In a previous post, we looked into the parity gap between prosecutors and public defenders. That gap has opened up because public defender offices have incorporated AI-powered legal tools into their work while prosecutors’ offices, stretched thin by rising caseloads and tight budgets, have had less opportunity to do the same. As a result, defense teams have gained a distinct advantage in court.
The quiet shift: Why public defenders adopted AI before prosecutors
Prosecutors are now wondering how to respond. As we noted in the last post, a well-designed AI tool offers numerous capabilities that can help prosecutors’ offices be better prepared to argue their cases.
At the same time, prosecutors have reasons to be cautious about AI adoption. This technology promises efficiencies, but those efficiencies can become very expensive if AI generates errors that prosecutors can’t afford to make.
Still, prosecutors’ offices know they need to close the parity gap, before it affects case outcomes. They can develop a practical plan of action that delivers AI’s benefits while sidestepping potential pitfalls.
How AI can expand capacity and reduce risk
Turning AI spending into capacity
Reliability isn’t the only concern prosecutors have about using AI. Prosecutors’ offices are struggling to manage bigger caseloads on stagnating budgets. Carefully evaluating the expanding range of AI tools on the market requires time and resources that many offices already have in short supply.
Then there is the cost of an AI platform itself. With resources shrinking, how can prosecutorial staff justify this expense?
In evaluating an AI platform’s potential effect, prosecutors should focus less on the technology’s upfront cost and more on its longer-term impact. What AI adoption can do is convert an office’s current technology budget into work capacity. The prosecutors’ office can make it clear to its government’s finance overseers that it is not requesting more attorneys or staff. It is asking for technology that can take on work that additional hires would otherwise perform.
Saving time on routine case work
An AI tool developed for legal applications can lighten staff burdens in ways whose benefits far exceed costs. With caseloads rising and staffing (and other resources) in short supply, prosecutors’ offices need to save time. An AI tool can assemble witness lists, organize timelines, and summarize depositions far more quickly (and more accurately) than traditional manual methods. This allows staff to devote mission-impact activities including victim services and trial preparation.
Productivity gains are one reason prosecutors can make the case for AI. Better risk management is another.
Strengthening Brady and Giglio compliance
Among the many risks that prosecutors need to address is compliance with Brady and Giglio disclosure requirements. These, of course, refer to prosecutors’ legal obligation to provide any potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense. This includes any conduct by law enforcement officers that might have violated a defendant’s rights or undercut their own credibility.
An AI-powered legal tool can generate a reliable, audit trail that documents how information that might impeach the credibility of a police officer or other government witness is tracked and disclosed. The resulting documentation saves staff time and helps prosecutors address potential challenges to discovery or charging decisions.
Turning AI concerns into selection criteria
Why prosecutors are cautious about AI
Resistance to adding an AI tool to a prosecutor office’s budget often doesn’t come solely from government accountants. Prosecutors themselves are often wary. There have been several reports of instances in which AI has undermined attorneys’ cases by citing imaginary cases, laws, and data. Many prosecutors also have security and confidentiality concerns. They also worry that reliance on AI among junior attorneys will cause their skills to atrophy before they can fully develop.
What to look for in a tool
Prosecutors have legitimate concerns about AI, but they can use those concerns to guide the evaluation process. By focusing on reliability, security, and confidentiality, they can identify tools that meet their needs. For instance, prosecutors should look for tools that incorporate government-grade safeguards. These safeguards should include rigorous audit trails, thoroughly verified citations, and a guarantee that the tool will not use confidential data to “train” or improve its outputs.
Pricing flexibility
Another attribute to seek out: tools that offer different price points based on the capabilities they deliver. Prosecutorial staff may find that they don’t need all the available options. A lower cost can make it easier to justify the purchase to skeptical government finance departments.
As defense counsel increasingly adopt AI-powered legal tools, prosecutors face growing pressure to keep pace. Closing the parity gap can help prosecutors’ offices manage rising caseloads, make better use of limited resources, and prepare more effectively for court. Thoughtful AI adoption can help offices meet these challenges for the long term.
See how CoCounsel Legal can help your office increase capacity, work with confidence, and prepare more effectively for court. Explore CoCounsel Legal for prosecutors.
CoCounsel Legal
AI lawyers swear by: Trusted content, expert insights, and an all-in-one solution with ISO 42001 certification
See it in action ↗
