Sentence overturned after man killed in 2021 ‘speaks’ in AI video played in Arizona court

Arizona man’s 10-year prison sentence for manslaughter overturned in case where artificial intelligence-generated video represented the deceased victim addressing a judge before the sanction is imposed.

In a decision released Wednesday, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that Gabriel Paul Horcasitas should be resentenced for the 2021 shooting death of Christopher Pelkey ​​because the AI ​​video was unreliable.

The court found the video crossed the line, saying it did not reflect the actual events and presented the statements made in the footage as coming directly from the victim.

“Indeed, rather than documenting an event or recording a particular moment, the AI ​​video presents a representation of the victim and her thoughts created from the imaginations of the victim’s sister,” the three judges wrote.

Jessica Gattuso, an attorney who represented victims in the case, and Kristen Reller, Horcasitas’ attorney, declined to comment Thursday on the ruling.

Reller argued that Superior Court Judge Todd Lang violated due process protections by relying on AI’s evidence. Gattuso and prosecutors told the appeals court that the lower court judge was not mistaken, saying the images were an accurate portrayal of Pelkey’s character.

In what is believed to be a first in US courts, Pelkey’s family used AI to create a video of him to give him a voice. Pelkey’s sister, Stacey Wales, brought up the idea of ​​her brother speaking for himself after struggling to understand what he would say.

Wales told the BBC last year that the family used voice recordings, videos and images to recreate it for the AI ​​video.

“For Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me, it’s a shame that we met that day under such circumstances,” Pelkey ​​told the AI ​​version in court in 2025. “In another life, we probably could have been friends.”

“I believe in forgiveness and a forgiving God. I always have and I still do,” the AI ​​version of Pelkey ​​continued.

Wales expected an appeal of the sentence and was disappointed that the AI ​​video was cited as the reason, saying its only goal was to humanize his brother for the judge.

“It seems unfair because a convicted murderer is in prison and his rights are surrounded by blankets and walls of protection. Where are the victim’s rights?” » Wales said.

A victims’ appeal lawyer told the family that the use of AI could result in a new appeal.

“We will continue to make his voice heard in every medium permitted through the court system,” Wales said.

The AI-generated victim impact statement was played at a sentencing hearing in May 2025 after nine of Pelkey’s family members and friends came before the judge to describe how emotionally devastated they were by his murder.

Authorities say Horcasitas, 55, shot Pelkey, 37, during a road rage encounter in November 2021 at a red light in Chandler, a Phoenix suburb. Pelkey, who was unarmed, was shot after getting out of his truck and walking toward Horcasitas’ vehicle.

Horcasitas was convicted of manslaughter in Pelkey’s death and endangerment for a shooting that struck another vehicle at the intersection during the encounter.

Horcasitas’ lawyer argued that his client had no meaningful opportunity to refute the material contained in the AI-generated video.

It is unclear whether the attorneys or the court knew in advance that an AI-generated video would be used. But attorneys representing Pelkey’s family said in court records that Arizona law does not require victims to disclose to prosecutors, defense attorneys or the judge any statements they plan to make in court — and that victims can exercise their rights by speaking in court or submitting written or audio or video-recorded statements.

In a statement released Thursday, the Maricopa County Prosecutor’s Office said its prosecutors knew the victim’s family would address the court during sentencing, but were not aware of the nature of that statement.

While the use of AI within the justice system is growing, it is typically reserved for administrative tasks, legal research, and case preparation. In Arizona, this has helped inform the public of decisions in important cases.

But using AI to generate victim impact statements provides a new tool for sharing information with the court outside of the evidentiary stages.

Reller told the appeals court that the video did not reveal who wrote the words used by the AI ​​version of Pelkey ​​and was not supported by evidence establishing that its content accurately reflected Pelkey’s views. It also had “excessive emotional weight” and conveyed an authenticity that wouldn’t have been there if a family member had read the same words aloud, Reller said.

Horcasitas’ attorney claimed the judge weighed the statements made in the AI-generated video before deciding the sentence, but prosecutors argued Lang failed to consider the footage when imposing the sentence.

Shortly before handing down the sentence, the judge said he “loved this AI” but did not say from the bench whether the video had factored into his decision. Lang said he thought Pelkey’s “obvious forgiveness of Mr. Horcasitas reflected the character I heard about today.”

The family’s lawyers say the judge was already inundated with relevant information from Pelkey’s family and friends before AI’s video was released — and that nothing in the video was inflammatory. Horcasitas’ attorney did not object to IA’s video.

Gary Marchant, a law professor at Arizona State University, said he understood why Pelkey’s family did what they did. But he warned that using the technology could open the door to more people trying to introduce AI-generated evidence into courtrooms.

“There is real concern within the judiciary and lawyers that deepfake evidence will be used more and more,” he said. “It’s easy to create and anyone can do it on a phone, and it could have incredible influence because judges and juries, like all of us, are used to believing what you see.”

Marchant pointed to a case in New York where a man without a lawyer used an AI-generated avatar to argue his case in a video trial. It only took a few seconds for the judges to realize that the man speaking to them from the video screen didn’t exist at all.