It's hard to be real with a family grieving like that.

But this definitely feels like like digging up someone's corpse and performing ventriloquy for testimony, only with better technology. It should probably be illegal for the same reasons, and not just in court.

Without question. Absolute kangaroo court.

Only slightly less absurd than the witch trial in Monty Python's Holy Grail.

What is wrong with that at all? That is literally their job.

> This judge should lose his job

Over the last several years I've become convinced that most of the insidious corruption in the country lives in the courts.

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

The hearsay rule generally does not apply during sentencing hearings. Generally you challenge things in victim impact statements on due process grounds.

“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 court of appeals wrote on Wednesday.

The issue is it’s not real testimony one way or the other, it’s a fabrication. And allowing it is opening the door for all kinds of things. I think it’s the right move.

Apparently the legal team didn't think so, and believes their client would have received less than 10 years if the AI tear-jerker video wasn't played. Even though the word "forgiveness" was used - they are probably right.

In the cross linked Associated Press story linked by another commenter, the family say they intend to keep using the AI video in each appeal to give the victim a voice.

(My opinion - it seems this AI video has been part of their way of processing grief and honouring the deceased.)

It seems the lawyers representing the killer have found a loophole that will eventually lead to every prosecution being thrown out on the same technicality. That would potentially lead to the killer being released, and not serving the 10 year sentence.

I don't understand either. The article makes it sound like the sentence was lenient due to the "forgiveness" of the "victim", but that's never stated, so maybe the sentencing was not affected, and the defense is just using the video as an excuse for a retrial because they think they can get a better sentencing for some other, unrelated reason?

Also, the judge says explicitly that it was AI? But that it was also "genuine"? Very hard to follow.

The accused was found guilty, and this looks like it was a low hanging fruit for the defense to get the sentencing reverted.

The case centers around a road rage incident in which the defendant claims to have shot the victim in self-defense, with contradicting eyewitness testimony and prior issues in the trial over texts which indicated the victim had severe anger issues and was suicidal.

It's a disappointingly poor article from the BBC. This one is much better and has more information: https://www.lawcommentary.com/articles/arizona-court-ai-gene...

The sentence the judge handed down was the maximum available and more than the prosecutors requested. The defence was apealing the sentencing, which was the judge's choice, not the jury's verdict. The judge was influenced by the video (as the appeals court concluded) and, regardless of the intentions of the prosecution, seeing a fake image of the victim "forgiving" the defendant could have pushed him towards a tougher sentence.

I doubt the direction of the influence actually mattered for the appeals court decision, though - they just vacated the sentence as the video wasn't allowed by law - and as the sentence was the maximum possible for the conviction it doesn't sound like there was much risk in appealing.

I'm speculating, but in a road rage case, I can imagine a lot of scenarios where depicting the victim as gracious and forgiving would make the perpetrator look worse. There's no legal principle that sentencing should be reduced if the victim forgives you, after all. Some contemporary coverage I found in a quick search (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/road-rage-victim-speaks...) indicates he got the maximum sentence.

I doesn't matter what the AI model said, it was not real. The "victim" was dead and it could not forgive anyone. This "testimony" should not have been allowed in court.

Courts are expected to be an objective airing of evidence and any time they are not that, any party can complain and get the result thrown out. There should never be any "you can't complain about this deviation 'cause I think it helped you" clause (though courts do sometimes do this, inappropriately imo). It should have been transparently obvious that a fabricated video of a victim speaking interferes with this objectivity.

> I'm confused

It's ok. Not only the second source published here contradicts the first (nothing was quashed, killer got maximum), the judge's speech is contradictory itself. "As angry as you are ... I heard the forgiveness". How could he hear both anger and forgiveness? It's either one or another (or schizophrenia if both). And if he heard the forgiveness, why is the sentence maximal?

I would imagine they're thinking it increases sympathy with the victim, which doesn't benefit the killer.

But yeah it would be funny if this backfires. 10 years for murder seems like a great deal for the murderer!

Probably the same thing that's happening now. Some cases will get overturned on appeal.

>For now, courts are smart.

that's a leap i'm unwilling to take.

“Courts are smart” is a heck of a comment to make on this article lol. Nothing about this seems smart or rational.

There will be no courts. Just LLMs on all sides. After all wouldn't they be more capable and neutral? So in 5 years why not replace entire justice system by AI bots. If they can code surely they can do much simpler thing of interpreting law for justice. /s

What's with all the crazy people lately who want to turn Black Mirror into reality?

cruel AND unusual punishment...

[dead]