THE BLACK BOX ON THE BENCH: CONSTITUTIONAL FRICTION BETWEEN ALGORITHMIC CERTAINTY AND DUE PROCESS IN CRIMINAL SENTENCING

This article examines the constitutional viability of algorithmic risk assessment tools in criminal sentencing, contrasting the US judiciary’s reliance on proprietary "trade secrets" with the European Union’s newly enforced transparency mandates under the AI Act (2024/2026). By analyzing the post-Loomis legal landscape and the 2025 surge in "Generative Pre-Sentence Reports," it argues that the current use of predictive policing software violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The article applies the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test to demonstrate that the state’s interest in efficiency does not outweigh the defendant’s liberty interest in an explainable sentence. It concludes by proposing a "Qualified Transparency" framework, requiring open-source auditing for any algorithm used to deprive a citizen of liberty, effectively ending the era of the "Black Box" in the courtroom.