Is there just a setting where you tell it "Build a case to defend this person" or "build a case to prosecute this person"?

If so why not run the AI on both settings to see what the other kinds of things the opposing lawyer might bring up in court?

Can the results (I'm guess the most appropriate word to describe the results is an argument or case?) then be compared to each other to see which side has the stronger argument? Surely the AI assigns value and rank to whatever computations it's doing, there's definitely something that's comparable between the two sides of the argument from the AI's standpoint.

From here I feel like there are two options. You can run a monte carolo simulation or iteration. Monte carlo is running thousands and thousands of these cases against each other. For example, after 100,000 simulations have been ran the prosecutor won 60,000 times and the defendant won 40,000 times. Based on that could you then infer that since the simulation shows the prosecutor wins the majority of the time that the defendant is guilty?

Iteration would be running the simulation from both sides (prosecute and defend), looking at the results of both and then changing one of the arguments so that it's "better". Run the simulation again and now change the other side so that it's stronger. Keep doing this back and forth so that you are always trying to change your argument to argue against, according to the AI, a better and better argument. This seems like it'd be a really good way to check your argument's strength against the theoretical argument that the AI created for your opposition.

You can also keep on iterating until there's very little change, as in, any further changes to the argument make it neither stronger nor weaker vs the counter argument. Couldn't you then say that after running all these iterations back and forth this computer simulation found that the prosecuting argument comes out on top after iterating thousands of versions of the arguments against each other, theoretically arriving at the strongest (according to the AI) possible case that either side could have against each other.

I mean what are their plans with this AI? This is what you do with computers, you make a model representing something that happens in real life and then you run it thousands of times to see what happens. You do this to gain greater understanding. Helping people get out of speeding tickets seems like the lowest level application of such an AI.