Rendered at 15:42:55 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
bhouston 1 hours ago [-]
The whole thing is messed up.
The video was created by the sister of the victim based on what she imagined he would say.
The video asked for leniency. But the family of the victim formally asked for the maximum sentence. So there is a conflict here between the video made by the family and what the family asked for - I don't understand why the video was made at all.
The maximum sentence to the accused was handed down, against the wishes of the AI video.
So they are throwing out the maximum sentence based on the AI video asking for leniency?
Regardless of this mess, AI videos of victims saying made up things should not be allowed at all.
philipp-gayret 1 hours ago [-]
> So they are throwing out the maximum sentence based on the AI video asking for leniency?
It says:
> In sum, while the embedded “real” video footage of the victim was permissible, allowing the presentation of the AI video constituted fundamental error. And on this record, the judge’s consideration of the AI video so prejudiced Horcasitas as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence for manslaughter and remand for resentencing.
Which is more or less; "AI videos of victims saying made up things should not be allowed at all.".
ryandrake 23 minutes ago [-]
How was this even allowed by the judge? I wonder, if AI videos weren't a thing yet, would the judge allow one of the parties to bring in an actor dressed up and made up to look like the victim to offer testimony?
baobabKoodaa 56 minutes ago [-]
Right. All of that makes sense, but you didn't address the directionality: the direction of the AI sentence was "make sentence more lenient", and (according to the person you are replying to) the sentence was the maximum sentence possible. So if we removed the influence of the AI video, the sentence can not increase from what is already the maximum.
horsawlarway 48 minutes ago [-]
You assume the intent of the video was to be listened to and accepted as actual input.
My assumption is roughly the opposite - the intent of the video was to prejudice the jury as far as possible against the accused (he killed a person honorable enough and empathetic enough to suggest a more lenient sentence! To the pit with him!)
It wasn't about the content of the video - it was about the emotional response to an AI generated facsimile of the victim.
s3p 24 minutes ago [-]
> intent of the video was to prejudice the jury
It was turned over for 'prejudice' to the judge, not the jury. So this take isn't supported by the decision
horsawlarway 9 minutes ago [-]
Sure, not a jury recommendation in this case. But it absolutely is supported.
The whole resentencing judgement came in part because the original judge stated how much he liked the ai video of the victim.
schiffern 18 minutes ago [-]
Thank you. This comment clarified my (sometimes all-too-literal!) feelings about this incident.
thevillagechief 44 minutes ago [-]
Perhaps the prejudice is that the AI video is a means of manipulation making the victim appear more sympathetic. "This person must be an absolute monster to shoot such a good, kind forgiving guy." That was exceptionally poor judgement on the part of the judge.
-Edit: Exactly what the comment above said.
soco 17 minutes ago [-]
Why on earth was an AI video shown before the court? Since when are KNOWN forgeries acceptable as anything? Why aren't anybody addressing this???
klodolph 45 minutes ago [-]
from what I understand, there’s a high standard here, beyond “beyond reasonable doubt”, along the lines of “no appearance of impropriety”
Natsu 33 minutes ago [-]
I don't think the killer was actually prejudiced by this at all, but I think it was done as a way to say this nonsense shouldn't be in court at all.
wat10000 32 minutes ago [-]
Why can't the sentence increase? Maybe the judge was so touched by this video that he gave more weight to the family's request for a harsh sentence. Maybe it just enraged him to see the grieving family affected like this. You're applying frictionless-sphere physics to complicated human thoughts.
s3p 23 minutes ago [-]
The sentence can't increase, it's mathematically impossible. There's no additional number of years the judge could have given.
savanaly 39 minutes ago [-]
So basically it's that they believe the AI video was so off-putting that it sabotaged its own case in the judge's eyes? And that the case for leniency is stronger without the AI video so let the trial run again so the case can be heard without the AI video??
omnicognate 3 minutes ago [-]
No, the prosecution didn't ask for the maximum sentence. They asked for 9 years. The judge went with the maximum of 10.5 years anyway and was clearly influenced by the video, regardless of the family's intentions.
I suspect the sister did not anticipate the implications of the video. She might have initially created it for herself as a kind of therapy to help her cope, then thought it might help the families case if she showed it. I am just speculating though.
tmpz22 22 minutes ago [-]
Except her lawyer was there to explain court procedure and implications.
In vigorously advocating for her client, who expressed a desire for maximum sentencing, the laywer presumably would have explained its pikely effect (biasing the judge).
fsckboy 56 minutes ago [-]
>The video was created by the sister of the victim based on what she imagined he would say
you don't know this, she could have been working based on advice from their attorney as to "how to get the maximum sentence"
apetresc 54 minutes ago [-]
The attorney thinks the best way to get the maximum sentence is to make an AI video of the victim asking for leniency in sentencing?
What kind of 4D chess is this?
furyofantares 46 minutes ago [-]
Makes the victim more real (to the judge), I guess. And the family are victims too, the ones who continue to suffer, so I guess the 4D chess is demonstrating what the victims lost.
It eventually makes sense to my brain, aside from the AI part of course. If I'm a remarkably forgiving person my family might both appreciate that about me, and not be remarkably forgiving themselves. And they might say look, we lost this remarkable human being, punish the responsible party harshly.
bluGill 15 minutes ago [-]
It worked...
It isn't clear who created the video. It is possible the person who created disagrees with the rest of the family.
Hard to say who was thinking what.
horsawlarway 43 minutes ago [-]
> The attorney thinks the best way to get the maximum sentence is to make an AI video of the victim asking for leniency in sentencing?
Ab-so-fucking-lutely. This paints the victim in the most positive light. And makes killing them seem even worse.
Again, attorneys understand that a lot of times you're looking for an emotional hook, not straight up "facts". This video made the victim seem moral, empathetic, full of forgiveness... as close to freaking jesus as you can get.
And that other person killed them.
Now go sentence that person.
---
Instead imagine the video was of the victim smoking a cigar, laughing, and suggesting that he'd never forgive him and he should be put to death?
---
Which video makes the jury more likely to actually come back with a tougher sentence? The one where he's a bastard, or the one where he's a saint?
corndoge 30 minutes ago [-]
Agree with your post, but judges sentence, not juries.
zdragnar 20 minutes ago [-]
Depending on the state and criminal penalty (typically capital punishment), juries can recommend sentences.
horsawlarway 24 minutes ago [-]
fair - I've lived in places where juries can recommend sentencing. You're right here.
qarl 48 minutes ago [-]
Yeah. The people in these comments aren't following the story.
tiahura 23 minutes ago [-]
Wait till you hear about some of the "Day in the Life" videos that ambulance chasers use.
triceratops 1 hours ago [-]
I read the article but I'm more mystified than when I read the headline. To recap:
A man is killed in a road-rage incident.
The killer gets the maximum sentence for manslaughter (10.5 years).
The appeals court says the judge was influenced by an AI-generated video of the victim and sends the case back for re-sentencing. Fine, ok.
Where it gets weird: The video was made by the victim's sister. In the video, the victim says he believes in forgiveness. However, the family demanded the maximum sentence for the killer.
This strikes me as strange. If they wanted the maximum sentence why did they submit a video about forgiveness? Did I miss something?
bill_joy_fanboy 36 minutes ago [-]
This whole thing is bizarre.
I don't fully understand the details of the case, but if someone were to kill a family member of mine in a fit of road rage, I would be furious if the sentence was a paltry 10.5 years.
Victims or victims' families pleading for leniency always puzzled me. Where is your iron?
tmpz22 19 minutes ago [-]
Grief is not simply a function of one’s iron.
bluGill 8 minutes ago [-]
The sister may not agree with her family?
sim04ful 60 minutes ago [-]
Not so much perplexing if they considered the AI rendition an accurate representation. It's somewhat quite internally consistent in its own illogical way
triceratops 32 minutes ago [-]
Even if it's accurate it seems counter-productive to the objective, which is to get the maximum possible sentence.
FWIW for normal slights, I believe in forgiveness too. Deadly violence over a road-rage incident isn't one of them.
In any case this whole thing is a tragedy.
baobabKoodaa 55 minutes ago [-]
You mean: the family members personally wanted the maximum sentence, but they wanted the (dead) victim to be able to express that the victim wants leniency?
justonceokay 41 minutes ago [-]
It doesn’t confuse me at all. But maybe that’s just because I come from a family where people disagree as sport
justonceokay 41 minutes ago [-]
It doesn’t confuse me at all. But maybe that’s just because I come from a family where people disagree and try to undermine each other as sport
ab2525 50 minutes ago [-]
Yes exactly that - I parsed it as such.
deadbabe 32 minutes ago [-]
People are obsessed with granting forgiveness. Some people want to purposefully be victims just so they can forgive someone. Forgiving gives the illusion of control and a moral superiority that some people really crave. It is performative forgiveness. Conveniently, it is difficult to question someone's genuine intentions about forgiveness, and some people have discovered you can also not be the actual victim and still forgive someone for a crime against that victim.
In reality, there should be no forgiveness, only punishments doled out according to the severity of the crime, nothing more. Justice without passion.
OptionOfT 18 minutes ago [-]
In AZ a victim impact statement is given after the defendant has been found guilty, but before the judge sets length of the sentence.
The rules of evidence don't apply to the victim impact statement.
So was it thrown out because it was AI? If so, could the family have hired an actor to do the impersonation?
Was it thrown out because the judge said he loved it?
To my understanding the victim impact statement must be authentic. How can we know if that is how the victim would've reacted?
Making an AI / actor say: I believe in another life we could've been friends is different from the sister saying: I believe you and my brother could've been friends in another life.
ihumanable 44 minutes ago [-]
> He added that he felt the video was “genuine, that his obvious forgiveness of Mr. Horcasitas reflects the character I heard about [Pelkey] today.”
It's an artificial video that is *literally and verifiably* not genuine.
doublerabbit 21 minutes ago [-]
If a judge says it is, then it must be. /s
jeffbee 25 minutes ago [-]
Your main takeaway from this tale should be that the quality of trial court judges varies widely.
wavemode 1 hours ago [-]
Wait let me get this straight. A man is killed in a road rage shooting. His family shows up to sentencing with an AI video of the victim asking for leniency for the shooter. The judge says he loved the video, then gives out the max sentence anyway. Then a court of a appeals vacates the sentence on the grounds that the judge was biased by the video. Huh? Every single one these statements seems extremely illogical.
wat10000 30 minutes ago [-]
What part of this process would you expect to be logical? Everything except the last one is pretty clearly an emotional reaction.
Well at least the deepfake asked for leniency and offered forgiveness.
Wake me up when it starts offering narratives, evidence and alibis.
iAMkenough 1 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
SpicyLemonZest 54 minutes ago [-]
I fear you may not understand that engaging in political meta-commentary when you see someone say "AI" helps Trump politicize the term, even if you do so from an anti-Trump perspective. As a veteran of multiple language change wars, all of which I found incredibly obnoxious, the only times I've had to abandon useful old terminology is when some political movement successfully adopted that terminology as a badge.
1 hours ago [-]
bhouston 1 hours ago [-]
How do Trump even keep track of the enemy list at this point? It may be easier to just white list individuals who are not enemies? Much shorter list.
superxpro12 1 hours ago [-]
Precisely. and that list is "white republicans"
MajorTakeaway 59 minutes ago [-]
"White" Democrat here, I believe making a list based on skin color is inherently racist.
Shalomboy 54 minutes ago [-]
That's good! However, there are bigger fish to fry here than tsk-tsking HN's commentariat. ICE is making allllllll sorts of lists based on skin color.
The video was created by the sister of the victim based on what she imagined he would say.
The video asked for leniency. But the family of the victim formally asked for the maximum sentence. So there is a conflict here between the video made by the family and what the family asked for - I don't understand why the video was made at all.
The maximum sentence to the accused was handed down, against the wishes of the AI video.
So they are throwing out the maximum sentence based on the AI video asking for leniency?
Regardless of this mess, AI videos of victims saying made up things should not be allowed at all.
It says:
> In sum, while the embedded “real” video footage of the victim was permissible, allowing the presentation of the AI video constituted fundamental error. And on this record, the judge’s consideration of the AI video so prejudiced Horcasitas as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence for manslaughter and remand for resentencing.
Which is more or less; "AI videos of victims saying made up things should not be allowed at all.".
My assumption is roughly the opposite - the intent of the video was to prejudice the jury as far as possible against the accused (he killed a person honorable enough and empathetic enough to suggest a more lenient sentence! To the pit with him!)
It wasn't about the content of the video - it was about the emotional response to an AI generated facsimile of the victim.
It was turned over for 'prejudice' to the judge, not the jury. So this take isn't supported by the decision
The whole resentencing judgement came in part because the original judge stated how much he liked the ai video of the victim.
The ruling on this is here and is perfectly readable: https://coa1.azcourts.gov/Portals/1/OpinionFiles/Div1/2026/S.... The reporting of it has been abysmal.
1:23 if you wanna watch it, it's uh... quite something.
And the judges reaction to the AI video in court: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr9b1_rintk
In vigorously advocating for her client, who expressed a desire for maximum sentencing, the laywer presumably would have explained its pikely effect (biasing the judge).
you don't know this, she could have been working based on advice from their attorney as to "how to get the maximum sentence"
What kind of 4D chess is this?
It eventually makes sense to my brain, aside from the AI part of course. If I'm a remarkably forgiving person my family might both appreciate that about me, and not be remarkably forgiving themselves. And they might say look, we lost this remarkable human being, punish the responsible party harshly.
It isn't clear who created the video. It is possible the person who created disagrees with the rest of the family.
Hard to say who was thinking what.
Ab-so-fucking-lutely. This paints the victim in the most positive light. And makes killing them seem even worse.
Again, attorneys understand that a lot of times you're looking for an emotional hook, not straight up "facts". This video made the victim seem moral, empathetic, full of forgiveness... as close to freaking jesus as you can get.
And that other person killed them.
Now go sentence that person.
---
Instead imagine the video was of the victim smoking a cigar, laughing, and suggesting that he'd never forgive him and he should be put to death?
---
Which video makes the jury more likely to actually come back with a tougher sentence? The one where he's a bastard, or the one where he's a saint?
A man is killed in a road-rage incident.
The killer gets the maximum sentence for manslaughter (10.5 years).
The appeals court says the judge was influenced by an AI-generated video of the victim and sends the case back for re-sentencing. Fine, ok.
Where it gets weird: The video was made by the victim's sister. In the video, the victim says he believes in forgiveness. However, the family demanded the maximum sentence for the killer.
This strikes me as strange. If they wanted the maximum sentence why did they submit a video about forgiveness? Did I miss something?
I don't fully understand the details of the case, but if someone were to kill a family member of mine in a fit of road rage, I would be furious if the sentence was a paltry 10.5 years.
Victims or victims' families pleading for leniency always puzzled me. Where is your iron?
FWIW for normal slights, I believe in forgiveness too. Deadly violence over a road-rage incident isn't one of them.
In any case this whole thing is a tragedy.
In reality, there should be no forgiveness, only punishments doled out according to the severity of the crime, nothing more. Justice without passion.
The rules of evidence don't apply to the victim impact statement.
So was it thrown out because it was AI? If so, could the family have hired an actor to do the impersonation?
Was it thrown out because the judge said he loved it?
To my understanding the victim impact statement must be authentic. How can we know if that is how the victim would've reacted?
Making an AI / actor say: I believe in another life we could've been friends is different from the sister saying: I believe you and my brother could've been friends in another life.
It's an artificial video that is *literally and verifiably* not genuine.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49944127
Wake me up when it starts offering narratives, evidence and alibis.