Latest news with #StaceyWales
Yahoo
11-05-2025
- Yahoo
Late Arizona man forgives killer during trial in AI-generated video
(NewsNation) — Arizona man Christopher Pelkey's voice was taken from him forever when a man fatally shot him during a road rage incident in November 2021. But with the help of artificial intelligence and his family, the Army veteran left parting words for his killer. 'In another life we probably could have been friends,' a replica of Pelkey said in the AI-generated video played earlier this month in a Phoenix courtroom. This victim recreation is believed to be the first time AI has been used for a victim impact statement during a trial. The statements are a chance for victims and families to say their peace, but sometimes the victims aren't alive to do so. 'To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me, it is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances,' the video said. 'I believe in forgiveness and in God, who forgives. I always have and I still do.' The victim's sister, Stacey Wales, said she struggled to find the right words to say in a victim impact statement, so she turned to AI. 'I turned to my husband one night and I asked him, I said, 'Tim, I want you to help me have Chris make his own impact statement at sentencing next week. I know you can do it. I've seen your work,'' Wales told NewsNation. 'And he says, 'Stacy, do you know what you're asking me? This is my best friend.'' The couple works in tech, and they had just a few days to come up with the 4 and a half-minute video using photos and voice recordings with the script of what they believed Pelkey would have said. The result was realistic. The man charged with shooting Pelkey to death could be seen wiping away tears at the hearing. Horcasitas, 54, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to more than 10 years in prison. 'I love that AI. Thank you for that,' Judge Todd Lang said at the hearing. 'And as angry as you are, and justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness, and I know Mr. Horcasitas could appreciate it, but so did I.' Within hours of the hearing, the defense filed a notice to appeal, pointing to the impact AI may have had on the judge's sentencing decision. Although AI has been used before in legal research and preparing cases, using it to deliver a deceased person's victim impact statement is unprecedented. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Washington Post
09-05-2025
- Washington Post
From AI avatars to virtual reality crime scenes, courts are grappling with AI in the justice system
Stacey Wales gripped the lectern, choking back tears as she asked the judge to give the man who shot and killed her brother the maximum possible sentence for manslaughter. What appeared next stunned those in the Phoenix courtroom last week: An AI-generated video with a likeness of her brother, Christopher Pelkey, told the shooter he was forgiven.
The Independent
09-05-2025
- The Independent
From AI avatars to virtual reality crime scenes, courts are grappling with AI in the justice system
Stacey Wales gripped the lectern, choking back tears as she asked the judge to give the man who shot and killed her brother the maximum possible sentence for manslaughter. What appeared next stunned those in the Phoenix courtroom last week: An AI-generated video with a likeness of her brother, Christopher Pelkey, told the shooter he was forgiven. The judge said he loved and appreciated the video, then sentenced the shooter to 10.5 years in prison — the maximum sentence and more than what prosecutors sought. Within hours of the hearing on May 1, the defendant's lawyer filed a notice of appeal. Defense attorney Jason Lamm won't be handling the appeal, but said a higher court will likely be asked to weigh in on whether the judge improperly relied on the AI-generated video when sentencing his client. Courts across the country have been grappling with how to best handle the increasing presence of artificial intelligence in the courtroom. Even before Pelkey's family used AI to give him a voice for the victim impact portion — believed to be a first in U.S. courts — the Arizona Supreme Court created a committee that researches best AI practices. In Florida, a judge recently donned a virtual reality headset meant to show the point of view of a defendant who said he was acting in self-defense when he waved a loaded gun at wedding guests. The judge rejected his claim. And in New York, a man without a lawyer used an AI-generated avatar to argue his case in a lawsuit via video. It took only seconds for the judges to realize that the man addressing them from the video screen wasn't real. Experts say using AI in courtrooms raises legal and ethical concerns, especially if it's used effectively to sway a judge or jury. And they argue it could have a disproportionate impact on marginalized communities facing prosecution. 'I imagine that will be a contested form of evidence, in part because it could be something that advantages parties that have more resources over parties that don't," said David Evan Harris, an expert on AI deep fakes at UC Berkeley's business school. AI can be very persuasive, Harris said, and scholars are studying the intersection of the technology and manipulation tactics. Cynthia Godsoe, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School and a former public defender, said as this technology continues to push the boundaries of traditional legal practices, courts will have to confront questions they have never before had to weigh: Does this AI photograph really match the witness's testimony? Does this video exaggerate the suspect's height, weight, or skin color? 'It's definitely a disturbing trend," she said, 'because it could veer even more into fake evidence that maybe people don't figure out is false.' In the Arizona case, the victim's sister told The Associated Press that she did consider the 'ethics and morals' of writing a script and using her brother's likeness to give him a voice during the sentencing hearing. 'It was important to us to approach this with ethics and morals and to not use it to say things that Chris wouldn't say or believe," Stacey Wales said. Victims can give their impact statements in any digital format in Arizona, said victims' rights attorney Jessica Gattuso, who represented the family. When the video played in the courtroom, Wales said only she and her husband knew about it. 'The goal was to humanize Chris and to reach the judge,' Wales said. After viewing it, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Todd Lang said he 'loved the beauty in what Christopher' said in the AI video. 'It also says something about the family," he said. 'Because you told me how angry you were, and you demanded the maximum sentence, and even though that's what you wanted, you allowed Chris to speak from his heart as you saw it.' On appeal, the defendant's lawyer said, the judge's comments could be a factor for the sentence to be overturned. ___ Associated Press reporters Sarah Parvini in Los Angeles, Sejal Govindarao in Phoenix and Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida, contributed to this report.
Associated Press
09-05-2025
- Associated Press
From AI avatars to virtual reality crime scenes, courts are grappling with AI in the justice system
Stacey Wales gripped the lectern, choking back tears as she asked the judge to give the man who shot and killed her brother the maximum possible sentence for manslaughter. What appeared next stunned those in the Phoenix courtroom last week: An AI-generated video with a likeness of her brother, Christopher Pelkey, told the shooter he was forgiven. The judge said he loved and appreciated the video, then sentenced the shooter to 10.5 years in prison — the maximum sentence and more than what prosecutors sought. Within hours of the hearing on May 1, the defendant's lawyer filed a notice of appeal. Defense attorney Jason Lamm won't be handling the appeal, but said a higher court will likely be asked to weigh in on whether the judge improperly relied on the AI-generated video when sentencing his client. Courts across the country have been grappling with how to best handle the increasing presence of artificial intelligence in the courtroom. Even before Pelkey's family used AI to give him a voice for the victim impact portion — believed to be a first in U.S. courts — the Arizona Supreme Court created a committee that researches best AI practices. In Florida, a judge recently donned a virtual reality headset meant to show the point of view of a defendant who said he was acting in self-defense when he waved a loaded gun at wedding guests. The judge rejected his claim. And in New York, a man without a lawyer used an AI-generated avatar to argue his case in a lawsuit via video. It took only seconds for the judges to realize that the man addressing them from the video screen wasn't real. Experts say using AI in courtrooms raises legal and ethical concerns, especially if it's used effectively to sway a judge or jury. And they argue it could have a disproportionate impact on marginalized communities facing prosecution. 'I imagine that will be a contested form of evidence, in part because it could be something that advantages parties that have more resources over parties that don't,' said David Evan Harris, an expert on AI deep fakes at UC Berkeley's business school. AI can be very persuasive, Harris said, and scholars are studying the intersection of the technology and manipulation tactics. Cynthia Godsoe, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School and a former public defender, said as this technology continues to push the boundaries of traditional legal practices, courts will have to confront questions they have never before had to weigh: Does this AI photograph really match the witness's testimony? Does this video exaggerate the suspect's height, weight, or skin color? 'It's definitely a disturbing trend,' she said, 'because it could veer even more into fake evidence that maybe people don't figure out is false.' In the Arizona case, the victim's sister told The Associated Press that she did consider the 'ethics and morals' of writing a script and using her brother's likeness to give him a voice during the sentencing hearing. 'It was important to us to approach this with ethics and morals and to not use it to say things that Chris wouldn't say or believe,' Stacey Wales said. Victims can give their impact statements in any digital format in Arizona, said victims' rights attorney Jessica Gattuso, who represented the family. When the video played in the courtroom, Wales said only she and her husband knew about it. 'The goal was to humanize Chris and to reach the judge,' Wales said. After viewing it, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Todd Lang said he 'loved the beauty in what Christopher' said in the AI video. 'It also says something about the family,' he said. 'Because you told me how angry you were, and you demanded the maximum sentence, and even though that's what you wanted, you allowed Chris to speak from his heart as you saw it.' On appeal, the defendant's lawyer said, the judge's comments could be a factor for the sentence to be overturned. ___ Associated Press reporters Sarah Parvini in Los Angeles, Sejal Govindarao in Phoenix and Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida, contributed to this report.
CNN
09-05-2025
- CNN
He was killed in a road rage incident. His family used AI to bring him to the courtroom to address his killer
Stacey Wales spent two years working on the victim impact statement she planned to give in court after her brother was shot to death in a 2021 road rage incident. But even after all that time, Wales felt her statement wouldn't be enough to capture her brother Christopher Pelkey's humanity and what he would've wanted to say. So, Wales decided to let Pelkey give the statement himself — with the help of artificial intelligence. She and her husband created an AI-generated video version of Pelkey to play during his killer's sentencing hearing earlier this month that read, in a recreation of Pelkey's own voice, a script that Wales wrote. In it, the AI version of Pelkey expressed forgiveness to the shooter, something Wales said she knew her brother would have done but she wasn't ready to do herself just yet. 'The only thing that kept entering my head that I kept hearing was Chris and what he would say,' Wales told CNN. 'I had to very carefully detach myself in order to write this on behalf of Chris because what he was saying is not necessarily what I believe, but I know it's what he would think.' AI is increasingly playing a role in legal and criminal justice processes, although this is believed to be the first time AI has been used to recreate a victim for their own impact statement. And experts say the world will increasingly have to grapple with ethical and practical questions about the use of AI to replicate deceased people — both inside courtrooms and beyond them — as the technology becomes more human-like. 'We've all heard the expression, 'seeing is believing, hearing is believing,'' said Paul Grimm, a Duke University School of Law professor and former district court judge in Maryland. 'These kinds of technologies have tremendous impact to persuade and influence, and we're always going to have to be balancing whether or not it is distorting the record upon which the jury or the judge has to decide in a way that makes it an unfair advantage for one side or the other.' Judge Todd Lang of Maricopa County Superior Court ultimately sentenced Pelkey's killer Gabriel Paul Horcasitas to 10.5 years for manslaughter — although the state had asked for only 9.5 years — and 12.5 years in total, including an endangerment charge. 'I love that AI. Thank you for that,' Lang said, a recording of the hearing shows. 'As angry as you are and justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness.' Pelkey's story was previously reported by ABC15 Arizona. Pelkey was the youngest of three children, a veteran and, according to Wales, 'the most forgiving and the friendliest' member of the family. He was killed in November 2021 in Chandler, Arizona at the age of 37. Pelkey's autopsy photos and surveillance video of his death were shown during the trial, Wales said. But after a jury found Horcasitas guilty of reckless manslaughter, Wales wanted the judge to see what Pelkey was like when he was alive during the sentencing hearing. Wales and her husband, Todd Wales, work in tech — she said they'd previously created AI video replicas of former CEOs and founders to speak at company conferences — so they decided in the weeks leading up to the sentencing hearing to try replicating Pelkey the same way. They used several software platforms, trained on photos and an old video of Pelkey, to create the AI replica that was shown in the hearing on May 1. And on the day before the sentencing hearing, Wales called her lawyer, Jessica Gattuso, to get her blessing for the plan. 'I was concerned, I thought we would get an objection or some kind of pushback … I did what research I could, but I didn't find anything because I've never heard of this being done,' Gattuso told CNN, adding that she ultimately relied on an Arizona law that gives victims discretion in how to deliver their statement. Like other AI videos depicting people, the recreation of Pelkey is somewhat halting and awkward and starts with an acknowledgement that it was made using the technology. But Wales said she believes it captured his essence. 'It is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances,' the AI version of Pelkey said in the video. 'In another life, we probably could have been friends.' Horcasitas's lawyer, Jason Lamm, said the defense did not receive advance notice that AI would be used in a victim impact statement. He added: 'It appears that the judge gave some weight to the AI video and that is an issue that will likely be pursued on appeal.' Judges are increasingly facing decisions about AI's role in the courtroom — including whether it should have one at all. In a separate case in New York last month, an appellate judge quickly shut down an attempt by a plaintiff to have an AI-generated avatar argue his case, without first clarifying that it was not a real person. And just last week, a federal judicial panel advanced a draft rule that would require AI-generated evidence to meet the same reliability standards as evidence from human expert witnesses, according to a Reuters report. AI's advancement has also raised questions about whether the technology could replace human jobs in the legal field. 'It's not going away, and we're going to see more instances of this,' said Grimm, who was not involved with the Pelkey case. 'Judges tend to be a little nervous about this technology, and so we'll probably see initially more nos than yeses.' Judges may be especially hesitant to allow AI-generated evidence or visual aids to be presented to a jury, which, unlike a judge in a sentencing case, hasn't been trained not to let emotion overwhelm the facts of the case, Grimm said. There are also questions around whether AI could inaccurately represent a party to a case, for example, by making them appear more sympathetic. Grimm suggested that, going forward, opposing counsel be given the chance to view AI-generated content and raise potential objections for a judge to review, before it gets shown in court. Even Wales cautioned the technology should be used carefully. 'This was not evidence, the jury never saw this. It wasn't even made before a verdict came down of guilty,' Wales said. 'This is an opinion. And the judge was allowed to see a human that's no longer here for who he was.' Ultimately, she said, replicating her brother with AI was 'healing' for her family. After it played in court, she said her 14-year-old son told her: 'Thank you so much for making that. I needed to see and hear from Uncle Chris one more time.' –CNN's Hazel Tang contributed to this report.
