AI ETHICS AI is increasingly present in the courtroom itself, and defenders should cautiously embrace using AI tools for things like sentencing memos and character statements. AI drafting tools can generate initial versions of sentencing memoranda by synthesizing case facts, identifying mitigating circumstances, and locating precedent, each requiring work that might otherwise consume hours of defender time. Some platforms — generally categorized as predictive analytics or legal analytics tools — analyze millions of federal sentencing outcomes to produce statistical reports showing how similarly-situated defendants have been sentenced, giving defenders empirical support for variance arguments. Although the specific products used are changing much like other general-use products, an example product is the Sentence Intelligence Report or Federal Sentence Predictor tools from SentencingStats.com. For character letters, AI can help family members and supporters structure their narratives effectively and address the elements judges find most persuasive while avoiding common pitfalls like disputing guilt or criticizing the prosecution. Yet defenders should understand the risks of using AI for these uses, specifically. Hallucinations, the same error that led to sanctions against attorneys in widely publicized cases, and other errors in sentencing memos could devastate a client facing years of incarceration. Character letters present different dangers. When clients or their families use AI to draft support letters without defender review, the results often read as generic and formulaic, lacking the specific stories and concrete details that judges find persuasive. Worse, AI-generated letters from multiple supporters may share suspiciously similar phrasing, signaling to the court that the letters are manufactured rather than genuine expressions of support. Judges are increasingly adept at recognizing AI-generated content, and the perception that a defendant’s mitigation package is inauthentic can undermine the entire sentencing presentation. Some judges have approved using AI for sentencing and/or character statements in much more dramatic ways. In 2025, the family of a slain road-rage victim used AI to generate a video of the victim speaking to the court. It was considered the “first time the technology has been used in the U.S. to create an impact statement read by an AI rendering of the deceased victim.” 47 Nonetheless, a defender’s obligation to scrutinize and object to outrageous uses of AI — such as the creation of wholly fabricated evidence and not simply its use for exhibit creation, generally — extends to all materials submitted to the court, as discussed further in Part II.
19
Parity in Practice: The Defender’s Duty to Ethically Use AI
Made with FlippingBook Online document maker