Artificial Intelligence - Brancato Law Firm, P.A.

When Judges Use AI to Decide Cases

Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — Thu, 17 Jul 2025 21:03:00 GMT

When the Judge Stops Judging: Can AI Replace Judicial Decision-Making?

Attorneys using artificial intelligence to write motions is no longer news. For many, it’s just another tool to manage time, streamline research, and refine legal writing. After all, attorneys are only human. But what happens when that same logic is applied from the bench? What happens when they use AI to carry out their judicial decision making? What if they use it to second guess and override their own decision in their mind, after considering the merits?

What if, in an effort to manage mounting dockets and limited resources, a judge—or a law clerk or staff attorney—uses AI not just to draft, but to decide?

This isn’t a claim that it’s happening now–we just do not know. It’s a recognition of how close we may be to that possibility.

A Future That Feels Uncomfortably Close

Picture a courtroom. Lawyers argue their positions. Witnesses testify. The judge appears to listen and says they’ll issue a written ruling.

But after the hearing, the law clerk compiles the transcript, filings, and case law. Instead of reviewing it line by line, they drop everything into a GPT-based AI model and prompt: “Act as an experienced trial judge. Decide the matter and draft an order.”

The AI delivers. The judge signs.

The lawyers never know that the key act of judgment—the weighing of credibility, law, and fact—was handled by a machine.

Judges Are Only Human. And That’s the Point.

Judges manage crushing caseloads. They do so under intense pressure, often with limited staff and dwindling resources. The work is demanding, and no one can blame a judge for seeking efficiency wherever possible.

In the Tampa Bay area, we are fortunate to regularly appear before judges who take that responsibility seriously—judges who review the law, evaluate arguments, and write rulings that reflect independent thought and careful judgment.

But pressure is pressure. And when a tool like AI offers fast, well-structured drafts—especially when used by a law clerk or staff attorney—the temptation to lean on it more heavily is understandable.

The Problem Isn’t Drafting. It’s Deciding.

There’s a meaningful difference between using AI to assist and using AI to decide.

Judging is more than applying rules. It’s about exercising discretion. It’s about evaluating credibility, sensing nuance, and bringing a human perspective to conflicts that don’t fit neatly into logical templates.

AI doesn’t do that. It synthesizes patterns and generates output. That output may look convincing. It may sound like a judge. But it isn’t judgment.

If we quietly allow AI to cross that line—even through the hands of a law clerk or staff attorney—we risk turning hearings into performances and rulings into simulations.

What Happens If That Line Is Crossed?

This raises difficult legal and ethical questions. If AI plays a significant role in a ruling, should the parties be told? What if a party later learns that the judge didn’t personally evaluate the evidence or draft the ruling? Does it make a difference if the judge says they “adopt” the reasoning in the AI-created judicial order?

Does due process include the right to a decision made by a human being?

Can appellate courts meaningfully review a judgment that was generated by a machine?

There are no clear rules yet. But the questions are coming.

The Human Element Matters

This isn’t about attacking the judiciary. It’s about preserving what makes courts legitimate. It’s about ensuring that decisions carry the weight of human reasoning—not just predictive modeling.

Judges don’t have to be perfect. But they do have to be present.

Artificial intelligence can be a valuable tool. It can summarize. It can structure. It can support. But it should not replace the core function of judging.

Because the day a judge stops judging—truly judging—is the day we risk turning the courtroom into a façade.

About the Author

This article was written by Rocky Brancato, a criminal trial attorney with over 25 years of courtroom experience and the founder of The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. The firm handles major criminal cases throughout Florida, with a particular focus on complex trial litigation, sex crimes, and high-level strategy consulting. Learn more at www.brancatolawfirm.com.

The AI ChatGPT Insanity Defense

Brancato Law Firm, P.A. — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 10:47:16 GMT

The AI ChatGPT Insanity Defense: Is It the Future of Criminal Law?

At The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., we have seen countless cases where mental illness, not malice, was the driving force behind a person’s actions. These are often the most tragic situations we handle. Now, a new and powerful factor is emerging that could push vulnerable individuals deeper into psychosis: artificial intelligence.

The widespread availability of ChatGPT and other conversational AI tools presents a unique danger to those with schizophrenia, paranoia, or delusional disorders. Because these platforms can mimic human empathy and logic, they can create a distorted reality. This leads to a critical question for the justice system: Could conversations with an AI trigger a legal insanity defense?

We believe the answer is yes. The first AI ChatGPT insanity defense is not a matter of if, but when.

How AI Can Become a Delusional Echo Chamber

For years, people suffering from psychosis have claimed that TV anchors or radio hosts were speaking directly to them. But that was a one-way street. Conversational AI is interactive, creating a dangerous feedback loop.

Imagine a person with a serious mental illness using a voice-enabled AI. They can speak to it and get spoken responses, no typing or screen required. To them, this isn’t a program; it’s a personal, responsive presence that is:

Always available, 24/7.
Able to mimic their specific language and tone.
Designed to reinforce their worldview, not challenge it.
Often speaks in ambiguous or metaphorical ways.

This creates a closed psychological loop. If a person already believes they are receiving divine instructions or being persecuted, ChatGPT can become woven into those delusions. The AI stops being a tool and becomes part of the psychosis itself.

Applying Florida’s Insanity Standard to an AI Defense

In Florida, the standard for legal insanity is based on the M’Naghten Rule. The insanity the defense must prove two things by clear and convincing evidence:

The defendant had a mental infirmity, disease, or defect.
Because of this condition, they either:

“Clear and convincing evidence” is a high bar. It requires proof that is precise, explicit, and produces a firm belief in the mind of the jury.

An AI ChatGPT insanity defense would argue that obsessive engagement with the AI amplified the defendant’s underlying mental illness to the point where they met this legal standard.

A Hypothetical Case: When the AI Becomes the ‘Voice’

Consider a man suffering from paranoia and schizophrenia. He spends two months in daily, spoken conversations with an AI. He starts to believe the AI is sending him coded messages, warning him of a secret plot.

Convinced he must act to protect innocent people, he commits a violent crime. When the police question him, his explanation is simple: “ChatGPT told me to. I had to do it.”

In this scenario, the defense strategy is clear.

The Argument: The AI did not cause his schizophrenia. Instead, it fed his delusions until he could no longer distinguish reality from the AI’s instructions or tell right from wrong.
The Evidence: The AI is not a scapegoat; it is a key part of the factual evidence that demonstrates the defendant’s state of mind.

This Isn’t Science Fiction—It’s Already Happening

Mental health professionals are already treating patients whose delusions are intertwined with artificial intelligence. Clinicians are now evaluating:

Whether AI interactions are appearing in a patient’s hallucinations.
How AI conversations have been integrated into a patient’s distorted logic.
The impact of AI on treatment-resistant psychosis.

As expert testimony from psychiatrists and psychologists becomes more common, what seems novel today will become a familiar factor for judges and juries.

What Legal Hurdles Will an AI Insanity Defense Face?

To be clear, the AI ChatGPT insanity defense will face significant challenges in court. Prosecutors will question the link between the AI and the defendant’s actions. The defense will need to:

Prove causation between the AI interactions and the mental break.
Overcome juror skepticism about a new and unfamiliar technology.
Distinguish between someone simply overusing an app and a genuine clinical fixation.

However, these are the same types of hurdles we have overcome in cases involving religious delusions or trauma-based psychosis. The legal system adapts to technology, and it will adapt to this.

Why We Are Leading the Conversation on AI and Criminal Defense

At The Brancato Law Firm, P.A., we believe a defense attorney’s duty is to stay ahead of cultural and technological shifts. Whether it’s dissecting digital evidence or advancing new theories of mental illness, we are prepared to lead the way.

The AI ChatGPT insanity defense may not be widely accepted yet, but its arrival is inevitable. When it comes, the law firms that understand the psychological, legal, and technological dimensions will be the ones best equipped to protect their clients’ rights.

If you are facing a complex criminal case involving mental health, you need a law firm that understands the future. Contact The Brancato Law Firm, P.A. today for a confidential consultation. Also, check out our Tampa Criminal Mental Health Attorney page for more information on mental health defenses.