What happened

Developed by Adam Mosher and used in nearly 8,000 cases across 40 US states, Cybercheck employs machine learning to analyse extensive data sources, including social media and digital forensics, to identify suspects and gather evidence. 

Mosher claims the tool boasts over 90 percent accuracy, significantly expediting research that would typically require hundreds of human hours.

However, multiple cases call into question Mosher's claims. For example, Cybercheck was used to convict Adarus Black of murder for his supposed involvement in the 2020 drive-by shooting of 18-year-old high school graduate Na’Kia Crawford, leading to a life sentence. 

The AI tool reportedly triangulated Black's cellphone location with over 90 percent accuracy.  

However, there was no direct evidence linking him to the location of his alleged crime and jurors indicated they may not have convicted him without the Cybercheck report.

Why it happened

Black’s defense team did not challenge the scientific validity of the Cybercheck evidence during the original trial. 

It was only after his conviction that the tool's reliability came under fire, mostly due to Mosher's refusal to provide evidence to support his claims of his system's accuracy and relaibiility, or allow an independent third-party to audit it.

The lack of transparency raised the prospect of multiple potential miscarriages of justice, and led some courts to exclude Cybercheck evidence. For example, a New York judge ruled against its use when prosecutors failed to demonstrate its acceptance within the scientific community.

Investigations have also revealed that Mosher made dubious claims about his qualifications and previous expert testimonies. 

What it means

The ongoing legal challenges and criticisms of Cybercheck highlight concerns about the tool itself and the governance of its owner Global Intelligence and the cases it has been involved in. 

It also raises broader questions regarding the use of AI in policing and criminal justice. Notably, the increasing reliance on AI tools - particularly unverified tools - in the US justice system raises questions about fairness in legal proceedings and the potential for wrongful convictions based on flawed data analysis.

Continued skepticism from defense attorneys and judges may also erode public confidence in the justice and police systems.

The situation is also seen to highlight the necessity for appropriate regulatory frameworks governing the use of AI in law enforcement, notably that these kinds of technologies undergo rigorous testing and validation before being deployed in high-risk areas such as criminal justice.