Skip to content

Courts on AI / evidence

Burnley v. Valentin

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia · VA · United States · · 3:23-cv-00160

AdmittedAlleged voice cloneaudiooffered by defendantchallenge: authenticity

Walburn offered a phone recording to enforce a settlement. Burnley alleged the voice was either someone else or an AI clone. The district court accepted sworn declarations about creation and transfer of the recording, plus voice identification under Rule 901(b)(5), and enforced the settlement with fees.

Rules cited: Fed. R. Evid. 901(a) · Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(5)

The court's finding, in its words

Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) requires only that the proponent of evidence produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.

Verbatim; United States court documents are public domain.

This decision in the coded corpus of US decisions on generative AI →

compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub