The Expert Record logo — a ruled transcript pageThe Expert RecordThe standard for expert witnesses using AI

AI in the Courtroom · AI-generated and altered evidence

State v. Amyda (deepfake claim without evidence)

A defendant argued that a video may have been a deepfake created with generative AI. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed its admission, holding that circumstantial authentication was not defeated by a speculative claim with no evidentiary support.

Primary document readAffirmed; video properly admitted January 28, 2026

By · Published · How this site is researched

What happened

Max Amyda was convicted of third-degree sexual abuse. The central exhibit was a digital video of the charged conduct. No witness had personally observed the conduct, and no witness described the process or system that produced the video, so the State authenticated it by circumstantial evidence.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the video "may have been a 'deepfake' — created through generative artificial intelligence." He raised an authentication objection under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.901 and a best-evidence objection.

What the court did

The court affirmed. It held the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video over either objection.

On the deepfake claim it characterized the argument as resting on "speculative claims that the video was a 'deepfake' without any evidentiary" support. It quoted Mooney v. State, 321 A.3d 91, 110-11 (Md. 2024), for the proposition that videos remain authenticable by circumstantial evidence even though they are "susceptible to alteration, and the increased availability of new technology, particularly the advent of image-generating artificial intelligence, may present unique challenges in authenticating videos and photographs."

On best evidence, assuming without deciding that the rule applied and that the exhibit was a duplicate, the court held it admissible to the same extent as an original under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.1003.

Where it stands

The conviction was affirmed on January 28, 2026. No further review was located as of September 17, 2026.

The obligation it engaged

This decision sets the price of the deepfake defense, and the price is an evidentiary predicate. A party who asserts fabrication without one does not shift the burden. Read with Matter of M.S. and State v. Puloka, the pattern across courts is consistent: the availability of the technology is acknowledged, and the acknowledgment alone does not disturb circumstantial authentication.

The predicate is where an expert enters. Supplying it means an examination of the file that can be explained and repeated, which is Clause 5 of the Standard, reproducible analysis. An authentication opinion resting on a tool's confidence score is the weakest possible form of the very claim being made, because the party opposing it will ask how the score was produced and what it was checked against. Clause 4, checkability before adoption, asks that question first: before adopting the output, identify the specific thing against which it would be checked.

Sources

What could not be confirmed

Whether further review was sought in the Iowa Supreme Court was not located.

About this entry

This entry was checked against the primary document listed in the sources. The entry for State v. Amyda records conduct and what the tribunal did. It does not characterize a holding and it is not legal advice. Last checked September 17, 2026. More matters like this one are collected under the AI evidence matters. If something here is out of date, write to [email protected].

Arrow pointing upTop