US killer's sentence quashed because of AI video of victim shown in court

US killer's sentence quashed because of AI video of victim shown in court bbc.com

The Arizona appeals court ruled that airing an AI message from the dead victim "crossed that line".

54 points•porridgeraisin•about 6 hours ago•43 comments•

#victim #court #ai #shown #killers #quashed #video #sentence

43 comments

nchmyabout 3 hours ago

> At the time of the sentencing, the judge who oversaw the case, Todd Lang, seemed to appreciate the use of AI. "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."

This judge should lose his job

yolp5about 1 hour ago

> 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.

avaerabout 3 hours ago

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.

razingedenabout 2 hours ago

I was thinking of where we could go from here --

it would be a nice touch for the prosecution to throw a bed sheet over their head and yell "BOOOOOOOO! I'm the ghost of [victim]! He killed me , your honor!" pointed finger

gib444about 3 hours ago

Without question. Absolute kangaroo court.

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

Hobadeeabout 3 hours ago

Not sure why this was ever allowed; Regardless of what you make the AI say, this seems like a pretty open-and-shut case of hearsay to me. You are purporting to speak for someone else, but it's really the sisters words.

tzsabout 1 hour ago

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

doogliusabout 3 hours ago

I'm confused. The video was shared by the victim's family, and it has him forgive the killer, and the judge believed it, and the killer's legal team complained? Isn't it in their favor?

mysterydipabout 3 hours ago

“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.

happytoexplainabout 3 hours ago

The confusion isn't why the video is a problem, but why the defense made this argument, rather than the prosecution.

RussianBot9580about 3 hours ago

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.

cheez-wizabout 2 hours ago

Okay this is the clearest read I've found. Regardless of the language, the real(looking) depiction of the victim carried so much emotional weight it heavily increased the sentence. I see this being a reasonable possibility and not legal games to get out of a sentence. Using an ai victim statement is playing legal games.

SyneRyderabout 3 hours ago

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.

wat10000about 2 hours ago

The accused’s lawyers haven’t found a loophole, they’ve found a prosecution willing to break the rules and throw the case. It’s the prosecution’s responsibility to ensure they bring good evidence, not the defense’s.

RussianBot9580about 3 hours ago

The family can just, you know, stop playing the video. It's inappropriate, and one would hope that the next judge doesn't allow it.

happytoexplainabout 3 hours ago

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.

hruntabout 3 hours ago

The defendant is not getting a retrial. He is getting resentenced. His guilt wasn't challenged. I think the defendant's argument is that the lifelike AI avatar of the victim carried the emotional weight of actually being the victim, and since the statement was one of geniality and forgiveness that may not have actually represented the victim's true self. This prejudiced sentencing because it made it look like the defendant killed someone better than they may have been.

The AI statement was effectively a statement from the victim's sister. She can get up on the stand and talk about how genial and forgiving her brother was herself, and it will likely result in a similar sentence. Then, that sentence will be based on actual testimony and not invented testimony.

And to those questioning why the lawyer challenged the sentence, a defense attorney is going to look at any opportunity to argue for a lesser sentence as one worth taking. You may think this testimony yielded a "better" sentence for the defendant, but I'm sure the attorney thinks otherwise.

tzsabout 2 hours ago

> The article makes it sound like the sentence was lenient due to the "forgiveness" of the "victim", but that's never stated

The prosecutors asked for 9 years, the defense asked for 7 years, and the family asked for the maximum available which was 10.5 years. The judge went with 10.5 years.

lux-lux-luxabout 2 hours ago

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.

locusofselfabout 3 hours ago

It seems totally inappropriate to play an AI video in court, but it seems like a waste of resources to waste more court time on this. But also, how can you murder someone and get only 10 years in prison?

Legend2440about 2 hours ago

>how can you murder someone and get only 10 years in prison

The conviction was for manslaughter, not murder.

It was a road rage incident and the other guy started it by getting out and angrily approaching his car. So he pulled his gun and shot the guy. He argued it was self-defense; the courts didn't buy this because he could simply have stayed in his car and drove away.

Killing someone in a fight (where the victim was also acting aggressively) gets you a much shorter sentence than killing someone in cold blood.

cf100clunkabout 4 hours ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49931449

Read the full thread on Hacker News →

43 comments

Related stories