CHANDLER, AZ — This week, Chris Pelkey, a victim of road rage in Chandler, gained international attention when an AI-generated version of him was used to deliver the last victim statement during the sentencing of the shooter. The judge sentenced defendant Gabriel Horcasitas to 10. 5 years in prison. Following the sentencing, defense attorney Jason Lamm immediately filed an appeal. “Although victims have the right to address the court, recreating Chris Pelkey through AI—and essentially putting words in his mouth without knowing what he would actually say—felt wrong on many levels, ” Lamm stated. He noted that the appellate courts now face an almost unprecedented decision in the coming months regarding whether the AI-generated video influenced Horcasitas's penalty. Jessica Gattuso, the attorney for the Pelkey family, told ABC15 by phone that she expects the sentencing to be upheld because the current laws support the actions taken in court. Gary Marchant, a professor at ASU and member of the Arizona Supreme Court’s AI committee, commented on the possibility of resentencing: “If they find it was not an innocuous error that affected the outcome—and Horcasitas would have received a similar penalty regardless—they may allow the sentence to stand.

However, they might rule against using AI-created victim statements in the future. ” He recalled that the state Supreme Court had previously told ABC15 that while AI holds “great potential, ” it can “hinder or disrupt justice if used improperly. ” “Those employing AI, including the courts, bear responsibility for ensuring its accuracy, ” Marchant emphasized. He also cautioned that this case could open the floodgates for AI use in courtrooms. “Even though this case was handled with good intentions and honesty, it can easily be exploited for more deceitful, strategic, or self-serving purposes. Therefore, we cannot set a precedent allowing fake videos in court, ” Marchant concluded.