Technology

“Stacey was up front and the video itself…said it was AI generated. We were very careful to make sure it was clear that these were the words that the family believed Christopher would have to say,”

"I love the beauty in what Christopher, and I call him Christopher—I always call people by their last names, it’s a formality of the court—but I feel like calling him Christopher as we’ve gotten to know him today."

Can't have it both ways. If you understand this was fabricated AI then you did not "get to know him today". The facts of the case were already self evident for guilt, but this needs to be a mistrial. We can not have a standard of fair justice when generated AI is treated like living breathing people.

The judge should have had the sense to keep this shitty craft project out of the courtroom. Victim statements should also be banned as manipulative glurge.

“I loved that AI, and thank you for that...” Lang said immediately before sentencing Horcasitas.

I hope they win that appeal an get a new sentencing or a new trial even. That sounds like a horrible misuse of someone's likeness. Even if my family used a direct quote from me I'd be PISSED if they recreated my face and voice without my permission.

Wales tells 404 Media that her husband, ~~Pelkey’s brother-in-law,~~ recoiled when she told him about the idea.

Edited to remove utterly extraneous information that added absolutely nothing of value or clarity to the sentence. This is her husband, the victim was her brother. We already know her husband is the victims brother -in-law. That's how that works.

This was not testimony. It was part of the victim impact statement and was scripted by his sister. AI was only used to recreate the voice and visage. I am usually a fan of 404 Media, but that should be explicitly stated.

The use of the word “testimony” is not entirely accurate in the sense that that term is used in court.

Jessica Gattuso, the victim’s right attorney that worked with Pelkey’s family, told 404 Media that Arizona’s laws made the AI testimony possible. “We have a victim’s bill of rights,” she said. “[Victims] have the discretion to pick what format they’d like to give the statement. So I didn’t see any issues with the AI and there was no objection. I don’t believe anyone thought there was an issue with it.”

Gattuso said she understood the concerns, but felt that Pelkey’s AI avatar was handled deftly. “Stacey was up front and the video itself…said it was AI generated. We were very careful to make sure it was clear that these were the words that the family believed Christopher would have to say,” she said. “At no point did anyone try to pass it off as Chris’ own words.”

The prosecution against Horcasitas was only seeking nine years for the killing. The maximum was 10 and a half years. Stacey had asked the judge for the full sentence during her own impact statement. The judge granted her request, something Stacey credits—in part—to the AI video.

From a different article quoting a former judge in the court:

"There are going to be critics, but they picked the right forum to do it. In a trial with a jury you couldn't do it, but with sentencing, everything is open, hearsay is admissible, both sides can get up and express what they want to do," McDonald said.

"The power of it was that the judge had to see the gentleness, the kindness, the feeling of sincerity and having his sister say, 'Well we don't agree with it, this is what he would've wanted the court to know'," he said.

I don't like it, and it feels dirty to me, but since the law allows them to express basically whatever they want in whatever format they want during this phase, it doesn't seem harmful in this case, just gross.

I actually think it's a little more gross that the family was able to be that forthright and say that the victim would not want what they were asking for, and still ask for it.

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/judicialBio.asp?jdgID=505&jdgUSID=12716

It would be a shame if publicly known Todd Lang was reported over and over again for his bias.

https://www.azcourts.gov/azcjc <<<<<<

(The form is a pain)

Wow, this is super distasteful and manipulative.

"Your honor, although the prosecution has indeed depicted my client as the pathetic soy virgin in exhibit A, meme 4, please watch this 7 episode TV drama mini series that the prosecution wrote and produced for this very case before making your judgement."

If I were the defense and scummy, I'd reply with an equally disturbing AI avatar of the victim saying that he actually killed himself and that the road rage guy was innocent.

I mean, seems fair.

I thought this was an onion...

This is a clown show and the judge who let this travesty happen is an idiot.

I feel the defense should have insisted on having their own ai of jesus talk about forgiveness.

Looks like I'll have to pre write a testimony for if/when someone kills me and my sister wants to have AI talk for me.

"Hey fuck head who killed me, you're a fucking pussy!

Ooooo look at me I used a (insert weapon ) like a little bitch

I'm gonna haunt your ass and focus the entirety of my spectral energy on making sure your dumbass life sucks in there.

Also, suck a dick dumb cunt, I'm poor, you got nothing but jail for being a useless little bitch baby.

Catch ya real soon, like reeeeeeeeaaaaaaal soon."

This will end up causing the murderer to get out on appeal, I guarantee it.

Fuck NO!!

This is some really stupid bullshit... Clearly the sister is grieving, but they never should have allowed this to play in court. What a joke.

This is precedent now. Wheeeeeeeee common law system.

Pretty fucked.