Synthetic jurors and AI co-counsel

[bobcat]

They won't be replacing real jurors and lawyers anytime soon, but they are increasingly being used for trials.
Lawyers are using them for co-counsel as AI assistants, to instantly search case law, testimony retention, flag inconsistencies, prepare arguments and cross-examination, and more.

Additionally, more mock trials are being done with AI jurors, because they can be set up in minutes instead of days or weeks at a fraction of the cost.
These synthetic jurors are AI models trained to simulate human juror behavior, including reasoning patterns, cognitive biases, demographic tendencies, and local cultural influences. They are juror platforms that leverage advanced AI, including neuro‑symbolic reasoning models, large language models, and demographic simulation engines, to replicate how real jurors analyze arguments, respond emotionally, and deliberate. They are used to hone legal skills and
sharpen oral arguments.

Even judges are integrating AI assistance in the courtroom, however, in all aspects of the judicial framework, it's extremely important to understand that the output needs to be checked for accuracy.

Sometime in the future I wouldn't be surprised if synthetic jurors were adopted in real trials. Many people try to get out of serving on juries, and biases and tampering are always a concern, as well as cost considerations, travel, and personality clashes. If it ever does happen, I think it would really alter the judicial system.

 

[hollydolly]

In the UK, as we speak Parliament is deciding whether to remove Jurors altogether from courts and just let a Judge make the decisions

I feel it will be an unmitigated disaster !

All the Barristers and Lawyers are absolutely against it...

 

[Michael Z]

In the UK, as we speak Parliament is deciding whether to remove Jurors altogether from courts and just let a Judge make the decisions

I feel it will be an unmitigated disaster !

All the Barristers and Lawyers are absolutely against it...

That move would probably lead to a surge in activist judges and judges influenced by lobbyists.

 

[hollydolly]

That move would probably lead to a surge in activist judges and judges influenced by lobbyists.

agreed... ! I'm sure of it.....

 

[JustDave]

There is something spooky about this idea. It's true that human jurors can be entirely unreliable, but AI jurors with built in biases added? This is scary stuff.

 

[bobcat]

There is something spooky about this idea. It's true that human jurors can be entirely unreliable, but AI jurors with built in biases added? This is scary stuff.

Sorry Dave, I guess I should explain that. It is only the mock AI jury that is programmed that way, just to simulate the way real people might be thinking. If the time ever came for a real AI jury, I would think and hope it would be with more of an analytical approach to determining guilt or innocence. There wouldn't be any need for bias or personality quirks in that case.

 

[Sunny]

Some of the more minor court proceedings are already presided over by a judge, minus the jury. The one time I went to court to fight a parking ticket, that's what we had. But I think for real criminal cases, we still have a jury in every state. It's considered much saner and more likely to reach real justice than leaving it in the hands of one person, which I think would be frightening. 12 jurors aren't likely to all be crazy fanatics, but one judge could be.

As for AI, I think that's totally ridiculous. I do find AI usually helpful for factual data, such as looking up summaries of historical events, and it's getting better all the time, but that's very different from moral and ethical judgements.

 

[hollydolly]

Some of the more minor court proceedings are already presided over by a judge, minus the jury. The one time I went to court to fight a parking ticket, that's what we had. But I think for real criminal cases, we still have a jury in every state. It's considered much saner and more likely to reach real justice than leaving it in the hands of one person, which I think would be frightening. 12 jurors aren't likely to all be crazy fanatics, but one judge could be.

As for AI, I think that's totally ridiculous. I do find AI usually helpful for factual data, such as looking up summaries of historical events, and it's getting better all the time, but that's very different from moral and ethical judgements.

same in the UK... anything that's likely to get a sentence of 3 years or less.. is usually dealt with in the Magistrates court, where 3 Magistrates , sit on a bench and no Jury

However despite that anyone can choose to have their case heard at the Crown court where there are Juries and just one Judge ..even if it's only for a minor case.. that's their right... however anything going to the crown court take s a long time to get there.. and then there's the cost ...

 

[hollydolly]

 

[MarciKS]

there's nothing stopping a juror from lying and being an activest or lobbyist is there?

 

[bobcat]

The Judicial Caseload Indicators Report confirms that workloads have grown faster than courts can resolve them, resulting in longer wait times for trials, with most being longer than a year and in some courts, several years. They also show the situation is worsening instead of getting better.

The US Constitution grants the right to a speedy trial by jury, but what can be done if the legal system is backed up. If you can't afford bail, then you remain locked up for however long it takes. Then when the trial finally does occur, those testifying are relying on fading memories. The justice system is under strain, and long waits for jury trials are now the norm rather than the exception.

 

[JustDave]

Sorry Dave, I guess I should explain that. It is only the mock AI jury that is programmed that way, just to simulate the way real people might be thinking.

I wondered why you mentioned mock AI jury. Maybe I wasn't reading carefully enough. I jumped to the conclusion that this was being considered for actual use.