OK HB 2016: Evidence; artificial intelligence expert testimony

Operative sections

• 12 O.S. §2702: would add provisions for artificial-intelligence expert testimony.
• 12 O.S. §2803: would address hearsay exceptions for AI testimony or AI-generated material.
• 12 O.S. §2806: would address attacking and supporting credibility of AI expert testimony.

Text

An Act relating to evidence; amending 12 O.S. 2021, Section 2702, which relates to testimony by experts; providing for artificial intelligence expert testimony; amending 12 O.S. 2021, Section 2803, which relates to hearsay; ... amending 12 O.S. 2021, Section 2806, which relates to attacking and supporting credibility; providing for attacking and supporting credibility of artificial intelligence expert testimony.

Verbatim operative text; legislative text is a government edict and public domain. Full text · History

What already applies in Oklahoma

The bill sits alongside rules courts and regulators have already issued, and decisions courts have already handed down, in the same jurisdiction — from the regulation tracker and the court-decisions corpus.

Rules and guidance in force

• Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 1.17 — Use of Generative Artificial IntelligenceOklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

  Rule 1.17 requires that where generative AI has been used in drafting any document filed in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the party or counsel must ensure every AI-produced or AI-modified portion has been verified as accurate by a person responsible for the document. Non-compliance may lead to waiver, striking of the document, or contempt.

Decisions on the record

• State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. ReevesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2026-05-27

  On 2026-05-27, in State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Reeves, Supreme Court of Oklahoma publicly reprimanded the attorney as reciprocal discipline for ChatGPT-generated citations used in federal filings. Counsel filed a motion using authorities used for propositions they did not support.

• Dalton Gage Hill v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice AuthorityUnited States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma · 2026-05-21

  On 2026-05-21, in Dalton Gage Hill v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority, the Western District of Oklahoma magistrate judge recommended denying the motion to vacate and described earlier Rule 11 sanctions proceedings against counsel. Counsel filed a response using quotations that did not appear in the cited source, nonexistent or hallucinated authorities, and authorities used for.

• In re the Marriage of Amy Haddock and Justin Blu HaddockDistrict Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma · 2026-05-21

  On 2026-05-21, in In re the Marriage of Amy Haddock and Justin Blu Haddock, the Tulsa County district court sanctioned counsel $2,000, ordered attorney-fee proceedings, required a knowledge-base audit, and directed bar referral. Counsel filed a motion using authorities used for propositions they did not support.

• Jane Doe 1, et al. v. Mount Saint Mary High School CorporationUnited States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma · 2026-05-13

  On 2026-05-13, in Jane Doe 1, et al. v. Mount Saint Mary High School Corporation, the Western District of Oklahoma publicly reprimanded counsel, ordered notice to the client, and required self-reporting to the Oklahoma Bar Association. Counsel filed a reply brief using quotations that did not appear in the cited source, nonexistent or hallucinated authorities, and authorities used.

• Kristina Crist v. Roy Chris West, et al.United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma · 2026-05-07

  The Western District of Oklahoma on 2026-05-07 publicly reprimanded counsel, fined counsel $250, and ordered counsel to notify the client of the sanctions order in Kristina Crist v. Roy Chris West, et al. Counsel filed a brief with one fabricated case citation and one mischaracterized case citation.