|
|
|
|
|
by ratliffchrisb
3727 days ago
|
|
No, nothing near it. There are tons of small details about jury selection that is common knowledge to attorneys that are based off very general, singular, facts. For example, a prosecutor will almost always strike a social worker if they get the chance because they are supposedly always driven by mitigating circumstances that make them highly unlikely to convict. Backing up, or refuting, things like this and finding more of them once you have actual data is child's play. A probability based off a set of given facts and not every fact is still useful and doesn't require AI. To fully replace a jury consultant, yes that would require AI, but at their going rate of >$250/hr I think an app could find a price point reflecting the diminished result that is still very attractive in comparison. |
|
1. If you're already going to trial, especially with "millions on the line", paying out a few thousand / tens of thousands to a consultant doesn't necessarily seem to bad.
2. Given how much jury tuning is going on right now, I would have worries about the quality of the "actual data" and how much insight you could get from such a contaminated corpus.
3. Prosecutors already have an incredible amount of power in jury selection, why do they need more?