As technology advances at an unprecedented pace, artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly permeating various sectors—and the judicial system is no exception. The intersection of AI and the law has ushered in a new era, one marked by a delicate balance between innovation and ethics.
Recently, a murder case has captured widespread attention for its groundbreaking use of AI in court. In an unexpected twist, AI technology played a pivotal role in the judicial process.
Christopher Pelkey was fatally shot during a road rage incident. To seek justice for her brother, Pelkey’s sister, Stacey Wills, turned to AI to reconstruct his voice and image for use in the courtroom.
Following an emotional speech from Wills, a video of Pelkey—generated by AI—was presented to the court. In the video, the virtual “Pelkey” expressed forgiveness toward the shooter. The judge, visibly moved, praised the video’s emotional depth, calling it “profoundly moving.”
Ultimately, the judge sentenced the defendant to 10.5 years in prison—harsher than the prosecution’s recommendation. However, within hours, the defense filed a notice of appeal, setting the stage for a heated legal debate over the role of AI in judicial proceedings.
AI’s Unchecked Expansion in the Courtroom
AI’s presence in the legal realm is rapidly diversifying. The Pelkey family’s use of AI-generated victim statements marked a first in U.S. legal history. In response to this emerging trend, the Arizona Supreme Court swiftly established a special committee to explore best practices for AI in the courtroom.
Elsewhere, a judge in Florida recently experimented with virtual reality (VR) to assess a defendant’s self-defense claim. In New York, a defendant representing himself attempted to use an AI-generated avatar in his defense—only to be quickly rebuffed by the court.
Legal experts are raising alarms. They warn that AI’s persuasive power could improperly sway judges or juries, especially in cases involving marginalized groups.
David Evan Harris, a deepfake researcher at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, noted,”I imagine that will be a contested form of evidence, in part because it could be something that advantages parties that have more resources over parties that don’t.”
Legal scholars are also scrutinizing how AI might influence courtroom persuasion strategies and the potential for manipulation. Cynthia Godsoe, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School, emphasized that courts are now facing unprecedented challenges—such as determining whether AI-generated videos or images truthfully reflect witness testimony or distort perceptions of a defendant’s character.
“This is undoubtedly a troubling trend,” Godsoe warned, “because such materials may be fabricated without people realizing they’re not real.”
The Ethics of AI-Resurrected Voices in Court
In the Arizona case, Stacey Wills wrestled deeply with the moral and ethical implications of allowing AI to “speak” on behalf of her deceased brother. “We were very mindful of ethics,” she explained. “We made sure the AI conveyed only what Chris would have said or believed.”
Under Arizona law, victims’ families may submit statements in any digital format. Jessica Gattuso, a victims’ rights attorney representing the family, revealed that only Wills and her husband knew of the video prior to the trial.
“Our goal was to make Chris feel real again—to help the judge see that he was once a living, breathing person,” Gattuso said. Judge Todd Lang of Maricopa County Superior Court said he was deeply moved by the video, praising Pelkey’s words as “beautifully rendered.”
However, the defense argued that the AI-generated statement may become a central point in their appeal to overturn the verdict. This raises a crucial question: Should society take a clear ethical stance on the use of AI-generated images of the deceased in judicial settings?
This case serves as a mirror, reflecting the emerging dilemmas that arise at the crossroads of technology and justice. It also urges the public to reconsider the deeper implications of digital innovation.
As the judiciary faces this unprecedented test, the challenge lies in maintaining ethical integrity while embracing tools that could enhance both judicial efficiency and fairness. The path forward demands careful deliberation—and perhaps, a redefinition of what justice looks like in the AI age.