> 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."
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.
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
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.
The hearsay rule generally does not apply during sentencing hearings. Generally you challenge things in victim impact statements on due process grounds.
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?
“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.
It's confusing yeah, but after getting a sentence you don't want, you'll use any reason to discredit the trial, even if it was something seemingly in your favor, also even if the video and the judge's reaction were in favor of the perpetrator, it's possible the jury did not like it and had a negative reaction.
> it's possible the jury did not like it and had a negative reaction.
This video was played in the sentencing phase. In a non-capital case, the sentencing phase is normally judge-only, the jury has already been discharged. So the video had no impact on the jury, since by the time it was played their role in the case was already over.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Ah thanks that makes sense; I guess if it was the maximum sentence, the worst a retrial can do is have no effect (and, if the defense team is not public, increase their payment)
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.
So in this particular case, a family member shared it during post-sentencing impact statements. This is after the jury has rendered their decision, and it is up to the judge to decide how severe the sentence should be.
Family can read fictional poems, personal thoughts, videos or photo montages. They can put up a picture of the deceased, and make statements like if "Bob was here, he would say x, y, and z"
The point is to influence the sentence.
Provided that the family was very clear this was not historic video, and I think it was, then one can see how this isn't obviously out of bounds
The video was aired before the sentence was given if I understood correctly, so one could argue the judge may have been influenced one way or the other by the video.
The purpose of that phase is to influence the judge.
That's why you have the family of the deceased reading tearful letters, crayon drawings from children missing their parents, and other things of that nature introduced during pre sentencing impact statements.
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?
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.
Ten years is not a "great deal". Remember how much you've done in your life over the past ten years. Now imagine being caged up for that time instead, and then being released into a world in which everything had passed you by.
It's a lot better than being murdered, of course. And it's better than say twenty years. But this still isn't saying much, right?! There are no good answers here, only less-bad answers. The whole situation is a tragedy all around - one which arose out of a fucking traffic disagreement.
Which is why fundamentally we need to move past this societal obsession with "solving" problems with firearms. The dynamic of firearms is pure spite - they make a bad situation for you into a slightly worse situation, while making it much worse for the other guy. And while this is a necessary dynamic in some situations, it is most certainly not a first-line answer of how one should be approaching every little difficulty. (a traffic disagreement!)
But yet we've got mass media that demonstrates them as if they're some kind of simple "remote control" for other people. "I've got the gun, now you do what I say". "Oops, now you have the gun, I have to do what you say" and on and on and on. Obviously this is quite idyllic compared to what ends up happening in the real world.
(Note to any reflexively-downvoting gun-thumpers: I'm not actually arguing to make firearms illegal or anything! I'm a gun owner myself. They're a tool - a tool whose dynamic has been poorly understood in popular culture)
Of course it's not ideal. But you're really getting waylaid.
Here in Canada (where we supposedly like restorative justice and giving people second chances) the penalty for murder is life in prison.
The non-parole period (the amount that must be served) is set by the judge at sentencing and ranges from a minimum of 10 years for second-degree murder. (The longest period is never: indefinite incarceration until proven to be safe around others -- mostly reserved for serial killers.)
That is to say: the absolute shortest sentence you can get in Canada for murder is ten years.
In America I believe it's often many decades if not the death penalty, no?
Even Norway - renowned for the progressive humanity of its legal system - mandates at least 8 years jail for murder.
In just about any country anywhere 10 years for murder is, objectively, a relatively light sentence for murder.
Not at all sure what the sentencing for murder has to do with firearms, really. Other than firearms being an effective way to murder. Most murders in my country are beatings and stabbings, probably since firearms are not as widely available. Does that prevent a few? Probably. Still seems non sequitur.
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?
Right now, a defendant has the option of trial by jury or trial by judge alone. It will be interesting to see how long it takes before the option of trial by AI comes into play.
NGL, I'd take that over a jury trial any day of the week, if I were in fact innocent. Ditto for a trial by a biased or incompetent judge.
Probably more like "arbitration by AI" as a step in "reforming" plea bargains. I think the real questions are 1. whether the AI would have to explain its reasoning, and 2. whether you would get to appeal to a regular court.
You've been spending too much time arguing about LLMs on the internet, and it's affected your thinking. It's just like boomers in the 70-90s worrying about the TV. But then IQ scores actually rose during those decades.
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
while I have a near road rage reaction to the use of AI in courts, it suddenly occured to me that in a case like this the killer could be sentenced to 20 years with his victims AI representation his permanent 24/7/365 x 20 companion,programed to be nice but take the piss, you know,posture, maners, pick up your socks, 24/7/365 x 20, good mooorning, hi how are you?, I'm still dead hey!
> 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
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.
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
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]
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.
The hearsay rule generally does not apply during sentencing hearings. Generally you challenge things in victim impact statements on due process grounds.
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?
“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.
The confusion isn't why the video is a problem, but why the defense made this argument, rather than the prosecution.
It's confusing yeah, but after getting a sentence you don't want, you'll use any reason to discredit the trial, even if it was something seemingly in your favor, also even if the video and the judge's reaction were in favor of the perpetrator, it's possible the jury did not like it and had a negative reaction.
> it's possible the jury did not like it and had a negative reaction.
This video was played in the sentencing phase. In a non-capital case, the sentencing phase is normally judge-only, the jury has already been discharged. So the video had no impact on the jury, since by the time it was played their role in the case was already over.
Well it got his sentence quashed didn't it
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
> 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.
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.
The accused was found guilty, and this looks like it was a low hanging fruit for the defense to get the sentencing reverted.
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.
Ah thanks that makes sense; I guess if it was the maximum sentence, the worst a retrial can do is have no effect (and, if the defense team is not public, increase their payment)
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.
But it wasnt testimony or evidence tho?
The issue with presenting a fictional video is that it can influence in a way or another the final decision and it can also create a precedent.
If someone wants to watch fiction, it can do it in a more appropriate place and not in a court of law.
So in this particular case, a family member shared it during post-sentencing impact statements. This is after the jury has rendered their decision, and it is up to the judge to decide how severe the sentence should be.
Family can read fictional poems, personal thoughts, videos or photo montages. They can put up a picture of the deceased, and make statements like if "Bob was here, he would say x, y, and z"
The point is to influence the sentence.
Provided that the family was very clear this was not historic video, and I think it was, then one can see how this isn't obviously out of bounds
It wasn't valid testimony or evidence, but it biases the jury.
The video was after the jury had rendered their decision.
The video was aired before the sentence was given if I understood correctly, so one could argue the judge may have been influenced one way or the other by the video.
The purpose of that phase is to influence the judge.
That's why you have the family of the deceased reading tearful letters, crayon drawings from children missing their parents, and other things of that nature introduced during pre sentencing impact statements.
> 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?
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 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!
Ten years is not a "great deal". Remember how much you've done in your life over the past ten years. Now imagine being caged up for that time instead, and then being released into a world in which everything had passed you by.
It's a lot better than being murdered, of course. And it's better than say twenty years. But this still isn't saying much, right?! There are no good answers here, only less-bad answers. The whole situation is a tragedy all around - one which arose out of a fucking traffic disagreement.
Which is why fundamentally we need to move past this societal obsession with "solving" problems with firearms. The dynamic of firearms is pure spite - they make a bad situation for you into a slightly worse situation, while making it much worse for the other guy. And while this is a necessary dynamic in some situations, it is most certainly not a first-line answer of how one should be approaching every little difficulty. (a traffic disagreement!)
But yet we've got mass media that demonstrates them as if they're some kind of simple "remote control" for other people. "I've got the gun, now you do what I say". "Oops, now you have the gun, I have to do what you say" and on and on and on. Obviously this is quite idyllic compared to what ends up happening in the real world.
(Note to any reflexively-downvoting gun-thumpers: I'm not actually arguing to make firearms illegal or anything! I'm a gun owner myself. They're a tool - a tool whose dynamic has been poorly understood in popular culture)
Of course it's not ideal. But you're really getting waylaid.
Here in Canada (where we supposedly like restorative justice and giving people second chances) the penalty for murder is life in prison.
The non-parole period (the amount that must be served) is set by the judge at sentencing and ranges from a minimum of 10 years for second-degree murder. (The longest period is never: indefinite incarceration until proven to be safe around others -- mostly reserved for serial killers.)
That is to say: the absolute shortest sentence you can get in Canada for murder is ten years.
In America I believe it's often many decades if not the death penalty, no?
Even Norway - renowned for the progressive humanity of its legal system - mandates at least 8 years jail for murder.
In just about any country anywhere 10 years for murder is, objectively, a relatively light sentence for murder.
Not at all sure what the sentencing for murder has to do with firearms, really. Other than firearms being an effective way to murder. Most murders in my country are beatings and stabbings, probably since firearms are not as widely available. Does that prevent a few? Probably. Still seems non sequitur.
Here is the actual decision: https://coa1.azcourts.gov/Portals/1/OpinionFiles/Div1/2026/S...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49931449
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?
For now, courts are smart. Imagine what happens in 5-10 years
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.
Smarter than they will be in 20 years when all students will have abdicated reading to LLMs
Right now, a defendant has the option of trial by jury or trial by judge alone. It will be interesting to see how long it takes before the option of trial by AI comes into play.
NGL, I'd take that over a jury trial any day of the week, if I were in fact innocent. Ditto for a trial by a biased or incompetent judge.
Probably never. Jury trials are enshrined in the constitution.
And people don't trust AI and don't like being judged by an algorithm.
In the US, jury trials are a right but not a requirement. You can waive the right.
Probably more like "arbitration by AI" as a step in "reforming" plea bargains. I think the real questions are 1. whether the AI would have to explain its reasoning, and 2. whether you would get to appeal to a regular court.
This isn't going to happen.
You've been spending too much time arguing about LLMs on the internet, and it's affected your thinking. It's just like boomers in the 70-90s worrying about the TV. But then IQ scores actually rose during those decades.
“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
There is no way I would have been able to identify this as sarcasm on this board without the sarc mark, so thanks for that, I was getting upset
while I have a near road rage reaction to the use of AI in courts, it suddenly occured to me that in a case like this the killer could be sentenced to 20 years with his victims AI representation his permanent 24/7/365 x 20 companion,programed to be nice but take the piss, you know,posture, maners, pick up your socks, 24/7/365 x 20, good mooorning, hi how are you?, I'm still dead hey!
What's with all the crazy people lately who want to turn Black Mirror into reality?
A frightening number of people see cautionary tales as “hey, that would be really cool.”
Something, something, Torment Nexus...
cruel AND unusual punishment...
[dead]