I don't think it is an either or question. But it seems very reasonable to not assume computers are always correct. In a situation in which a bug could have co

I don't think it is an either or question. But it seems very reasonable to not assume computers are always correct. In a situation in which a bug could have conceivably caused the evidence against the defendant the defandant, should be allowed to examine the computer system (read the source code). Without that I see no reason why it should be allowed as evidence against someone, when the evidence could have been the result of a flaw in the software. Of course "could" is pretty ambigous. Things you might look at are: Have this or other, similar systems suffered from a bug which could have caused this? How much/often is the claim out of line with what the defence claims. How serious and easy to notice would a bug have to be to cause this? Is there other evidence, besides the computer? And probably many more. Of course "the camera changed the face of the person to the defendants" is something which probabbly should be disregarded.