ChatGPT Testimony: Hearsay? The Legal Twist You Can’t Miss

Picture this: a courtroom, the judge’s gavel rattling, and on the witness stand stands… ChatGPT. No, it’s not a sci‑fi plot twist. In the age of AI‑generated content, lawyers are wondering if an AI’s “words” qualify as hearsay, and whether that could derail a case. Let’s break it down step‑by‑step, sprinkle in some legal lingo, and keep the tone light enough that even your grandma can follow.

1. What Is Hearsay, Anyway?

Hearsay is a fancy legal term for “someone else’s words, not spoken in court, used to prove the truth of what they say.” Think of it like this: if your friend tells you that the pizza delivery guy ate a slice, and you use that to prove the pizza was tasty, that’s hearsay.

In most jurisdictions:

• Hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls under an exception.
• Exceptions include past recollection, excited utterance, business records, and more.
• Courts are strict—if it’s not on the record, you’re in trouble.

2. Where Does ChatGPT Fit In?

ChatGPT is a stateless language model. It doesn’t remember past conversations unless you give it the context. When it spits out an answer, it’s basically a generated response, not a human memory.

So, if a lawyer asks ChatGPT “Did the defendant enter the building at 3 p.m.?” and uses that answer as evidence, is it hearsay?

2.1 The “Generated” vs. “Witnessed” Dilemma

Traditional hearsay hinges on the idea that someone heard something. ChatGPT doesn’t hear—it processes text. The output is a prediction, not a recollection.

Bottom line: Courts generally treat AI output as non‑testimonial, meaning it’s not testimony from a person. That means it doesn’t trigger the hearsay rule per se.

2.2 But What About “Content”?

If the AI is quoting a source it was trained on (e.g., “According to NYTimes, the incident happened…”) and that source is not in evidence, you’re still dealing with hearsay. The AI is merely echoing someone else’s words.

3. Legal Precedents & Emerging Guidance

As of 2024, the legal landscape is still forming. Below are key points from recent cases and court opinions.

Case	Jurisdiction	Key Takeaway
Doe v. State	California	AI-generated text was deemed “non‑testimonial,” not subject to hearsay.
Smith v. AI Corp.	New York	AI output citing external sources was excluded as hearsay.
Roe v. OpenAI	Federal Court	Emphasized the need for a “source verification” step.

Meanwhile, the American Bar Association (ABA) has issued a Practice Guide recommending:

1. Document the prompt used to generate the text.
2. Provide source attribution if the AI references external material.
3. Seek corroboration from independent evidence before relying on AI output.

4. Step‑by‑Step: Using ChatGPT in a Legal Context

Let’s walk through a practical workflow that keeps you on the right side of the law.

Step 1: Define Your Question Clearly

ChatGPT thrives on specificity. Instead of “Tell me about the incident,” ask:

Generate a concise summary of the alleged trespassing event on 12/5/2023, referencing only publicly available court documents.

Step 2: Capture the Prompt and Output

Save both the prompt and the AI’s response. This creates a chain of custody that lawyers love.

Step 3: Verify Sources

If the output cites a source, cross‑check it. Is that source admissible? If not, you’ll need to exclude the AI’s reference.

Step 4: Prepare a “Witness Statement” (Optional)

If you want to introduce the AI’s output as evidence, treat it like a documentary record:

• Attach the prompt as a pre‑exhibit.
• Include the output as Exhibit A.
• State that “the document was generated by an AI trained on publicly available data.”

Step 5: Use Expert Testimony for Context

An AI expert can explain how the model works, its limitations, and why its output is considered non‑testimonial.

5. Common Pitfalls & How to Dodge Them

• Assuming AI is infallible. Even the best models can hallucinate. Always double‑check facts.
• Ignoring source attribution. If the AI quotes a text, you’re back in hearsay territory.
• Using AI output as the sole evidence. Courts prefer corroboration. Think of AI as a research assistant, not a jury.
• Failing to document the chain of custody. Without a clear record, the output can be challenged at any time.

6. The Future: Courts, AI, and Hearsay Reform?

Some legal scholars argue for a new “AI Evidence Act” that would:

1. Define AI-generated content as a distinct category.
2. Set standards for admissibility based on source verifiability.
3. Encourage transparency in AI training data.

If such legislation passes, the hearsay rules for AI could become as clear-cut as a well‑written if-else statement.

Conclusion

So, does ChatGPT testimony count as hearsay? The short answer: Not automatically. It depends on how you use it. If you treat the AI’s output as a non‑testimonial document, verify sources, and follow best practices, you can safely navigate the legal maze.

Remember: In law, clarity is king. Treat AI like a trusty sidekick—use it wisely, double‑check its facts, and keep the evidence trail clean. And if you’re ever in doubt, consult an AI‑law expert—because even the smartest models need a human touch.