Abstract The study aimed to examine the criminalistic, criminal procedural and psychological issues associated with the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in criminal proceedings. The study employed a comprehensive approach, comprising a survey of 64 criminal justice professionals (investigators, prosecutors, judges, lawyers and forensic experts) from six regions of Ukraine, an analysis of relevant legal acts and a content analysis of court decisions. The research methodology employed a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, including statistical analysis, analysis of variance and case studies of foreign experiences. The analysis of Ukrainian legal acts revealed the absence of special rules regulating the use of AI in criminal proceedings, although the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine in Articles 84–94 provides for the possibility of using technical means in the collection and examination of evidence. The study of court practice revealed that in 73.5% of cases, the defence filed a motion to declare inadmissible evidence obtained using AI, and 41.2% of these motions were granted. In 83.7% of decisions where such evidence was declared admissible, it was considered as part of the expert’s opinion. The results of the survey revealed critical problems with the use of AI, particularly the lack of an adequate regulatory framework (4.72 points out of 5), insufficient interpretability of the results of AI systems (4.54 points) and the difficulty of verifying the results of digital evidence analysis (4.48 points). The most important forensic issues identified were the limited ability of AI systems to contextually analyse evidence (86.4% of respondents) and the difficulty of verifying digital evidence-processing algorithms (84.1% of respondents). The study proposes a comprehensive approach to addressing the identified problems, encompassing the regulatory, legal, organizational and methodological aspects of integrating AI technologies into criminal proceedings. The study’s results can be used to enhance the regulatory framework and inform methodological recommendations for law enforcement agencies and the training of specialists in the field of criminal justice.
Shevchuk et al. (Mon,) studied this question.