State v. Puloka

While at a Washington bar, Joshua Puloka (defendant) became involved in a violent altercation that ended with Puloka killing his opponent and two bystanders. Puloka was charged with murder. He argued that the killings were accidental, alleging that he tried to deescalate the situation but eventually had to fire shots in self-defense, with those shots unintentionally killing the opponent and bystanders. At trial, Puloka sought to introduce expert-witness testimony from Brian Racherbaeumer that was based on a civilian iPhone video of the fight that Racherbaeumer had enhanced using an artificial-intelligence (AI) editing tool called Topaz Labs AI. The enhanced video was proffered as an exhibit to accompany Racherbaeumer’s testimony. Racherbaeumer was a videographer, without any training in video forensics. The tool Racherbaeumer utilized increased the video’s resolution by adding a significant number of pixels. It also increased sharpness and definition to reduce motion blur. Puloka argued that Racherbaeumer’s testimony and the enhanced video were admissible because use of the AI tool was generally accepted in the video-production community. The prosecution objected to admission of the enhanced video, arguing that only the original video should be admitted into evidence. Certified forensic video expert Grant Fredericks explained that when enhancing the video, the AI used an undisclosed algorithm and method. Further, such AI methods had not been formally tested in any way and tended to create false details, change colors, and distort perspectives, altering the overall image. Because image integrity was key to forensic video analysis, Fredericks explained that AI video enhancement was not generally accepted within the forensic video analysis community in North America and Europe. The trial court considered whether to admit the enhanced video.