By Rio Yamatt
Stacey Wales stopped her tears and took her tears as she asked the judge to give the man who shot and killed her brother the greatest sentence for manslaughter.
The next one that surprised people last week in a Phoenix courtroom. An AI-generated video featuring a portrait of her brother, Christopher Perki, told the archer he was forgiven.
The judge said he loved and appreciated the video, and sentenced the shooter to 10.5 years in prison. Within hours of the May 1 hearing, the defendant’s attorney filed a notice of appeal.
Defence counsel Jason Lamb will not deal with the appeal, but said the High Court will likely be asked to consider whether they inappropriately rely on AI-generated videos when giving a judgment to their client.
Courts across the country have worked on ways to maximize the growing presence of artificial intelligence in courts. Even before Perkie’s family used AI to give him a voice to the victim’s impact portion, it was considered the first in a US court – the Arizona Supreme Court has created a committee to study the best AI practices.
In Florida, a judge recently wore a virtual reality headset intended to show the defendant’s point of view, who said he was acting in self-defense when he waving a loaded gun to a wedding guest. The judge rejected his argument.
And in New York, a man without a lawyer used an AI-generated avatar to discuss his case in a video-based lawsuit. It only took the judges a few seconds to realize that the man speaking them from the video screen was not the real thing.
Experts say that using AI in court raises legal and ethical concerns, especially when it is effectively used to shake up judges and ju judges. And they argue that it could have a disproportionate impact on marginalized communities facing charges.
“We’ve seen a lot of experience in AI deepfakes,” said David Evan Harris, an AI deepfakes expert at UC Berkeley’s business school.
AI can be very persuasive, Harris says, and scholars are studying the intersection of technology and manipulation tactics.
Cynthia Godsaw, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School and former public defense attorney, said courts must face questions that have never been seen before as the technique continues to push the boundaries of traditional legal practices. Does this video exaggerate the suspect’s height, weight, or skin tone?
“It’s definitely a disturbing trend,” she said.
In the Arizona case, the victim’s sister told The Associated Press that she considered “ethics and morality” in writing a script and using a brother’s portrait to give her a voice during a sentence hearing.
“It was important for us to approach this with ethics and morality and not use it to say what Chris says or doesn’t believe,” Stacey Wales said.
Victims can make impact statements in any digital format in Arizona, said Jessica Gatuso, a victim’s rights lawyer who represents their families.
When the video was played in court, Wales said that only she and her husband knew it.
“The goal was to humanize Chris and reach the judge,” Wales said.
After seeing it, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Todd Lang said he “loved Christopher’s beauty.”
“It also says something about the family,” he said. “You told me how angry you were, so you asked for the biggest sentence, and even though it was what you wanted, you allowed him to speak from his heart when you saw it.”
In the appeal, the defendant’s attorney said the judge’s comments could be a factor in overturning the verdict.
Associated Press reporter Sarah Palvini in Los Angeles, Sejal Govindarao in Phoenix and Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida contributed to the report.
Original issue: May 9, 2025, 1:44pm EDT