[This Reuters story, and the excerpts of coverage from the BBC and ABC15 Arizona, describe the use of artificial intelligence to simulate a murder victim at the sentencing of his killer. See the original Reuters story for a second image and a 3:46 minute video (also available on YouTube). For an in-depth essay on this topic, see “Should a Killer’s Victim Be Able to ‘Speak’ at a Sentencing Through AI?” in Reason. -Matthew]

[Image: Source: BBC]

Family creates AI video to depict Arizona man addressing his killer in court

By Liliana Salgado and Andrew Goudsward
May 9, 20254

CHANDLER, ARIZONA – A simulation of a dead man created by artificial intelligence addressed his killer in an Arizona court this month, in what appears to be one of the first such instances in a U.S. courtroom.

Made by his family, an AI-generated avatar of Christopher Pelkey spoke in Maricopa County Superior Court on May 1, as a judge prepared to sentence Gabriel Paul Horcasitas for shooting and killing Pelkey in a 2021 road-rage incident.

“It is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances,” the Pelkey avatar says in the video. “In another life, we probably could have been friends.”

The Pelkey avatar appears in the video sporting a long beard and green sweatshirt against a white backdrop. He cautions at the start that he is an AI-version of Pelkey, which is apparent through the gaps in audio and slightly mismatched movement of his mouth.

Pelkey, a U.S. Army veteran, was 37 at the time of the shooting.

The video marked a novel use of AI in the legal system, which has viewed the rapidly growing technology with a mix of fascination and trepidation.

Courts generally have strict rules on the types of information that can be presented in legal proceedings, and several lawyers have been sanctioned after AI systems created fake cases that they cited in legal briefs.

Pelkey’s relatives were given more leeway to present the AI-generated video to the judge at sentencing, given that it was not evidence in the case. Horcasitas, who was sentenced to 10.5 years in state prison, had already been convicted on manslaughter and endangerment charges.

Pelkey’s sister Stacey Wales said she scripted the AI-generated message after struggling to convey years of grief and pain in her own statement. She said she was not ready to forgive Horcasitas, but felt her brother would have a more understanding outlook.

“The goal was to humanize Chris, to reach the judge, and let him know his impact on this world and that he existed,” she told Reuters.

Generative AI, Wales said, is “just another avenue that you can use to reach somebody.”

Wales said she worked with her husband and a family friend, who all work in the tech industry, to create it.

Harry Surden, a law professor at the University of Colorado, said the use of generative AI material in court raises ethical concerns, as others may seek to use those tools to play on the emotions of judges and juries. The content is a simulation of reality, not the verified evidence that courts typically assess, Surden said.

“What we’re seeing is the simulations have gotten so good that it completely bypasses our natural skepticism and goes straight to our emotion,” he said.

Reporting by Liliana Salgado in Chandler, Arizona and Andrew Goudsward in Washington; editing by Andy Sullivan and Aurora Ellis

—

[From BBC]

Arizona man shot dead in road rage ‘returns’ to address his killer

By Ana Faguy, BBC News and Lily Jamali, North America Technology Correspondent
May 7, 2025

[snip]

The Arizona judge who oversaw the case, Todd Lang, seemed to appreciate the use of AI at the hearing. He sentenced Horcasitas to 10-and-a-half years in prison on manslaughter charges.

“I loved that AI, thank you for that. As angry as you are, as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness,” Judge Lang said. “I feel that that was genuine.”

Paul Grimm, a retired federal judge and Duke Law School professor, told the BBC he was not surprised to see AI used in the Horcasitas sentencing.

Arizona courts, he notes, already have started using AI in other ways. When the state’s Supreme Court issues a ruling, for example, it has an AI system that makes those rulings digestible for people.

And Mr Grimm said because it was used without a jury present, just for a judge to decide sentencing, the technology was allowed.

“We’ll be leaning [AI] on a case-by-case basis, but the technology is irresistible,” he said.

But some experts like Derek Leben, a business ethics professor at Carnegie Mellon University, are concerned about the use of AI and the precedent this case sets.

While Mr Leben does not question this family’s intention or actions, he worries not all uses of AI will be consistent with a victim’s wishes.

“If we have other people doing this moving forward, are we always going to get fidelity to what the person, the victim in this case, would’ve wanted?” Mr Leben asked.

For Ms Wales, however, this gave her brother the final word.

“We approached this with ethics and morals because this is a powerful tool. Just like a hammer can be used to break a window or rip down a wall, it can also be used as a tool to build a house and that’s how we used this technology,” she said.

—

[From ABC15 Arizona (KNXV-TV)]

Family uses AI to create video for deadly Chandler road rage victim’s own impact statement

There is no other known use of AI in the creation of victim impact statements

By: Jordan Bontke and  Ashley Loose
May 5, 2025; updated May 7, 2025

[snip]

The AI video also included real video clips from videos taken while he was alive, along with some of his personality and humor, while showing a real photo he once took with an “old age” filter.

“This is the best I can ever give you of what I would have looked like if I got the chance to grow old,” the AI version of Pelkey said. “Remember, getting old is a gift that not everybody has, so embrace it and stop worrying about those wrinkles.”

Stacey Wales, Pelkey’s sister, said everyone who knew Pelkey “agreed this capture was a true representation of the spirit and soul of how Chris would have thought about his own sentencing as a murder victim.”

The state asked for a 9.5-year sentence, and the judge ended up giving Horcasitas 10.5 years for manslaughter, after being so moved by the powerful video, family says. The judge even referred to the video in his closing sentencing statements.

Pelkey’s family sought justice and found some peace in the process, especially seeing how one of Stacey’s children reacted to seeing their Uncle Chris one more time.

”’Mom and Dad, thank you so much for making that. I needed to hear from Uncle Chris one last time. And that meant so much, thank you.’ That is not what this is intended to do. The result of it having it be a healing piece for anybody who saw it was just a beneficial result,” said Stacey.

Chief Justice Timmer offered the following response about the use of AI:

“AI has the potential to create great efficiencies in the justice system and may assist those unschooled in the law to better present their positions. For that reason, we are excited about AI’s potential.  But AI can also hinder or even upend justice if inappropriately used. A measured approach is best. Along those lines, the court has formed an AI committee to examine AI use and make recommendations for how best to use it.  At bottom, those who use AI—including courts—are responsible for its accuracy.”