AI Renderings of the Dead Used in Court

Courts are increasingly facing the challenges and ethical dilemmas of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into the justice system.

In a groundbreaking moment, a murder victim delivered an impact statement in court—through an AI-generated avatar.

After Christopher Pelkey was killed in a road rage incident, his sister, Stacey Wales, used AI to recreate her brother's voice and likeness, urging the judge to impose the harshest possible sentence.

As she tearfully addressed the court, a stunning twist followed: An AI-generated video of Pelkey appeared, forgiving the shooter.

The judge expressed his admiration for the video and, moved by the emotional statement, sentenced the shooter to 10.5 years in prison—more than what prosecutors had recommended.

Just hours later, the defendant's lawyer filed a notice of appeal, setting the stage for a new legal debate on the role of AI in court proceedings.

The Justice System Faces New Challenges as AI Gains Ground in Courtrooms

Defense attorney Jason Lamm may not handle the appeal, but he anticipates a higher court will soon address whether the judge improperly relied on the AI-generated video when sentencing his client.

The use of AI in courtrooms is quickly evolving, prompting legal experts to scrutinize its role in justice proceedings.

This is particularly true in the wake of Pelkey’s family using AI to present a victim impact statement—an unprecedented move in US courts.

In response, the Arizona Supreme Court established a committee to research AI best practices, and Florida recently saw a judge use virtual reality (VR) to evaluate a defendant’s self-defense claim.

Meanwhile, in New York, a man without legal counsel attempted to argue his case using an AI avatar, prompting judges to swiftly recognise the artificial nature of the presentation.

As AI technology becomes more integrated into the judicial process, it raises significant legal and ethical concerns.

Experts caution that AI can be manipulative, potentially swaying judges or juries unfairly, particularly in cases involving marginalised communities.

David Evan Harris, an expert on AI deep fakes at UC Berkeley’s business school, said:

"I imagine that will be a contested form of evidence, in part because it could be something that advantages parties that have more resources over parties that don’t."

Legal scholars are already studying how AI intersects with tactics of persuasion and manipulation.

Cynthia Godsoe, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School, emphasizes that courts will increasingly face new, unprecedented challenges—such as determining whether AI-generated images or videos accurately reflect witness testimony or whether these digital renderings could distort perceptions of a defendant’s characteristics.

She stated:

"It's definitely a disturbing trend because it could veer even more into fake evidence that maybe people don't figure out is false.”

From Virtual Crime Scenes to AI Avatars of the Dead: Is AI Pushing Boundaries in the Legal World?

In the Arizona case, Wales acknowledged the ethical and moral dilemmas she faced when deciding to use AI to give her deceased brother a voice during the sentencing hearing.

Wales explained:

"It was important to us to approach this with ethics and morals and to not use it to say things that Chris wouldn’t say or believe."

While Arizona law allows victims’ families to present impact statements in any digital format, victims’ rights attorney Jessica Gattuso, who represented the family, clarified that only Wales and her husband were aware of the AI video beforehand.

She added:

"The goal was to humanise Chris and to reach the judge.”

Upon viewing the video in court, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Todd Lang expressed admiration for what he described as the "beauty" of Pelkey’s words.

The judge noted:

"It also says something about the family. Because you told me how angry you were, and you demanded the maximum sentence, and even though that's what you wanted, you allowed Chris to speak from his heart as you saw it.”

However, the defendant’s attorney later pointed out that these comments could play a role in seeking to overturn the sentence on appeal.

This raises a critical question: should society create a firm ethical stance against using AI renderings of the deceased in legal proceedings?

The case underscores the growing intersection of technology and justice, inviting deeper reflection on the implications of such digital innovations.