According to a new legal filing, the lead defense lawyer for Prakazrel "Pras" Michel, the convicted Fugees hip hop star, used an experimental AI program to generate his closing argument during Michel's high-profile criminal trial last spring. The brief, demanding a retrial for Michel, claims that the AI-generated closing argument by Michel's previous lawyer, David Kenner, was ineffective and flawed. It argues that Kenner made frivolous arguments, misunderstood the required elements, conflated the schemes, and overlooked critical weaknesses in the government's case, ultimately compromising "the single most important portion" of Michel's jury trial. Michel's new counsel from ArentFox Schiff further alleges that Kenner and his co-counsel, Alon Israely, had an undisclosed financial interest in a company called CaseFile Connect, which acted as a technology partner to the AI program EyeLevel. AI. The defense team accuses Kenner and Israely of prioritizing their own financial interests over Michel's defense by using the trial as an opportunity to promote CaseFile Connect. ArentFox claims that this conflict of interest contributed to the inadequacy of Kenner's defense and had a prejudicial impact on Michel's case. In a declaration accompanying the brief, former Justice Department prosecutor and ArentFox partner Peter Zeidenberg states that they learned about Kenner's use of the AI program from Michel's former publicist. Later, they discovered a press release from EyeLevel. AI that confirmed the program's use in Michel's trial. The press release included a statement from Kenner himself, praising the AI program's ability to streamline legal work.

Zeidenberg also cited a LinkedIn post by an executive from EyeLevel. AI confirming the program's use in drafting closing arguments. In response to ArentFox's criticisms, EyeLevel. AI stated that Kenner and Israely have no financial stake in their program, emphasizing that it is meant to aid human lawyers in making informed decisions based on the facts presented in court. ArentFox discovered that CaseFile Connect and Kenner's law firm shared the same primary address in Encino, California, while CaseFile Connect also listed an address in New York City associated with Kenner's co-counsel Israely. ArentFox argues that this overlap suggests a financial interest between Kenner, Israely, and the AI program used for the closing argument. However, CaseFile Connect's website does not disclose its owners or association with Kenner and Israely. Despite attempts by Michel's new lawyers to speak with Kenner and Israely, they declined to discuss the trial. The motion for a retrial also contends that the trial was tainted due to the introduction of information regarding the judge's and another judge's previous conclusions about Michel's alleged involvement in the crimes. Furthermore, it claims that improper testimony and other factors turned the jury into a mere formality, diminishing the fairness of the trial. In addition to the AI closing argument issue, ArentFox highlights various other alleged failures by Kenner, including outsourcing trial preparation to inexperienced contract attorneys and lacking expertise in complex white-collar cases and lobbying regulations. These shortcomings, according to ArentFox, significantly hindered Kenner's ability to effectively cross-examine government witnesses. (Note: This rewrite aims to maintain the original volume of the text while clarifying its content. )