The AI Prosecutor: Transforming Case Management, Brady Decisions, and Prosecutorial Discretion

Prosecutors across the United States are rapidly modernizing their case management systems. Some have even begun to experiment with artificial intelligence, promising streamlined workflows and improved efficiency in an increasingly complex legal landscape. As these AI-driven technologies evolve from simple document management to sophisticated decision-making though, important questions emerge about their potential impact on prosecutorial discretion.

The Screening Revolution: When Algorithms Influence Charging Decisions

The screening decision sits at the heart of prosecutorial power. Today, this process relies on human judgment—assistant district attorneys review evidence, interview witnesses, apply office policies, and make determinations based on legal standards and professional experience. But what happens if artificial intelligence begins to shape this critical function?

Imagine a prosecutor's office in the near future where an AI system processes incoming cases overnight. By morning, it has categorized each case, assessed evidence strength, and generated preliminary charging recommendations complete with draft bills. This capability is increasingly realistic as police departments digitize their records—reports, body camera footage, interview transcripts, 911 calls, surveillance videos, and crime scene photos—and integrate them with prosecutors' case management systems.

The AI could automatically conduct what amounts to a comprehensive Kyles review within minutes of receiving a case, analyzing all available digital evidence from law enforcement. It might flag missing elements—a needed follow-up interview with a witness, surveillance footage referenced but not included in the file, missing drug labs, or transcripts of 911 calls not yet processed. It could identify inconsistencies between witness statements and physical evidence or note where additional forensic testing might strengthen the case. For overworked prosecutors facing crushing caseloads, such a system would appear revolutionary, potentially transforming a process that traditionally takes hours or days into one completed in minutes with greater thoroughness.

But as these systems begin to evolve and start offering suggestions and eventually making preliminary determinations, important questions arise. Will prosecutors feel empowered to override algorithmic recommendations, especially when backed by detailed statistical analyses and evidence summaries? How might supervisors perceive prosecutors who frequently contradict AI suggestions? Could the pressure to expedite cases inadvertently promote reliance on automated recommendations? More fundamentally, prosecutorial discretion involves nuanced judgments balancing legal standards, community impact, rehabilitation potential, and justice considerations—elements that algorithms may struggle to fully grasp or integrate.

Brady Material: Algorithms and the Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence

Prosecutors hold a constitutional responsibility under Brady v. Maryland to disclose exculpatory evidence. Currently, prosecutors manually review evidence, making subjective judgments about materiality.

AI systems promise comprehensive reviews of large evidence collections, identifying inconsistencies, contradictions, and potential Brady material missed by human eyes. Algorithms could flag subtle discrepancies in witness statements or highlight alternative narratives hidden within vast police documentation.

However, identifying truly material exculpatory evidence requires nuanced contextual understanding that likely exceeds current AI capabilities. A minor inconsistency may be pivotal in one case but inconsequential in another. Determining what is exculpatory and what is not, often requires insight into the defense theory, the broader evidentiary context, and implications human prosecutors can recognize.

Reliance on AI raises accountability concerns too. Who bears responsibility if significant evidence remains undisclosed due to algorithmic oversight? Would courts accept an algorithmic failure as a good-faith explanation? Conversely, an AI system flagging too many potential issues could overload prosecutors, obscuring genuinely crucial evidence amid minor inconsistencies.

This underscores the necessity of meaningful human oversight. As AI grows more sophisticated, prosecutors must understand algorithm limitations and retain ultimate decision-making authority—skills not commonly emphasized in current legal education.

Training Prosecutors for the AI Era

As AI increasingly informs charging decisions and evidence evaluations, legal education and training must adapt. Tomorrow's prosecutors will require more than traditional legal knowledge; they must possess technical literacy to understand how AI systems function, the data they rely upon, and how to critically assess their recommendations.

Law schools and prosecutor training programs will need to incorporate algorithmic literacy, data interpretation, and effective strategies for human-AI collaboration. Without this, we risk prosecutors deferring excessively to technology, shifting from decision-makers to decision-validators and compromising independent judgment.

This evolution raises fundamental questions about prosecutorial identity. Have we fully considered the implications of critical prosecutorial decisions being algorithmically shaped? Could technological dependence erode essential skills, judgment, and discretion? These are critical issues warranting serious attention before rapid technological adoption outpaces ethical and practical frameworks.

Balancing Human Judgment with Technological Innovation

Despite these challenges, AI integration into prosecution holds significant promise when implemented thoughtfully. AI tools could help prosecutors manage overwhelming caseloads, enforce consistent legal application, and identify overlooked evidence patterns. However, the ultimate goal must be "augmented prosecution"—enhancing human judgment, not replacing it.

Most importantly, meaningful dialogue among prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and technologists is essential. Integrating AI into prosecutorial practice represents more than technological change; it transforms core issues of discretion, judgment, and justice. Thoughtful engagement among stakeholders is necessary to ensure technology supports rather than subverts our pursuit of justice.

Looking Forward

As AI tools become more prevalent in prosecutors' offices, the legal community must develop appropriate governance frameworks and ethical guidelines to harness their benefits while safeguarding the integrity of prosecutorial decision-making. The question is not whether technology will transform prosecution, but how we shape that transformation to uphold justice while embracing innovation. By maintaining human judgment at the center of this evolution, we can ensure that artificial intelligence serves as a powerful ally rather than an inadvertent threat to prosecutorial wisdom and discretion.

Subscribe to my Substack newsletter today so you don’t miss out on a post. https://judgeschlegel.substack.com