Abstract

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into criminal justice systems marks a transformative development with profound implications for the conduct of criminal trials. AI tools are increasingly employed for a variety of purposes, including evidence analysis, predictive policing, risk assessment in bail and sentencing decisions, and even aiding judicial deliberations. These technologies promise greater efficiency, objectivity, and consistency in criminal proceedings. However, the use of AI in criminal trials also raises serious concerns about fairness, transparency, accountability, and the preservation of fundamental rights. The opaque nature of many AI systems, often referred to as the "black box" problem, challenges the principle of open justice and hampers defendants' ability to understand, challenge, or appeal AI-driven decisions. Moreover, biases embedded in training datasets risk perpetuating or even amplifying existing societal prejudices, thereby undermining the fairness of trials. This paper critically examines the potential and pitfalls of using AI in criminal trials. It explores the legal and ethical issues involved, particularly with respect to the right to a fair trial under constitutional and international human rights norms. Comparative experiences from jurisdictions such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and India are analyzed to understand emerging regulatory trends and judicial responses. The paper argues that while AI can be a valuable tool in enhancing the criminal justice process, its use must be strictly governed by principles of due process, transparency, explainability, and accountability. Safeguards such as mandatory disclosures about AI use, opportunities for human review, and mechanisms for contesting AI-generated findings are essential to preserve the integrity of criminal trials. Ultimately, the responsible integration of AI into criminal justice demands a careful balancing of technological innovation with unwavering adherence to the rule of law and the protection of individual rights.

Keywords