The legal aspects of the admissibility of AI results as evidence in criminal and civil proceedings, drawing on current legislation, case law, and scholarly opinion. It is demonstrated that results obtained using artificial intelligence in the context of evidence are defined as data or conclusions obtained using machine learning algorithms or other AI systems, without direct human intervention. The authors emphasize that the forensic use of AI does not automatically transfer its findings to criminal case materials without data verification. Modern artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly penetrating the justice system. This raises the question: can AI results, such as generated texts, images, or algorithmic conclusions, be used as evidence in court? We will attempt to answer these questions
artificial intelligence, law enforcement, crime investigation, forensic activities
1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation (adopted by popular vote on December 12, 1993, with amendments approved during the nationwide vote on July 1, 2020) // URL: http://www.pravo.gov.ru
2. Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation No. 174-FZ of December 18, 2001 (as amended on July 23, 2025) (as amended and supplemented, intro. effective from January 20, 2026) // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. 2001. December 24. No. 52. P. I. Art. 4921.
3. The Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation of November 14, 2002 No. 138-FZ (as amended on December 25, 2025) (with amendments and additions effective January 1, 2026) // Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation. 2002. November 18. No. 46. Art. 4532.
4. Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 26, 2017, No. 57 «On Some issues of the Application of legislation Regulating the Use of electronic documents and electronic images of documents in the activities of courts of General Jurisdiction and Arbitration courts» // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2017. No. 297.
5. Buzova N. V. Artificial intelligence in judicial activity: advantages and risks // Bulletin of the Tyumen State University. Socio-economic and legal studies. 2024. Vol. 10. No. 2 (38). P. 57–73.
6. Minbaleev A. V., Dobrobaba M. B., Efremov A. A., Shchitova A. A. Analytical report «Legal problems of using artificial intelligence» // URL: https://consortium.msal.ru/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/K_4-AD-_Pravovye-problemy-ispolzovaniya-iskusstvennogo-intellekta.pdf
7. Nagornaya M. There is a need for order in the use of artificial intelligence in courts // URL: https://fparf.ru/news/fpa/v-ispolzovanii-iskusstvennogo-intellekta-v-sudakh-neobkhodim-poryadok/
8. Purtova A. V. Problems of artificial intelligence application in the system of state and municipal management // URL: http://progress-human.com/images/2024/Tom10_12/Purtova.pdf
9. Smirnov A. V. «Electronic evidence, electronic evidence, artificial intelligence: what's next?» // Criminal proceedings. 2024. No. 1. P. 24–31.
10. Spiridonov M. S. Artificial intelligence technologies in criminal procedural evidence. // URL: https://doi.org/10.21202/jdtl.2023.20
11. Tokmantseva D. D., Sherstyanykh A. S. On the role of artificial intelligence in crime detection // URL: https://scinetwork.ru/articles/26690
12. Sherstoboev O. N., Mikheeva I. V. «Information technologies in the judicial process: the possibilities of artificial intelligence in the evidence system» // Bulletin of the RUDN University. A series of Legal sciences. 2024. Vol. 28. No. 1. P. 178–195.
13. Shcherbacheva L. V. Problems of implementation of artificial intelligence in judicial proceedings // URL: https://research-journal.org/archive/2-140-2024-february/10.23670/IRJ.2024.140.24
14. Yapryntsev I. M., Ivanova L. V., Zenin S. S. [et al.] Legal responsibility in the field of artificial intelligence and robotics: doctrinal and regulatory problems // URL: https://elib.utmn.ru/jspui/handle/ru-tsu/38879
15. Complaint-Huang-v-Tesla-State-of-California // URL: https://dig.abclocal.go.com/kgo/PDF/Complaint-Huang-v-Tesla-State-of-Calif-20190430.pdf
16. Michael P. Dickman. Al Evidence — Potential New Rules, Same Responsibikities // URL: https://www.nacdl.org/getattachment/89dee8b2-c47d-49c0-89d4-e187efe76551/Washington-v-Puloka-(No-21-1-04851-2-KNT)-(Sup-Ct-WA-2024).pdf?lang=en-US
