Comment

Comment on A Judge Accepted AI Video Testimony From a Dead Man

inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

There were videos shown during the trial that Stacey said were deeply difficult to sit through. “Videos of Chris literally being blown away with a bullet through his chest, going in the street, falling backward. We saw these items over and over and over,” she said. “And we were instructed: don’t you gasp and don’t you cry and do not make a scene, because that can cause a mistrial.”

“Our goal was to make the judge cry. Our goal was to bring Chris to life and to humanize him,” she said.

If gasping at video of real events is grounds for a mistrial, then so is fabricated statements intended to emotionally manipulate the court. It’s ludicrous that this was allowed and honestly is grounds to disbar the judge. If he allows AI nonsense like this, then his courtroom can not be relied upon for fair trials.

source

Sort:hotnew top

mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
The victim impact statement isn’t evidence in the trial. The trial has already wrapped up. The impact statement is part of sentencing, when the court is deciding what an acceptable punishment would be. The guilty verdict has already been made, so the rules surrounding things like acceptable evidence are much more lenient.

The reason she wasn’t allowed to make a scene during the trial is because the defense can argue that her outburst is tainting the jury. It’s something the jury is being forced to witness, which hasn’t gone through the proper evidence admission process. So if she makes a scene, the defense can say that the defendant isn’t being given a fair trial because inadmissible evidence was shown to the jury, and move for a mistrial.

It sounds harsh, but the prosecutor told her to be stoic because they wanted the best chance of nailing the guy. If she threw their case out the window by loudly crying in the back of the courtroom, that wouldn’t be justice.

source
FauxLiving@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago
This is just weird uninformed nonsense.

The reason that outbursts, like gasping or crying, can cause a mistrial is because they can unfairly influence a jury and so the rules of evidence do not allow them. This isn’t part of trial, the jury has already reached a verdict.

Victim impact statements are not evidence and are not governed by the rules of evidence.

It’s ludicrous that this was allowed and honestly is grounds to disbar the judge. If he allows AI nonsense like this, then his courtroom can not be relied upon for fair trials.

More nonsense.

If you were correct, and there were actual legal grounds to object to these statements then the prosecuting attorney would have objected to them.

Here’s an actual attorney. From the article:

Jessica Gattuso, the victim’s right attorney that worked with Pelkey’s family, told 404 Media that Arizona’s laws made the AI testimony possible. “We have a victim’s bill of rights,” she said. “[Victims] have the discretion to pick what format they’d like to give the statement. So I didn’t see any issues with the AI and there was no objection. I don’t believe anyone thought there was an issue with it.”

source