These letters poured in: from battalion brothers, missionaries, and even dance dates served with Iraq and Afghan Christopher Pelkey.
A niece and nephew spoke to the court in court.
Still, the most important voice to Mr. Pelkey’s sister Stacey Wales is likely never heard when an Arizona judge sentenced the man who killed her brother in the 2021 Road Rage episode.
The 47-year-old Wils woman thought of it. What if her brother, 37, completed three battle journeys in the U.S. Army? Will he tell 54-year-old Gabriel Horcasitas who was convicted of manslaughter in his case?
The answer was on May 1, Ms. Wales clicked the play button on her laptop in a courtroom in Maricopa County, Arizona.
Her brother’s similarities appear on an 80-inch TV screen, with autopsy photos of Mr. Perki and security camera footage who had previously been fatal at the intersection in Chandler, Arizona.
“It's a pity we meet each other in this situation,” Mr. Perki's avatar said. “In another life, we may be friends. I believe in the God of forgiveness and forgiveness. I always have, and I still do it.”
While the use of AI has spread throughout society, from written words to memes and deep strikes, his use of up to 10 and a half years in prison during Mr. Holkasitas's sentencing seems unknown.
It goes far beyond the courts and raises headlines, questions and debates. Critics argue that the introduction of AI in legal proceedings may open the door for manipulation and deception, exacerbating the already emotional impact of this to give victims the impact statement.
To be sure: The nearly four-minute video left a favorable impression on Maricopa County Superior Court judge Todd Lang, who praised his inclusive moments before he sentenced Mr. Horcasitas.
“I like AI,” Judge Lang said, describing the video's information as real. “Thank you. I'm angry and angry, like my family, I heard forgiveness. I know Mr. Horcasitas appreciates it, but I'm grateful.”
Just as social media apps place tags on AI-generated content, videos are open with disclaimer.
“Hello, be clear, for everyone who sees this, I'm recreating the version of Chris Pelkey through AI, which uses my pictures and my voice profile.” “I was able to regenerate today to be able to share with you.”
Legal experts say while many states offer victims and their families the opportunity to speak to the court during the judgment, some are more restrictive when it comes to using video presentations and photos.
But the victims are even bigger in Arizona. Ms. Wales said in an interview on Wednesday that she discovered the fact as she bounced out of the idea of a victim’s rights lawyer representing Pelkey’s family.
Ms. Wales said: “She said, 'I don't think I've done it before'.”
Ms. Wales has been preparing for the impact statements of victims for two years, but lacks key factors.
“I kept hearing what Chris would say,” she said.
Ms. Wales said she then recruited help from her husband and their long-term business partners, who used AI to help corporate clients speak, including similarities to the company’s CEO who died years ago.
She said they pulled out Mr. Pelkey's voice from YouTube videos, who found his voice after completing treatment for PTSD in the Veterans' facility. For his face and torso, they used posters from Mr. pelkey's funeral, digitally trimmed his beard, took off his glasses and edited the logo from his hat, she said.
Ms. Wales said the script she wrote was read by her brother's AI portrait.
“I know AI can be used evilly and it's uncomfortable for some people,” Ms. Wales said. “But it's just another tool to tell Chris's story.”
Vanessa Ceja-Cervantes, a spokesman for Maricopa County attorney, said in an email that the office had not previously known about AI being used to issue a victim's impact statement.
Mr. Horcasitas's defense attorney Jason D. Lamm said in an interview that it was difficult to stop the video from being screened.
“Victims usually have a great latitude to express their voices at the time of judgment, and the rules of evidence do not apply,” Lamm said. “However, in this case, they just go too far, and the appeals court may determine that the court's reliance on AI video may constitute a reversible error that requires resentment.”
Ms. Wales stressed that videos of her brother's similarity were used only during the sentencing phase of the case, not in Mr. Hokasitas's two trials. Both end with faith. He was awarded a second trial, according to court records, because prosecutors did not disclose some evidence in the first record.
On November 13, 2021, Mr. Pelkey stopped at the red light in Chandler when Horcasitas pulled up behind him and tweeted to him, prompting Mr. Pelkey to evacuate his vehicle and approach the Volkswagen of Horcasitas and shake hands with his arm as if saying “heck heck heck heck heck heck heck”. Mr. Horcasitas then shot him, hitting Mr. Pelkey at least once.
Cynthia Godsoe, a Brooklyn Law School professor and former public defender professor who helped write the best attorney for the American Bar Association, said in an interview Thursday that she was bothered by the AI allowances in the judgment.
“Obviously, it's more exciting than the picture,” Ms. Gosso said. “I think the court has to be very careful. Things can change. We know. It's a really slippery slope.”
Maura R. Grossman, an attorney for Buffalo of the American Bar Association’s AI Task Force, said in the U.S. federal court, the parties agreed that the case was artificial and that the proof standards of AI materials are being considered.
Ms. Grossman, a professor at the University of Waterloo School of Computer Science, also teaches at the Osgood Concert Hall Law School in Canada, and he does not object to the use of AI in Arizona sentencing.
“No jury would be over-influenced,” Professor Grossman said. “I didn’t find it morally or legally.”
Then, in a recent legal appeal in New York State, the plaintiff’s strange case was headlines, and he made headlines when he tried to make arguments using AI Avatar.
“The Court of Appeal closed him,” Ms. Grossman said.
