a sensor captured. But the device record, if preserved, does not lie. Chain of custody for the source device is no longer a procedural formality. In a world where generative AI can manufacture footage that looks more convincing than real surveillance video, it is the last reliable starting point for any forensic video examination.
Before AI, getting this wrong cost Gerald Benn five years of his life. With AI in the evidence chain, the margin for error is gone.
The Monday Morning Playbook
Industry standards for forensic video analysis exist. Qualified examiners exist. What doesn’t exist is any requirement to use them.
For attorney, that means retaining qualified digital forensics expert, not IT staff, not investigators with a media player, not filmmakers, when video evidence is central to a case.
For insurance professionals, it means building forensic review into claims evaluation protocols before disputes reach litigation. A video that looks straightforward at the adjusting stage can become the center of a trial if the underlying analysis was never properly done.
For every organization that touches digital evidence, it means understanding that “we watched it and it seemed clear” has never been an adequate standard, and in an AI era it never will be again.
Gerald Benn lost five years of his life. The families of the two men who were murdered still don’t have justice. Nobody won here. The fix wasn’t a breakthrough technology or a billion-dollar initiative. The fix was always available. A qualified expert, a sound methodology, and the willingness to follow expert guidance over intuition.
Calling a qualified video forensic expert was always the right call. AI has simply made it the only call.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larsdaniel/2026/02/26/courts-were-already-getting-video-evidence-wrong-ai-will-make-that-look-like-a-warm-up/
