Full-Service Law Firm solving complex challenges through bold thinking, precise execution, and shared purpose.

Full Service Law Firm | Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Specializing in the Intersection of Business &amp; Government

Meet our team of trusted advisors, strategic thinkers, and community builders dedicated to client success.

Learn about our full-service legal and business solutions, designed to address complex challenges for leading organizations across industries.

Access thought leadership, news, and resources to stay informed about the latest trends, legal developments, and industry innovations.

Discover how partnership, bold thinking, and precise execution drive results for clients nationwide.

Explore how our national reach and local expertise support clients across the United States and beyond.

Grow at a firm designed to bring out your best.

<p>A state court in Phoenix recently considered an AI generated video in which the manslaughter victim appeared to present a victim impact statement.  Christopher Pilkey had been killed in a 2021 road rage incident, and his sister testified at his sentencing hearing. She prepared a statement she believed her deceased brother would have delivered - including expressing his belief in forgiveness - and used Artificial Intelligence to animate a picture of the victim so it appeared and sounded as if he was delivering the statement.  Defense counsel did not object and the relaxed evidentiary standards applicable to sentencing hearings (as opposed to trials) may have permitted use of the video regardless, but this creative use of technology frames novel issues. While state and federal laws generally provide victims the right to be heard at a sentencing hearing, does an AI video using a script prepared by a third person truly represent the thoughts and sentiments of the deceased victim?  The emotional impact of “seeing” a decedent address the court can be powerful, but is it fair? And while Pilkey's video clearly acknowledged that it had been generated by AI, courts are struggling with how to identify and deal with deep fakes. Given the apparent effectiveness in this case - the presiding Judge was quoted to have “loved that AI” - we can anticipate more such videos to continue to test these boundaries.</p><input type='hidden' id='passle-remote-hosting-tracking-shortcode' value='102kdd8'/><blockquote class="wp-block-quote passle-quote has-cite-link"><p>In what&#039;s believed to be a first in U.S. courts, the family of Chris Pelkey used AI to give him a voice. . . .  The AI rendering of Pelkey told the shooter during the sentencing hearing . . . that it was a shame they had to meet under those circumstances — and that the two of them probably could have been friends in another life.</p><cite><a href="https://www.passle.net/home" aria-label="www.passle.net/..." title="https://www.passle.net/home" target="_blank">www.passle.net/...</a></cite></blockquote>

Should AI Allow Victims to Address a Sentencing Court from the Dead?

Related People

Related Capabilities

You may also be interested in these

Michael Best Welcomes Dana Bell as Senior Counsel in Intellectual Property Practice

Seventh Circuit Grapples with BIPA Amendment.

Federal Court Blocks Oregon EPR Law — Implications Beyond Oregon