“Just Trust the Machine”: Why the Constitution Demands a Human Witness, Not Just a Piece of Paper

By: John Guidry

Ever notice how the more “advanced” we become, the less actual people are needed? Machines can do everything for us. We don’t even need “real” friends anymore; we’ve got Facebook.

The Courtroom Takeover: So, why not get the people out of the courtroom as well? If prosecutors had their way, a mere computer printout would be admissible without the need for a human being to ever testify.

• The Scenario: You are accused of a prison-worthy offense. The State Attorney approaches the jury with a single piece of paper, and WHAM BAM! You’re off to prison.
• The “Witness”: No human being. Just a lab report, a medical affidavit, or a transcript.

The Prosecutor’s Dream: You see the beauty of it from their perspective, right?

• No witnesses to stutter or look nervous.
• No cross-examination to expose lies.
• No way for a defendant to cast doubt upon the document.
• Quick convictions.

Is the State trying to convict you with a report instead of a person?

You have the right to confront your accuser. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Fix: Crawford v. Washington (2004)

Fortunately, our Constitution gives a defendant the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him” (Sixth Amendment). The United States Supreme Court decided to put an end to the “Trial by Paper” in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).

The Rule: Crawford says that Testimonial Evidence (statements made to prove a fact in court) is inadmissible unless:

1. The witness is Unavailable; AND
2. The defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine that person.

The Impact: Before Crawford, courts would let hearsay in if it seemed “reliable.” Now, it doesn’t matter how reliable the judge thinks the paper is. If that paper makes an accusation (like “The substance was Cocaine”), the person who wrote it must come to court, sit in the chair, and face the heat.

John’s 2026 Update: The AI Witness & “Rule 707”

Note: In 2004, we fought over lab reports. In 2026, we are fighting over Black Box Algorithms.

1. The “AI Expert” Problem Prosecutors are now using AI tools to analyze complex data (like financial records or DNA mixtures).

• The Challenge: They try to introduce the AI’s conclusion (“99% match”) without calling the programmer who wrote the code.
• The Defense: We argue Crawford still applies. You cannot cross-examine a piece of software. If the State cannot produce a human who can explain how the AI reached that conclusion (the “Black Box” problem), the evidence must be suppressed.

2. Proposed Evidence Rule 707 (Machine-Generated Evidence) Courts are currently debating Rule 707, which treats AI output like an expert witness.

• The Shift: This rule requires the proponent to prove the AI is based on “reliable principles.”
• The Trap: If the defense doesn’t object properly, the AI report comes in as “fact.” We must aggressively demand the source code and the training data to prove the machine is biased.

3. “Hallucinated” Evidence We have seen cases where AI tools used by police “hallucinate” (invent) data—creating transcripts of calls that never happened or enhancing video to show guns that weren’t there.

• The Strategy: We use the Confrontation Clause to demand the original raw data. If the only “witness” to the crime is a pixel generated by an AI upscaling tool, that is a violation of your rights.

Make Them Bring the Human

If the State wants to lock you up, they should have to look you in the eye and explain why. Don’t let them hide behind a printout or an algorithm.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s cross-examine the truth.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.