I think this is an idea that has some merit. But there are also a lot of problems that you really never get into. To be honest, i think your case would be far stronger for getting rid of judges and replacing them with AI.

For example, can an AI understand human emotions? The emotions and feelings of a defendant (his state of mind if you will) are very important to deciding innocence or guilt in many cases where something like self-defense or alleged consent is involved.

Also, the human touch (call it empathy, emotion, instinct whatever) is very important in weighing the credibility of testimony. What happens if a police officer says one thing, but the accused (or a witness) says another. Is the computer program (presumably coded by civil servants) going to take the word of a police officer as more credible than the accused by default?

With a computer as the judge of fact, youre not getting rid of bias, youre just kicking the bias can down the road. Because some government employed programmer has to decide how much weight the computer gives to what evidence.