*SHUDDER*
Posted on 10/06/2026 2:48:49 PM PDT by xxqqzz
An Arizona man's 10-year manslaughter sentence has been tossed in a case where a video generated by artificial intelligence portrayed the deceased victim addressing a judge before the punishment was imposed.
In a decision released Wednesday, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded Gabriel Paul Horcasitas must be resentenced in the 2021 shooting death of Christopher Pelkey because the AI video wasn't reliable.
The court found the video crossed the line, saying it didn't reflect actual events and presented statements made in the footage as coming directly from the victim.
"Indeed, rather than document an event or recording a particular moment, the AI video presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim's sister," the three-judge panel wrote.
Jessica Gattuso, an attorney who represented victims in the case, and Kristen Reller, Horcasitas' lawyer, declined to comment Thursday on the decision.
Reller argued Superior Court Judge Todd Lang violated due process protections by relying on AI evidence. Gattuso and prosecutors told the appeals court that the lower-court judge didn't err, saying the footage was an accurate representation of Pelkey's character.
In what's believed to be a first in U.S. courts, Pelkey's family used AI to create a video of his likeness to give him a voice. Pelkey's sister, Stacey Wales, raised the idea of her brother speaking for himself after struggling to figure out what he would say.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
“, the AI video presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim’s sister,””
.
“the victim’s sister”
Yeah, here we go...
.
Who is the birdbrain that thought this was a good idea?
AI Elvis says the perp is guilty of Murder 1, and therefore the judge should sentence accordingly.
Yup, the sister "struggled" to figure out what her dead brother would have said.
Pelkey's sister, Stacey Wales, raised the idea of her brother speaking for himself after struggling to figure out what he would say.
“Created from the imaginings of ...”
Could the portrayal possibly be biased? ///
Absolutely crazy and should never have been allowed.
“Appeals court tosses sentence after judge allowed AI generated victim impact statement showing the deceased victim speaking.”
___________________________________________________________
At least the prosecutors weren’t dumb enough to use AI in the case itself - only in the sentencing phase. Still dumb, but at least the murder verdict wasn’t overturned.
It appears that the vic’s sister did it: “Pelkey’s sister, Stacey Wales, raised the idea of her brother speaking for himself after struggling to figure out what he would say.”
Stacey, not a good idea.
Where was the lawyer to tell her it was a bad idea?
“because the AI video wasn’t reliable”
Gee, ya think??
At least the conviction wasn’t tossed...yet.
No kidding. The prosecutor must have SFB.
Could she and relatives have made it without the lawyer’s consent? Could they show it at the sentencing hearing without the lawyer’s consent? Maybe the lawyer advised them “This is stupid and won’t end well” and they ignored the attorney.
It was a stupid thing to do. I told my kids when I die, cremate me and do not keep my ashes in a necklace or a ring. And don’t AI me.
......the AI video presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim’s sister.....
That’s taking AI way too far!
When I use ChatGPT to analyze my own history, and that of my friends, acquaintances, and enemies, it gets a lot wrong, and/or says that it can’t make a definite statement.
Perhaps employers should hold off on replacing new or young employees with AI. Their companies may be better off for doing that!
*SHUDDER*
Very odd and likely to be prejudicial. I can agree with tossing the verdict back and wonder why the judge allowed such a thing. Let the family speak but not some AI video of the deceased.
Minority Report.
Not sure there was one. It looks like the sister thought of it on her own and showed it on the record during a victim impact statement portion of the sentencing hearing. Still, the judge never should have let it in. It’s asking for reversal and you know the appropriate sentence without watching an AI video. I wouldn’t be surprised if the defendant gets the exact same sentence at the resentencing hearing.
Birdbrain?... more like "F'n DUMBA$$!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.