Let’s assume I’m innocent but some neural net has placed my car at the location of a crime.

You’re saying that if I challenge the evidence, the prosecutors will counter that by showing that if my car were there, the neural net would have produced a picture of my car? They don’t need to do that and it adds nothing to their argument. I’m not challenging that the neural net is capable of producing an image of my car.

No, the point is I am placed in the position of having to demonstrate that there exists some other car which under those lighting conditions the neural net would mistake for mine. That’s a far harder burden of proof for me to reach.

Honestly this is similar to the way fingerprint, DNA and hair sample matches are presented to courtrooms all the time so it isn’t a new problem. As you say, forensics are persuasive.