There was a marked decline in attorney’s ability to utilize private detectives to spy on opposing parties or to present still shots as alabi’s that started (at least in my area of the US) somewhere around 2005. I’d say it took a while for the distrust of stills due to the possibility of generic ‘photoshopping’, but actual and test juries are less likely to definitively base decisions on stills if the opposing lawyer can in any conceivably reasonable way claim it’s edited.
As a side note, I am less concerned with the use of deep fakes to frame (civil or criminal) a person, it is more the potential for an attorney to put big wholes in a jury’s trust of video evidence by showing a faked image as counterproof and then flat out telling jurors that one is fake and therefore the other side can’t prove it’s case.
Caveat -> this doesn’t apply to police generated evidence, because a majority of jurors, to a statistical certainty barring exceptional circumstances, ALWAYS believe cops.
As a side note, I am less concerned with the use of deep fakes to frame (civil or criminal) a person, it is more the potential for an attorney to put big wholes in a jury’s trust of video evidence by showing a faked image as counterproof and then flat out telling jurors that one is fake and therefore the other side can’t prove it’s case.
Caveat -> this doesn’t apply to police generated evidence, because a majority of jurors, to a statistical certainty barring exceptional circumstances, ALWAYS believe cops.