In a groundbreaking Maricopa County courtroom sentencing, an AI-generated likeness of slain Army veteran Christopher Pelkey spoke directly to his killer, Gabriel Paul Horcasitas, who received the maximum 10 and a half years for the 2021 road rage manslaughter, marking what officials believe is the first use of such technology in a U.S. courtroom.
Gabriel Paul Horcasitas, 54, was convicted of manslaughter and endangerment in the November 2021 shooting of Pelkey, 37, who had served three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. During the sentencing hearing on May 1, 2023, Pelkey’s sister, Stacey Wales, played a nearly four-minute AI-generated video featuring a likeness of her brother, addressing the court and Horcasitas directly.
“It is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances,” Pelkey’s AI avatar said. “In another life, we probably could have been friends. I believe in forgiveness and in God, who forgives. I always have, and I still do.”
The video, displayed on an 80-inch courtroom screen, opened with a disclaimer: “Hello, just to be clear, for everyone seeing this, I am a version of Chris Pelkey recreated through A.I. that uses my picture and my voice profile. I was able to be digitally regenerated to share with you today.”
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Todd Lang praised the presentation moments before sentencing Horcasitas.
“I loved that A.I.,” Lang said, describing the video’s message as genuine. “Thank you for that. And as angry as you are, and justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness. And I know Mr. Horcasitas appreciated it, but so did I.”
The use of AI in the sentencing drew both admiration and concern, sparking debate about its place in legal proceedings. Critics warned that such technology could open the door to manipulation, while supporters saw it as a novel way to honor a victim’s voice.
Wales, 47, conceived the idea after struggling for two years to write a victim impact statement.
“I kept hearing what Chris would say,” she said in an interview Wednesday, The New York Times reported. “What I had to say did not seem like it would do justice to the last person listening to make a decision on Chris’ life.”
With help from her husband and their business partner, who had experience using AI for corporate presentations, Wales crafted the video. They used a YouTube clip of Pelkey speaking after PTSD treatment for his voice and a funeral poster for his image, digitally trimming his beard and editing out his glasses and a cap logo. Wales wrote the script herself, aiming to capture her brother’s spirit.
“I know that A.I. can be used nefariously, and it’s uncomfortable for some,” Wales said. “But this was just another tool to use to tell Chris’s story.”
The incident occurred when Horcasitas honked at Pelkey at a Chandler intersection, prompting Pelkey to exit his vehicle and gesture with his arms. Horcasitas fired a gun, striking Pelkey at least once in the chest, according to court records. Horcasitas faced seven to 10½ years; the defense sought the minimum, but Lang imposed the maximum.
Defense attorney Jason D. Lamm called the AI video “inflammatory,” arguing it could provide grounds for appeal.
“Victims generally have extremely broad latitude to make their voices heard at sentencing, and the rules of evidence don’t apply,” Lamm said, per NYT. “However, this may be a situation where they just took it too far, and an appellate court may well determine that the court’s reliance on the A.I. video could constitute reversible error and require a resentencing.”
Legal experts expressed mixed views. Cynthia Godsoe, a Brooklyn Law School professor, found the AI’s emotional impact troubling.
“It’s clearly going to inflame emotions more than pictures,” she said. “I think courts have to be really careful. Things can be altered. We know that. It’s such a slippery slope.”
Conversely, Maura R. Grossman, a professor at the University of Waterloo and member of the American Bar Association’s AI task force, saw no ethical issue in the sentencing context.
“There’s no jury that can be unduly influenced,” she said. “I didn’t find it ethically or legally troubling.”
Arizona State University law professor Gary Marchant praised the family’s intent but cautioned about precedent.
“The family did a really good job of representing what he would have said,” he said, NBC News reported. “But on the other hand, it’s completely fake, right? It’s not true. … This is an extra jump that I feel is going to get us into dangerous grounds.”
Vanessa Ceja-Cervantes, a Maricopa County attorney’s office spokeswoman, said the office was unaware of prior AI use in victim impact statements. Arizona’s permissive rules for victim presentations allowed the video, unlike stricter regulations in some states.
Wales emphasized that the video was used only during sentencing, not in Horcasitas’s trials, both of which ended in convictions. Court records show that a second trial was granted after prosecutors failed to disclose evidence in the first.
The AI presentation, accompanied by letters from Pelkey’s battalion brothers, missionaries, a prom date, and statements from his niece and nephew, underscored his legacy of service and forgiveness. This message resonated in the courtroom, even as it raised questions about the future of AI in justice.