Courts - Artificial Intelligence Evidence Clinic Pilot Program - Establishment
HB966 establishes an Artificial Intelligence Evidence Clinic Pilot Program within the Administrative Office of the Courts. The program is intended to help Maryland circuit courts and the District Court evaluate the authenticity of electronic evidence that may have been created or altered using artificial intelligence, by providing expert testimony and related resources. The bill envisions the program being run through a selected entity, with participation from college and university students, recent graduates, faculty, and technology professionals focused on AI research and development.
The bill directs the Administrative Office of the Courts to issue a request for proposals to choose the entity that will manage the program, and it requires the office to develop a grant application and award grants to eligible institutions of higher education. In selecting a manager, the office must give preference to a Maryland-based vendor with an academic focus on computer science and technology research, experience with artificial intelligence, and a plan to maximize state funds through partnerships and existing materials. The bill also allows the Governor to include up to $250,000 in the budget for fiscal years 2027 and 2028, with no more than 20% used for administrative expenses.
The bill would add a new section to the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, creating a state-run pilot program specifically aimed at AI-related evidence issues in court. It also authorizes contractual protections, including a hold-harmless clause for the entity conducting the program, except in cases of willful or wanton misconduct, gross negligence, or intentional tortious conduct. The act takes effect July 1, 2025.
The general sentiment around the bill appears favorable. It passed the House on third reading with 128 yeas and 9 nays, and the committee report was favorable with amendments. That voting pattern suggests broad support for the concept of helping courts address emerging AI evidence issues, while the amendments indicate some refinement of the program structure and funding approach.
The main points of contention likely center on the use of public funds, the role of higher education institutions in operating a court-related expert resource, and the liability protections for the selected entity. The bill also prioritizes civil cases involving unrepresented parties or those without reasonable access to expert testimony, which may reflect concern about access to justice and the practical need for AI expertise in litigation.
HB966 creates a new pilot program in Maryland law under the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article to support courts in assessing whether electronic evidence may have been generated or altered by artificial intelligence. It authorizes the Administrative Office of the Courts to manage the program through grants and a selected outside entity, and it permits limited state funding through the budget process for fiscal years 2027 and 2028. The bill affects courts, higher education institutions, and any litigants whose cases involve disputed digital evidence, especially in civil matters.
Overall sentiment appears strongly supportive. The bill received a favorable committee report with amendments and passed the House overwhelmingly, 128-9, indicating broad agreement that courts need specialized assistance to address AI-related evidence issues. The amendments suggest legislators were willing to refine the program rather than oppose its underlying purpose.
Likely areas of concern include whether the state should fund a pilot program for AI expert testimony, how the program should be administered, and whether the selected entity should receive liability protection. There may also be debate over the preference for Maryland-based and academically oriented entities, the use of grants to higher education institutions, and the focus on civil cases involving unrepresented parties. The small number of nay votes suggests objections were limited, but they likely related to cost, program design, or the scope of court involvement in AI expertise.