For the first time in US legal history, a murder victim’s impact statement was delivered in court using AI, igniting debate over emotion and ethics.
An AI-generated video of Christopher Pelkey, a road rage victim, expressed forgiveness during the sentencing of his killer. Stacey Wales, Pelkey’s sister, created the AI video after struggling to write a traditional statement, hoping it would reflect what her brother might have said if he were alive. The video drew mixed reactions, with some praising its emotional impact and others questioning the use of AI in court.
How AI brought Pelkey back to life
Wales spent two years preparing a victim impact statement but felt it could not fully capture her brother’s spirit. She then decided to let Pelkey “speak” for himself through an AI-generated video, believing he would have forgiven his killer, Gabriel Paul Horcasitas — a message she was not yet ready to express herself, according to her CNN interview.
Using photos, a funeral image, and an old video of Pelkey, they trained AI tools to replicate his voice and likeness. Stacey wrote the script herself, without AI writing tools.
AI victim video draws mixed reactions
Judge Todd Lang responded positively to the AI statement, appreciating its emotional message. Lawyer and AI expert Maura Grossman told the New York Times that since the sentencing phase involves no jury, the video raised no legal or ethical issues.
However, Horcasitas’ defense attorney Jason Lamm voiced concern that the judge may have given undue weight to the AI-generated video, suggesting this could be grounds for appeal. Brooklyn Law School Professor Cynthia Godsoe warned that AI statements could inflame emotions beyond traditional evidence and urged courts to proceed cautiously.
Wales clarified that the video was not evidence and was presented only after the guilty verdict, allowing the judge to see a representation of her brother and giving the family some healing without affecting the trial outcome.
More examples of AIs use within the justice system
Allowing generative AI in the Pelkey sentencing is just one example of how the justice system is slowly adopting the technology.
For example, Arizona’s Supreme Court recently unveiled AI avatars to communicate rulings and improve public understanding. A US judicial panel is also advancing proposals to regulate AI-generated evidence to ensure transparency and protect due process as courts consider how best to use artificial intelligence.
Still, courts are wary of AI’s roles in trials. In New York, judges quickly rejected a plaintiff’s attempt to use an AI-generated avatar to argue his case, citing concerns over impartiality and the risk of misleading the court.
With the rising role of AI in courtrooms, there will certainly be many more legal and ethical discussions about the technology’s possible use within the justice system.