Robots in the Courtroom: Implications of Humanoid Robots Testifying in Court for Mitigating the Difficulty of Witnesses Appearing in Court

Abstract: The real-time interactivity and autonomy of chatbot technology enable humanoid robots to appear in court and respond to judges’ inquiries. Nevertheless, the unpredictability and uncertain reliability of their statements raise the question of whether judges can accept the humanoid robot testimony in the same way as that of a human witness. If humanoid robots were allowed to testify in place of human witnesses, it would appear to significantly reduce the difficulty of securing witness attendance in court proceedings. However, according to the theory of virtue jurisprudence, humanoid robots are incapable of establishing social relationships or assuming legal responsibility. As a result, judges cannot derive justified beliefs from the statements generated by humanoid robot. Any judicial assertions based on such statements would lack justification. Moreover, since humans responsible for the humanoid robot cannot predict the content of the judge’s inquiries or the robot’s responses, requiring humanoid robots to testify may indirectly motivate those humans to appear in court themselves, mitigating the persistent challenge of securing witness attendance in court.