PR in the Philippines

Covington, Louisiana Apr 24, 2025 – Veteran Louisiana attorney Michael Bradley is voicing significant concerns about the increasing and largely unregulated integration of artificial intelligence into the criminal justice system. From his offices in Covington and Franklinton, Bradley, who has almost two decades of experience defending clients throughout Louisiana, is now focusing on what he considers the most dangerously subtle development in American law: “trial by algorithm.”

“Technology isn’t impartial,” states Bradley, a respected criminal defense and family law lawyer. “When we permit algorithms to dictate decisions about guilt, bail eligibility, or sentence length, we are entrusting justice to formulas that lack human consideration.”

Bradley’s remarks coincide with a growing national discussion about the use of AI in policing and sentencing. The trend of using AI tools, which ranges from predictive policing models identifying potentially “high-risk” individuals before any crime occurs to AI-driven sentencing tools that determine punishments using risk assessment scores, is accelerating with minimal oversight.

As the chair of the Criminal Division of the 22nd Judicial District Bar Association, Bradley has direct knowledge of how these systems are beginning to surface in courtrooms, frequently without full comprehension from defense lawyers or even judges about how the algorithms function.

“Defendants are being judged by obscure systems that neither they nor their attorneys can fully understand,” Bradley explains. “We’re transitioning from trials based on evidence to trials based on probability. That’s not justice; it’s mathematics pretending to be morality.”

A major concern for Bradley is the dependence on historical data, which inherently reflects decades of biased policing. “If the initial data is flawed, the results will also be flawed,” he asserts. “These algorithms are trained using arrest records and sentencing decisions that exhibit significant racial and socioeconomic biases. Therefore, when AI labels someone as ‘high risk’ for reoffending, it often means: ‘This person is from a disadvantaged neighborhood.'”

Bradley contends that the speed and efficiency promised by AI cannot replace the essential nuance and context required in a human legal process. “In criminal defense, context is paramount: the reasons behind an action, the manner in which it occurred, and the individual involved. A machine cannot interpret character references or understand trauma; it simply processes numbers.”

Despite the hype surrounding “smart justice,” Bradley believes that implementing AI tools without accountability is unwise. He advocates for immediate transparency in the creation, testing, and deployment of these tools.

“Judges and lawyers must have access to the source code. Defendants have a constitutional right to challenge the evidence against them, including algorithms,” Bradley argues. “However, in many jurisdictions, these tools are proprietary, meaning a company’s intellectual property is valued above a citizen’s freedom.”

Bradley also calls on the Louisiana State Bar Association and local courts to conduct formal hearings and establish ethical guidelines for AI use in criminal proceedings. He believes the legal profession has a moral duty to protect against technology that may reinforce, rather than correct, injustice.

“Ultimately, I am not against technology,” he clarifies. “But I support accountability. Any tool affecting freedom should face the same rigorous scrutiny as physical evidence, witness statements, and police conduct.”

As AI adoption increases nationwide, Bradley remains dedicated to advocating for fair and transparent justice, both in his individual cases and within the broader legal system. From his offices in Covington and Franklinton, he continues to represent clients with the strategic focus and personal commitment that earned him recognition as St. Tammany West’s Favorite Attorney and one of the nation’s top trial lawyers.

“Louisiana has always had a distinctive legal environment,” Bradley concludes. “We can take the lead in ensuring our justice system remains grounded in fairness, not futuristic shortcuts. Let’s remember the importance of being judged by a jury of peers, not by a machine.”

To learn more visit: