Road rage victim ‘speaks’ via A.I. at his killer’s sentencing

“To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me: It is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances,” the artificial version of Pekley said. “In another life, we probably could have been friends. I believe in forgiveness.”

The idea of using an A.I. version of Pelkey came from his family, not the state, according to the man’s loved ones and a Maricopa County Attorney’s Office spokesperson.

The victim’s sister Stacey Wales and brother-in-law both work in the A.I. field. When Wales suggested bringing her late brother to life like this, she said her husband was more than hesitant.

“He recoiled,” Wales told NBC News. “And he said, ‘Stacey, do you know what you’re asking me to do? This is my best friend.’ And I said, ‘I know. It’s my brother.’ And then he said, ‘If this isn’t perfect, if this doesn’t go out and really embody the spirit of Chris, I’m not going to let this be shown.'”

Horcasitas had been convicted of manslaughter and endangerment at trial in spring 2023. But a new trial was ordered when a judge ruled that prosecutors failed to property disclose potentially key evidence in a timely manner.

Wales said she hadn’t come up with this idea in 2023. After two years of trying to craft a victim-impact statement, Wales said, she had the epiphany that the only voice that mattered was her late brother’s.

“Every time I’d get in the shower or the car and my thoughts were quiet, I wrote down what I was feeling — frustrated, crying, or emotions, yelling, anger, love, anything that I could think of,” she said.

“I’ve been writing it for two years, but I never had the idea to help Chris speak until a week and a half before this second trial.”

She added: “What I had to say did not seem like it would do justice to the last person listening to make a decision on Chris’ life.”

Horcasitas faced between 7 years and 10.5 years in prison. The defense asked for the lowest punishment.

The judge delivered the maximum but he acknowledged the words in the presentation. “And as angry as you are, justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness,” Judge Lang said. “I feel like that was genuine, that his obvious forgiveness of Mr. Horcasitas reflects the character I heard about (the victim) today.”

Defense lawyer Jason Lamm said that A.I. presentation created a strong issue for appeal.

“While judges certainly have latitude as to what to hear, particularly from victims, an appellate court will have to decide if this was error,” Lamm said. “If it was just simply too far over the line in terms of being inflammatory and to what degree the judge relied on it in imposing a sentence on my client.”

Arizona State University law professor G Marchant, who specializes in ethics and emerging technologies, praised the victim’s loved ones for producing a work that appeared to be against their self-interest of securing a maximum penalty for Horcasitas.

But the ASU professor he’s worried about this precedent this set.

“The family did a really good job of representing what he would have said and they would have the best sense of what he would have said, ” Marchant said. “But on the other hand, it’s completely fake, right? It’s not true.”

While prosecutors and defense lawyers have long used visual aides, charts and other illustrations to make their points, Marchant said A.I. presents a new ethical challenges.

“I mean, it’s a blurry line, right,” said Marchant, who sits on a state Supreme Court committee advising on use of A.I. “You see someone speaking who isn’t really speaking, right? You see that person in the courtroom actually speaking and in reality, they’re dead and they’re not speaking. So this is an extra jump that I feel is going to get us into dangerous grounds.”