But video corroborated by eyewitness testimony would be pretty good. Especially if they don't know there is a video when giving their account.

*Tell me you've never encountered a real courtroom without telling me never encountered a real courtroom... *

Our legal systems have long required things like "chain of custody" and "corroborating evidence" for essentially any claim. Because in essentially any instance where the opposing sides dispute a question of fact they need to convince a mildly annoyed rando that things happened a certain way while the other team is arguing that it's all a hoax.

They generally skip all that in courtroom dramas and even broadcasted courtrooms, because the very first phase of any trial is discovery where both sides show some or all of their cards to try and convince the other team to fold.

AI slop is hardly the first time someone invented a new tool for faking evidence. Heck, we had a whole industry based on faking video evidence before the first surveilance camera was ever installed.

(There's a huge possibility for slander and fraud that the general public should wise up to, but starting with an assumption that evidence is fake unless proven otherwise is kinda how things go.)

(And, yes, the big hole here is that "best avaliable" evidence is often nonsense. ACAB and all that. My point is just that fake evidence isn't a dangerous new invention courts have never seen before.)