Would you trust and accept judges using generative artificial intelligence if you became victim of a crime?

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) could support judges in decision making and increase efficiency and consistency in court proceedings.However, little is known about how the use of generative AI by judges is perceived by crime victims in court proceedings.Drawing on the organizational trust model, attribution theory, and Capability-Personalization Framework, we examined whether judges' use of generative AI in judicial decision making would negatively influence participants' perception of the judge's trustworthiness (ability, benevolence, and integrity), trust in the judge, and acceptance of the judgment from the victim's perspective.We administered two vignette-based online experiments with German participants (N 1 = 282; N 2 = 464) who were instructed to adopt the perspective of a victim of a street crime.Participants were presented with a simulated court proceeding and judgment.In Study 1, we experimentally manipulated the judge's use of generative AI (no vs. yes).In Study 2, we added a support-by-judge condition to differentiate the effects of human and generative AI support.We only found a negative effect of judge's use of generative AI on perceived integrity (d = 0.46) in Study 1. Bayesian analyses provide support in favor of the null hypothesis for other outcomes in both studies and integrity in Study 2. Our findings suggest that from the victim's perspective, judges' generative AI use may evoke unintended negative effects on integrity.Since the overall impact of judge's use of generative AI on trustworthiness, trust, and acceptance appears limited, our results highlight the potential of hybrid use of generative AI in judicial decision making.