Hacker News Reader

Comment by dredmorbius | Hacker News Reader

What on Earth is the basis for admissibility of such evidence and/or testimony?

From the original source, statement of a judge identified as "chief justice Timmer" statement:

AI has the potential to create great efficiencies in the justice system and may assist those unschooled in the law to better present their positions. For that reason, we are excited about AI’s potential. But AI can also hinder or even upend justice if inappropriately used. A measured approach is best. Along those lines, the court has formed an AI committee to examine AI use and make recommendations for how best to use it. At bottom, those who use AI—including courts—are responsible for its accuracy.

<https://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/chandler/...>

I'm presuming that this is Ann A. Scott Timmer, chief justice of the Arizona state supreme court:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Timmer>

View on HN

I don't believe that the Timmer statement was related to the case, and I would imagine that it likely proceeded the use of AI there. It would indeed be strange — almost certainly disqualifying — for an appellate judge to comment about a case that could go up on appeal.

The judge at trial, according to the posted article, was a Todd Lang:

> Judge Todd Lang responded positively to the AI usage.

I don't know Arizona law, but I would think that the defendant should and would get a resentencing if he challenged this on appeal.

> The state asked for a 9.5-year sentence, and the judge ended up giving Horcasitas 10.5 years for manslaughter, after being so moved by the powerful video, family says. The judge even referred to the video in his closing sentencing statements.

Guaranteed this is going to be a spicy appeal if it happens.

The statement was presented during sentencing hearings, again according to the source article:

[L]ast month, artificial intelligence brought [Christopher Pelkey] back to life during his killer’s sentencing hearing.... Pelkey’s sister and brother-in-law used the technology to recreate his image and voice likeness to “talk” to the courtroom about his life and the day he met Gabriel Paul Horcasitas, who shot him during a confrontation near Gilbert and Germann roads.

<https://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/chandler/...>

AFAIU sentencing is performed by the judge, not jury. It's still wildly divergent court practice.

Re-reading your comment again, this time with the "more comprehension" bit set.

The relationship of Judge Timmer's statement to the proceedings in which the AI fabulation was presented are less than clear, and I suspect that ABC 15/Arizona's article, by Jordan Bontke and Ashley Loose, suffers from some poor composition or editing. The reference to Timmer sounds as if there should have been a prior mention of her, though there isn't (I've checked this several times).

And your comment that an S.C. justice would comment on a case that's only just been decided, and not yet appealed (IMO it should be, based on this evidence/testimony alone, and regardless of other merits), is also bizarre.

Given that the AI testimony was given at sentencing, an obvious remedy would be to retain the initial jury verdict and re-do the sentencing with a different judge.

> And your comment that an S.C. justice would comment on a case that's only just been decided, and not yet appealed (IMO it should be, based on this evidence/testimony alone, and regardless of other merits), is also bizarre.

Not sure why you think my comment is bizarre: I'm saying that it would be extremely unusual and disqualifying for an appellate judge to comment on a case that could be appealed, and therefore I suspect that the appellate judge (Timmer) probably made that statement in a context unrelated to the case. Unless I misunderstand, I think we're on the same page about that.

> IMO it should be …

Not as legal advice but as personal opinion, and based only on the information in the article, I agree and think that appealing would be a no-brainer.

The remedy you suggest would be what I would expect and what I would ask for, but I'm not sure how Arizona does things. It's possible that a new sentencing might be conducted with the same judge.

I don't think your comment is bizarre. I think the C.J.'s comment is bizarre. Talk about tipping your hand / biasing the case and disqualifying yourself.

We agree.

My argument for resentencing by a different judge is that the emotional impact of AI testimony is so strong as to be impossible to ignore, and hence disqualifying from judgement anyone exposed to it. It's one thing to say "disregard the evidence / testimony", it's quite another to exclude the evidence entirely.

Yeah. This has to be the worst use of AI I’ve heard of yet.

It was a victim impact statement made post-verdict, during the sentencing phase of the trial.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_impact_statement

It's not a victim impact statement, as the victim can no longer speak. It's effectively a lawyer writing one in place of the victim, and then using a fancy puppet show to portray the victim as saying it.

The family, in some cases friends, coworkers, etc, are also considered victims of this crime, for the intent of these statements. This was their statement on behalf of his sister, not a posthumous statement by the deceased.

Then let them make it in their own names.

And not, as nitwit005 aptly puts it, speaking through a puppet.

>"Hello. Just to be clear for everyone seeing this, I'm a version of Chris Pelkey recreated through AI that uses my picture and my voice profile,"

They did make it in their own names, there was never any implication that it wasn’t.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com