FRE 707 (proposed): what it requires, and the records to keep

It can be, but no special rule admits it. AI output offered through an expert must meet Rule 702's reliability requirements. Output offered without an expert must still be relevant and authenticated, and the court can require proof that the system produces accurate results. Proposed Rule 707, which would apply Rule 702's standards to such output, was not sent forward in 2026. The Advisory Committee is studying a revised draft that would presume an expert is needed to show the AI produced the evidence reliably. Read the full answer

Proposed Rule 707 would make machine-generated evidence offered without an expert witness meet the reliability standards of Rule 702(a)-(d), if that evidence would need those standards when given by a witness. It was published for comment in August 2025. After mixed comments, the Advisory Committee in May 2026 revised it to focus on 'artificial intelligence', presume an expert foundation while allowing other proof of reliability, and add a notice requirement. The revision has not been approved or republished, so the rule has no effective date. Read the full answer

It has no effective date. The rule was published for comment in 2025, but in May 2026 the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules did not recommend final approval. It revised the draft and agreed the revision would need a new round of public comment if it goes forward. It planned further study with AI experts at its October 15, 2026 meeting. Any rule would still need approval by the Standing Committee, the Judicial Conference and the Supreme Court, and would take effect on a December 1 after Congress has had time to review it. Read the full answer

Show that the system is reliable and was used reliably in your case. In practice, document what the model is and which version ran, the data it was built and validated on, its known error rates or test results, the inputs behind the specific output, and that the run can be reproduced. Where you can, have a qualified expert explain these points; the Advisory Committee's revised Rule 707 draft would presume one is needed. Give the other side early notice and access so it can test the result. Read the full answer

Not by itself. Whether evidence is reliable enough is for the judge to decide, under Rule 702 when an expert relies on the tool and under the general relevance and authentication rules otherwise. An audit record showing how the tool was tested, its error rates, and that a specific result can be reproduced is strong supporting evidence. It works best alongside a qualified witness who can explain the method and how it was applied to the facts of the case. Read the full answer