'I Loved That AI:' Judge Moved by AI-Generated Avatar of Man Killed in Road Rage Incident
www.404media.co
How the sister of Christopher Pelkey made an avatar of him to testify in court.

An AI avatar made to look and sound like the likeness of a man who was killed in a road rage incident addressed the court and the man who killed him: “To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me, it is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances,” the AI avatar of Christopher Pelkey said. “In another life we probably could have been friends. I believe in forgiveness and a God who forgives. I still do.”

It was the first time the AI avatar of a victim—in this case, a dead man—has ever addressed a court, and it raises many questions about the use of this type of technology in future court proceedings.

The avatar was made by Pelkey’s sister, Stacey Wales. Wales tells 404 Media that her husband, Pelkey’s brother-in-law, recoiled when she told him about the idea. “He told me, ‘Stacey, you’re asking a lot.’”

  • @inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.worldEnglish
    104•1 day ago

    There were videos shown during the trial that Stacey said were deeply difficult to sit through. “Videos of Chris literally being blown away with a bullet through his chest, going in the street, falling backward. We saw these items over and over and over,” she said. “And we were instructed: don’t you gasp and don’t you cry and do not make a scene, because that can cause a mistrial.”

    “Our goal was to make the judge cry. Our goal was to bring Chris to life and to humanize him,” she said.

    If gasping at video of real events is grounds for a mistrial, then so is fabricated statements intended to emotionally manipulate the court. It’s ludicrous that this was allowed and honestly is grounds to disbar the judge. If he allows AI nonsense like this, then his courtroom can not be relied upon for fair trials.

    • @mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      15•22 hours ago

      The victim impact statement isn’t evidence in the trial. The trial has already wrapped up. The impact statement is part of sentencing, when the court is deciding what an acceptable punishment would be. The guilty verdict has already been made, so the rules surrounding things like acceptable evidence are much more lenient.

      The reason she wasn’t allowed to make a scene during the trial is because the defense can argue that her outburst is tainting the jury. It’s something the jury is being forced to witness, which hasn’t gone through the proper evidence admission process. So if she makes a scene, the defense can say that the defendant isn’t being given a fair trial because inadmissible evidence was shown to the jury, and move for a mistrial.

      It sounds harsh, but the prosecutor told her to be stoic because they wanted the best chance of nailing the guy. If she threw their case out the window by loudly crying in the back of the courtroom, that wouldn’t be justice.

    • @FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish
      -2•1 day ago

      This is just weird uninformed nonsense.

      The reason that outbursts, like gasping or crying, can cause a mistrial is because they can unfairly influence a jury and so the rules of evidence do not allow them. This isn’t part of trial, the jury has already reached a verdict.

      Victim impact statements are not evidence and are not governed by the rules of evidence.

      It’s ludicrous that this was allowed and honestly is grounds to disbar the judge. If he allows AI nonsense like this, then his courtroom can not be relied upon for fair trials.

      More nonsense.

      If you were correct, and there were actual legal grounds to object to these statements then the defense attorney could have objected to them.

      Here’s an actual attorney. From the article:

      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.”