San Diego trial lawyer warns jurors may use AI to weigh evidence

A Vista-based trial lawyer says some jurors may be turning to artificial intelligence at home to judge expert testimony, creating a new fairness risk in trials. Ronald B. Laba says the system depends on jurors following courtroom instructions on the honor system.

Why it matters: - Ronald B. Laba says jurors who use AI outside the courtroom may be weighing evidence through a tool that did not hear the testimony, see cross-examination, or review the full case record. - Laba says that could undermine fair-trial protections because jurors may treat AI as a neutral authority, even when the input is a one-sided summary. - Laba says the concern is bigger than a juror reading a news story after being sworn in, because AI can produce what feels like an expert conclusion.

What happened: - Laba, a San Diego trial lawyer based in Vista, California, said he has heard of jurors taking notes on expert testimony and later feeding those calculations into AI tools to decide which expert to believe. - Laba has practiced for more than four decades and said the issue reflects a broader courtroom challenge tied to outside information and juror behavior. - In his own cases, Laba said this issue has not surfaced.

The details: - Laba said courts have already adjusted to jurors who arrive with online exposure to a case. - He said that shift became routine around 2015, when lawyers began receiving live feeds on prospective jurors during selection, including politics, socio-economic status, and past social media posts about lawsuits. - Laba said that kind of pre-screening is now more standard than exceptional in many cases. - Judges instruct jurors not to research a case or seek outside information. - Laba said that instruction is hard to monitor and enforce in practice. - He said jurors are basically on the honor system. - Laba said many people, including clients, view AI as infallible. - He said whatever AI tells a juror would likely make a strong impression. - Laba said the courtroom still matters because cases still require twelve people and real evidence. - Laba said the internet cannot sentence anyone or write a check. - He said his definition of a fair trial depends on jurors committing to decide only what happens in the courtroom.

Between the lines: - Laba’s warning is not mainly about technology itself. It is about how quickly jurors may substitute instant answers for deliberation. - He said social media has trained people to expect immediate judgments, and that habit can carry into the jury box. - The broader risk is not just misinformation. It is the erosion of patience needed for process, investigation, discovery and trial.

What's next: - Trial courts will likely keep relying on jury instructions and juror honesty to limit outside research. - Lawyers may face more pressure to monitor juror exposure to online information before and during trial. - Laba said the legal system still depends on people willing to wait for evidence-based decisions rather than instant verdicts.

The bottom line: - Laba’s message is simple: AI may not replace the courtroom, but it could quietly distort what some jurors think they learned there. - More information: the law office website - More information: LinkedIn profile - More information: X profile