1 00:00:04,280 --> 00:00:07,720 Speaker 1: Hi, Welcome to this week's episode of Motive Method. I'm 2 00:00:07,760 --> 00:00:11,480 Speaker 1: doctor Anthony Mallett, forensic scientist and criminologist, and. 3 00:00:11,400 --> 00:00:15,720 Speaker 2: I'm criminal psychologist Tim Watson Munroe. Thanks for joining us. 4 00:00:16,320 --> 00:00:21,040 Speaker 2: This week's episode is a groundbreaking collision of grief, justice 5 00:00:21,560 --> 00:00:22,520 Speaker 2: and technology. 6 00:00:23,200 --> 00:00:26,520 Speaker 1: Imagine this, a man tragically killed in a road rage 7 00:00:26,560 --> 00:00:30,800 Speaker 1: incident appears in the courtroom through the power of artificial 8 00:00:30,840 --> 00:00:36,440 Speaker 1: intelligence to face his killer. Well, this unprecedented moment unfolded 9 00:00:36,479 --> 00:00:37,720 Speaker 1: recently in the US. 10 00:00:38,400 --> 00:00:42,280 Speaker 2: In this episode, we speak with Stacy Wiles to delve 11 00:00:42,320 --> 00:00:46,279 Speaker 2: into why and how she used AI to recreate her 12 00:00:46,320 --> 00:00:50,720 Speaker 2: brother Christopher Pelke, allowing him to deliver his own victim 13 00:00:50,760 --> 00:00:51,639 Speaker 2: impact statement. 14 00:00:52,240 --> 00:00:55,040 Speaker 1: And we'll also be joined later in the episode by 15 00:00:55,320 --> 00:00:58,920 Speaker 1: Duke Law professor and former judge Paul Grimm to unpack 16 00:00:59,000 --> 00:01:10,360 Speaker 1: the incredibly complex legal and ethical stakes of this remarkable story. Stacy, 17 00:01:10,400 --> 00:01:12,840 Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us today all the 18 00:01:12,840 --> 00:01:16,600 Speaker 1: way from Arizona. I'm so sorry for the loss of 19 00:01:16,640 --> 00:01:20,000 Speaker 1: your brother Christopher. I've seen the video that you created. 20 00:01:20,080 --> 00:01:23,640 Speaker 1: Can you tell us a little bit about the circumstances 21 00:01:23,720 --> 00:01:26,360 Speaker 1: of Christopher's case and why, in fact you ended up 22 00:01:26,400 --> 00:01:29,240 Speaker 1: making an AI generated video of him, you even needed 23 00:01:29,240 --> 00:01:30,400 Speaker 1: that impact statement. 24 00:01:30,959 --> 00:01:34,800 Speaker 3: So in November of twenty twenty one, Chris was shot 25 00:01:34,840 --> 00:01:38,760 Speaker 3: at a red light as a road rage incident that 26 00:01:38,959 --> 00:01:43,360 Speaker 3: changed everybody's life, and the first trial was scheduled for 27 00:01:43,560 --> 00:01:47,119 Speaker 3: March of twenty twenty three. It took us a year 28 00:01:47,160 --> 00:01:49,360 Speaker 3: and a half to get to that first trial. We 29 00:01:49,400 --> 00:01:52,240 Speaker 3: always had our shooter. He waited there at the scene. 30 00:01:52,600 --> 00:01:55,280 Speaker 3: It was a very residential location that this happened in, 31 00:01:55,320 --> 00:01:57,280 Speaker 3: and it was in the middle of a beautiful sunny day, 32 00:01:57,920 --> 00:02:01,120 Speaker 3: and it was a poor decision on both parts Chris 33 00:02:01,120 --> 00:02:02,760 Speaker 3: to get out of the car and the shooter to 34 00:02:02,800 --> 00:02:05,160 Speaker 3: react the way he did. But in any event, we 35 00:02:05,200 --> 00:02:07,640 Speaker 3: did have our shooter. He was not in jail, but 36 00:02:08,360 --> 00:02:12,680 Speaker 3: he was charged with first degree murder and second degree 37 00:02:12,760 --> 00:02:16,520 Speaker 3: murder and three counts of endangerment from another bullet that 38 00:02:16,680 --> 00:02:20,000 Speaker 3: entered another car with three people in it. During the 39 00:02:20,080 --> 00:02:22,880 Speaker 3: first trial, it was three and a half It was 40 00:02:22,960 --> 00:02:26,040 Speaker 3: five and a half weeks the first trial. It was 41 00:02:26,120 --> 00:02:29,760 Speaker 3: not under the judge that we sat with. This second 42 00:02:29,800 --> 00:02:32,760 Speaker 3: time it was with a different judge and a different jury, 43 00:02:33,160 --> 00:02:37,000 Speaker 3: and at the end of that the jury concluded that 44 00:02:37,120 --> 00:02:40,840 Speaker 3: it was a manslaughter conviction that they voted yes for 45 00:02:41,200 --> 00:02:45,000 Speaker 3: guilty for manslaughter and one count of endangerment for the 46 00:02:45,040 --> 00:02:45,960 Speaker 3: second bullet. 47 00:02:46,480 --> 00:02:47,919 Speaker 4: Actually it was the first bullet. 48 00:02:47,960 --> 00:02:50,640 Speaker 3: The second bullet went through my brother's heart, but the 49 00:02:50,639 --> 00:02:53,360 Speaker 3: first bullet resulted in one count of endangerment. 50 00:02:53,880 --> 00:02:57,000 Speaker 2: Why was the first trial? Was it a bordered or 51 00:02:57,040 --> 00:02:59,240 Speaker 2: was it a hung jury? What happened there? 52 00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:00,200 Speaker 4: Well? 53 00:03:00,240 --> 00:03:02,720 Speaker 3: As soon as the verdicts came down from the jury, 54 00:03:03,160 --> 00:03:06,840 Speaker 3: in the same breath that the judge read that guiltiness 55 00:03:06,840 --> 00:03:11,880 Speaker 3: in the defense attorney stood up and asked the judge 56 00:03:11,919 --> 00:03:16,639 Speaker 3: for a retrial based on a disagreement in how one 57 00:03:16,680 --> 00:03:19,600 Speaker 3: piece of evidence was handled, or at least perceived to 58 00:03:19,639 --> 00:03:23,200 Speaker 3: have been handled. It was cell phone evidence of my brother, 59 00:03:23,840 --> 00:03:28,040 Speaker 3: and the defense attorney wanted to explore it further. The 60 00:03:28,120 --> 00:03:31,119 Speaker 3: judge in the first case seemed to be much more 61 00:03:31,200 --> 00:03:36,119 Speaker 3: defense sympathetic and granted the retrial right then and there. However, 62 00:03:36,360 --> 00:03:41,640 Speaker 3: our victim's rights attorney and victim's advocate advised us while 63 00:03:41,640 --> 00:03:44,560 Speaker 3: we were waiting for the jury in that case to 64 00:03:44,800 --> 00:03:47,800 Speaker 3: go ahead and start working on impact statements because a 65 00:03:47,920 --> 00:03:50,320 Speaker 3: month after verdict is when we would get a chance 66 00:03:50,360 --> 00:03:54,640 Speaker 3: to speak. So, even though this resulted in a retrial, 67 00:03:55,120 --> 00:03:58,800 Speaker 3: which ended up being rescheduled and pushed out, and a 68 00:03:58,920 --> 00:04:02,120 Speaker 3: very lengthy time was two years until we could get 69 00:04:02,120 --> 00:04:05,600 Speaker 3: to our second trial. I actually started writing my impact 70 00:04:05,640 --> 00:04:08,840 Speaker 3: statement at the end of the first trial. So for 71 00:04:08,920 --> 00:04:11,720 Speaker 3: two years I was writing my impact statement in my 72 00:04:11,840 --> 00:04:14,840 Speaker 3: phone on and off whenever I was upset or frustrated 73 00:04:14,920 --> 00:04:18,560 Speaker 3: or mad or melancholy missing my brother. We went through 74 00:04:18,560 --> 00:04:21,080 Speaker 3: the court system for the second trial, which took place 75 00:04:21,080 --> 00:04:24,560 Speaker 3: in March of twenty twenty five under a different jury 76 00:04:24,680 --> 00:04:26,919 Speaker 3: and a different judge this year. 77 00:04:27,480 --> 00:04:28,000 Speaker 4: This year. 78 00:04:28,160 --> 00:04:30,000 Speaker 2: That's right, it's a long time. 79 00:04:29,880 --> 00:04:31,719 Speaker 1: Isn't it a really long time to wait? 80 00:04:31,880 --> 00:04:35,479 Speaker 2: Could I ask what his defense was? It obviously wasn't accepted, 81 00:04:35,520 --> 00:04:37,000 Speaker 2: But what did he say happen? 82 00:04:37,200 --> 00:04:39,560 Speaker 4: His defense was self defense. 83 00:04:39,680 --> 00:04:42,200 Speaker 3: He claimed that my brother exited the vehicle, which there's 84 00:04:42,240 --> 00:04:45,000 Speaker 3: no contest there. But he claimed that when my brother 85 00:04:45,080 --> 00:04:47,719 Speaker 3: exited the vehicle, that he approached his car and was 86 00:04:47,760 --> 00:04:51,560 Speaker 3: pushing it shut, trying to gain access to the shooter. However, 87 00:04:51,560 --> 00:04:54,760 Speaker 3: there were twelve witnesses. It was a very residential location 88 00:04:55,000 --> 00:04:58,560 Speaker 3: and twelve witnesses that saw what happened and were parked 89 00:04:58,600 --> 00:05:01,000 Speaker 3: not parks, but at the red light with my brother 90 00:05:01,120 --> 00:05:05,640 Speaker 3: and the shooter claimed otherwise. They said that my brother 91 00:05:05,720 --> 00:05:08,200 Speaker 3: did exit his car. He had his hands up at 92 00:05:08,200 --> 00:05:10,480 Speaker 3: the side of his ears, saying, do you want to 93 00:05:10,520 --> 00:05:12,640 Speaker 3: start something, something to that effect, do you want to 94 00:05:12,680 --> 00:05:13,280 Speaker 3: start something? 95 00:05:13,880 --> 00:05:14,719 Speaker 4: Do you have a problem? 96 00:05:15,120 --> 00:05:17,680 Speaker 3: And my brother did start to walk towards the end 97 00:05:17,720 --> 00:05:20,159 Speaker 3: of his truck, but that the shooter shot my brother 98 00:05:20,279 --> 00:05:23,719 Speaker 3: before my brother could reach the end of his truck. 99 00:05:24,160 --> 00:05:28,200 Speaker 3: And so twelve witnesses claimed that, and security camera footage 100 00:05:28,240 --> 00:05:32,400 Speaker 3: also supported that from a local security camera. So the 101 00:05:32,480 --> 00:05:36,279 Speaker 3: defense claim of self defense did not hold up for 102 00:05:36,400 --> 00:05:37,040 Speaker 3: either jury. 103 00:05:38,080 --> 00:05:41,919 Speaker 2: So what gave you the idea to use AI to 104 00:05:42,000 --> 00:05:45,000 Speaker 2: have him deliver his own victim impact statement? 105 00:05:45,600 --> 00:05:48,240 Speaker 1: I've never heard of this before? Is this unique to you? 106 00:05:48,640 --> 00:05:51,320 Speaker 3: We do believe that it is quite possibly a world first, 107 00:05:51,360 --> 00:05:53,880 Speaker 3: because before I embarked on this, when I got down 108 00:05:53,920 --> 00:05:56,919 Speaker 3: the road of actually deciding to do this, I also 109 00:05:57,120 --> 00:05:59,960 Speaker 3: looked to try to find precedence, to find out how 110 00:06:00,000 --> 00:06:02,640 Speaker 3: what had been received before, and I couldn't find evidence 111 00:06:02,640 --> 00:06:06,440 Speaker 3: that had ever been received or talked about. And I thought, well, 112 00:06:06,600 --> 00:06:08,680 Speaker 3: surely this would make some waves if it was ever 113 00:06:08,760 --> 00:06:11,640 Speaker 3: tried before. So I did also believe that I was 114 00:06:11,640 --> 00:06:14,080 Speaker 3: the first to do this. The way that it happened 115 00:06:14,160 --> 00:06:18,599 Speaker 3: is a week before the sentencing. So what happens is 116 00:06:18,640 --> 00:06:22,080 Speaker 3: in American court, especially in Arizona, you have your trial. 117 00:06:22,120 --> 00:06:24,520 Speaker 3: It took three and a half weeks and the jury 118 00:06:24,720 --> 00:06:28,080 Speaker 3: decided guilty for the charge of manslaughter. And then the 119 00:06:28,160 --> 00:06:33,200 Speaker 3: jury is dismissed and the judge orders the sentencing date 120 00:06:33,680 --> 00:06:37,279 Speaker 3: thirty to sixty days after so the jury went home. 121 00:06:37,440 --> 00:06:40,039 Speaker 3: We never saw them again. They never saw this AI 122 00:06:40,120 --> 00:06:40,880 Speaker 3: unless they saw it. 123 00:06:40,839 --> 00:06:41,680 Speaker 4: On TV like you. 124 00:06:42,560 --> 00:06:45,640 Speaker 3: And thirty days later we were to come back. And 125 00:06:46,040 --> 00:06:48,920 Speaker 3: in Arizona court, we have an Arizona Victim's Bill of 126 00:06:49,000 --> 00:06:52,880 Speaker 3: Rights which allows us anyone that's been impacted by this, 127 00:06:52,960 --> 00:06:56,080 Speaker 3: whether you're related to Chris or not, you're allowed to speak. 128 00:06:56,600 --> 00:06:59,280 Speaker 3: And also on the shooter's side, the defense is also 129 00:06:59,400 --> 00:07:03,640 Speaker 3: allowed to have anybody speak, and they did so knowing 130 00:07:03,680 --> 00:07:08,080 Speaker 3: that we would have that platform. I launched a campaign 131 00:07:08,120 --> 00:07:11,000 Speaker 3: to contact people for Chris on Chris's side, if they 132 00:07:11,040 --> 00:07:13,560 Speaker 3: ever knew him anywhere in his thirty seven years of 133 00:07:13,600 --> 00:07:17,360 Speaker 3: life in the different locations he lived and traveled throughout 134 00:07:17,360 --> 00:07:19,880 Speaker 3: the world and throughout the United States. 135 00:07:20,120 --> 00:07:22,600 Speaker 4: And we had forty nine letters come in. 136 00:07:23,120 --> 00:07:26,880 Speaker 3: Because these letters are collected and the judge reads these 137 00:07:27,000 --> 00:07:30,720 Speaker 3: letters before walking into sentencing that day, so I knew 138 00:07:30,760 --> 00:07:34,360 Speaker 3: that he would have a wonderful breath. Forty nine statements 139 00:07:34,360 --> 00:07:37,680 Speaker 3: from other people over Chris's whole life, and then a 140 00:07:37,680 --> 00:07:41,520 Speaker 3: week and a half out of sentencing, it was time 141 00:07:41,520 --> 00:07:43,960 Speaker 3: for me to write my own. Like there was going 142 00:07:44,000 --> 00:07:45,880 Speaker 3: to be ten of us that were going to show 143 00:07:45,960 --> 00:07:48,640 Speaker 3: up at the courthouse that day and would speak to 144 00:07:48,680 --> 00:07:50,840 Speaker 3: the judge personally in person. 145 00:07:50,720 --> 00:07:55,720 Speaker 2: About how his murder or manslaughter had impacted upon each 146 00:07:55,760 --> 00:07:59,040 Speaker 2: of you at a psychological level. Is that right? 147 00:07:59,280 --> 00:08:02,760 Speaker 3: Yes, could also talk about how it affected us from 148 00:08:02,760 --> 00:08:06,600 Speaker 3: a financial level as well. It could be physical impact, 149 00:08:06,720 --> 00:08:10,680 Speaker 3: financial impact, or emotional impact. In Arizona courts, there's not 150 00:08:10,760 --> 00:08:13,080 Speaker 3: a limit on what you're allowed to say. So a 151 00:08:13,120 --> 00:08:16,120 Speaker 3: week before this was about to take place, I sat 152 00:08:16,200 --> 00:08:19,440 Speaker 3: down to write my impact statement, and even though I 153 00:08:19,480 --> 00:08:22,400 Speaker 3: had been writing it on my phone for almost two years, 154 00:08:22,640 --> 00:08:26,080 Speaker 3: longer than two years, I just couldn't feel like what 155 00:08:26,200 --> 00:08:28,040 Speaker 3: I wanted to write or what I wanted to say 156 00:08:28,240 --> 00:08:30,320 Speaker 3: was going to be worthy of the last thing that 157 00:08:30,400 --> 00:08:33,840 Speaker 3: somebody would hear to make a decision about my brother's life. 158 00:08:34,200 --> 00:08:38,640 Speaker 3: To give a quantifiable number in years to punish somebody 159 00:08:38,679 --> 00:08:41,920 Speaker 3: for taking his life. It did not feel worthy. I 160 00:08:41,960 --> 00:08:45,160 Speaker 3: also had my fourteen year old twins they were eleven 161 00:08:45,240 --> 00:08:48,560 Speaker 3: at the time their uncle was shot, going to also 162 00:08:48,679 --> 00:08:51,120 Speaker 3: speak in sentencing, and I thought, how can I be 163 00:08:51,240 --> 00:08:55,080 Speaker 3: more impactful than the profound loss of a child. And 164 00:08:55,160 --> 00:08:57,760 Speaker 3: with that weighing heavily on me is when I started 165 00:08:57,760 --> 00:08:59,760 Speaker 3: to think what else can I do to. 166 00:08:59,720 --> 00:09:03,880 Speaker 1: Be in hats The AI generated impact statement that ultimately 167 00:09:04,040 --> 00:09:07,200 Speaker 1: did create, which was your version of what your brother 168 00:09:07,200 --> 00:09:10,040 Speaker 1: would have said, right. You took videos and photographs and 169 00:09:10,080 --> 00:09:13,800 Speaker 1: you replicated his voice and people can watch that and 170 00:09:13,840 --> 00:09:16,520 Speaker 1: we can put that in the link in the notes 171 00:09:16,559 --> 00:09:18,280 Speaker 1: for you if you want to go and watch the 172 00:09:18,320 --> 00:09:20,960 Speaker 1: impact statement, the generated statement. 173 00:09:21,080 --> 00:09:23,679 Speaker 5: Just to be clear for everyone seeing this, I am 174 00:09:23,679 --> 00:09:26,800 Speaker 5: a version of Chris pelke recreated through AI that uses 175 00:09:26,840 --> 00:09:29,680 Speaker 5: my picture and my voice profile. I was able to 176 00:09:29,720 --> 00:09:34,360 Speaker 5: be digitally regenerated to share with you today. To Gabriel 177 00:09:34,400 --> 00:09:38,240 Speaker 5: horc Asidas, the man who shot me, it is a 178 00:09:38,280 --> 00:09:41,160 Speaker 5: shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances. 179 00:09:42,120 --> 00:09:45,760 Speaker 5: In another life we probably could have been friends. I 180 00:09:45,800 --> 00:09:48,840 Speaker 5: believe in forgiveness and in God who forgives. I always 181 00:09:48,840 --> 00:09:50,439 Speaker 5: have and I still do. 182 00:09:50,559 --> 00:09:51,840 Speaker 2: It's certainly very powerful. 183 00:09:52,360 --> 00:09:55,000 Speaker 1: It is very powerful. It is Yeah, how did the 184 00:09:55,040 --> 00:09:58,280 Speaker 1: rest of the family respond? They feel that that was 185 00:09:58,320 --> 00:10:01,920 Speaker 1: an accurate reflection of what your brother would have said. 186 00:10:02,280 --> 00:10:05,000 Speaker 3: Now that's an interesting question because nobody except for my 187 00:10:05,080 --> 00:10:07,760 Speaker 3: husband and I and our family knew that we were 188 00:10:07,760 --> 00:10:10,520 Speaker 3: doing this. I didn't share this with anybody else that 189 00:10:10,640 --> 00:10:12,440 Speaker 3: was going to be speaking that day, or any of 190 00:10:12,440 --> 00:10:15,440 Speaker 3: the forty nine people that wrote in letters. They saw 191 00:10:15,480 --> 00:10:17,280 Speaker 3: it for the first time in court, just like the 192 00:10:17,400 --> 00:10:20,520 Speaker 3: judge and the shooter, and the district attorney, prosecution and 193 00:10:20,559 --> 00:10:21,440 Speaker 3: the defense attorney. 194 00:10:21,800 --> 00:10:22,840 Speaker 4: But since this has. 195 00:10:22,840 --> 00:10:26,000 Speaker 3: Come out, they have all come to me and told 196 00:10:26,040 --> 00:10:28,640 Speaker 3: me that they believed that this is something they could 197 00:10:28,640 --> 00:10:31,280 Speaker 3: hear Chris saying that's exactly what he would have said. 198 00:10:31,720 --> 00:10:35,320 Speaker 3: And they've offered me that they thought it was very 199 00:10:35,360 --> 00:10:38,360 Speaker 3: healing for them to hear, and they were thankful that 200 00:10:38,400 --> 00:10:40,600 Speaker 3: this had been done so that Chris could be heard 201 00:10:40,679 --> 00:10:44,520 Speaker 3: and his moral footprint could be could be echoed and 202 00:10:44,640 --> 00:10:45,800 Speaker 3: conveyed to the courts. 203 00:10:46,120 --> 00:10:50,040 Speaker 4: Because what Chris said was scripted. It was not generative. AI. 204 00:10:50,200 --> 00:10:50,760 Speaker 4: I wrote that. 205 00:10:51,679 --> 00:10:54,360 Speaker 2: So, and I'll say this with every kindness in the 206 00:10:54,360 --> 00:10:58,360 Speaker 2: world to you you've suffered a huge loss, and my 207 00:10:58,440 --> 00:11:00,760 Speaker 2: heart goes out to you and your family. But he 208 00:11:00,840 --> 00:11:04,600 Speaker 2: comes across as a very forgiving person, and I was 209 00:11:04,640 --> 00:11:07,439 Speaker 2: wondering how much of that is Chris. Would you really 210 00:11:07,480 --> 00:11:10,199 Speaker 2: have been that forgiving you think, or is it more 211 00:11:10,280 --> 00:11:11,880 Speaker 2: reflecting of your own feelings. 212 00:11:12,400 --> 00:11:15,079 Speaker 3: I'm glad you asked that, because in order to write this, 213 00:11:15,559 --> 00:11:18,800 Speaker 3: I didn't initially have the idea to do this. Like 214 00:11:18,840 --> 00:11:20,960 Speaker 3: I said, I was struggling with what I wanted to 215 00:11:20,960 --> 00:11:24,920 Speaker 3: write to say myself because I do not forgive the shooter. 216 00:11:25,240 --> 00:11:26,080 Speaker 4: I'm not there yet. 217 00:11:26,160 --> 00:11:28,200 Speaker 3: Maybe I will be someday, but I certainly am not 218 00:11:28,240 --> 00:11:31,600 Speaker 3: able to offer that forgiveness right now. It's a huge 219 00:11:31,720 --> 00:11:34,760 Speaker 3: juxtaposition with how I feel and what I wanted to say. 220 00:11:35,040 --> 00:11:37,480 Speaker 3: I asked for a ten point five years the maximum 221 00:11:37,480 --> 00:11:40,000 Speaker 3: sentence in this range. When I stood and asked the judge, 222 00:11:40,240 --> 00:11:42,800 Speaker 3: I did make my own statement, but it was at 223 00:11:42,880 --> 00:11:46,720 Speaker 3: odds with Chris's moral tenants. And that's why I struggled 224 00:11:46,760 --> 00:11:49,360 Speaker 3: so greatly writing with what I wanted to write, because 225 00:11:49,440 --> 00:11:53,320 Speaker 3: I thought, to myself, this doesn't feel representative or echoing 226 00:11:53,360 --> 00:11:55,520 Speaker 3: what Chris stood for at all, and I'm going to 227 00:11:55,559 --> 00:11:57,880 Speaker 3: be the last person to speak for forty nine people 228 00:11:57,880 --> 00:11:59,600 Speaker 3: and ten people in court that day, I was the 229 00:11:59,679 --> 00:12:05,120 Speaker 3: very one, and I knew that Chris's voice was absent 230 00:12:05,320 --> 00:12:08,040 Speaker 3: in this. And then I freed myself and I said, well, 231 00:12:08,040 --> 00:12:10,240 Speaker 3: why can't I write what I think he would say? 232 00:12:10,679 --> 00:12:13,480 Speaker 3: Because it is I had to. It is at odds 233 00:12:13,520 --> 00:12:15,520 Speaker 3: with what I wanted to say and what I did say. 234 00:12:15,800 --> 00:12:18,560 Speaker 3: I said very different things in my own impact statement 235 00:12:18,600 --> 00:12:21,079 Speaker 3: than what Chris was scripted to say. Now, Chris was 236 00:12:21,120 --> 00:12:23,400 Speaker 3: a very black and white individual. He lived with my 237 00:12:23,440 --> 00:12:26,520 Speaker 3: family six months before he died, and a couple times 238 00:12:26,559 --> 00:12:28,880 Speaker 3: throughout my life while he was an adult. So he 239 00:12:29,000 --> 00:12:31,720 Speaker 3: was not a distant brother that lived across the country 240 00:12:31,720 --> 00:12:33,440 Speaker 3: that I only saw once a year. He was a 241 00:12:33,559 --> 00:12:36,839 Speaker 3: very black and white person that he had these moral 242 00:12:36,880 --> 00:12:40,439 Speaker 3: tenants that he's scood for, loving God, loving people, and 243 00:12:40,480 --> 00:12:43,280 Speaker 3: forgiveness and thankfulness. And so those are the themes that 244 00:12:43,320 --> 00:12:46,319 Speaker 3: I echoed in there. But if you listen to it carefully, 245 00:12:46,559 --> 00:12:50,120 Speaker 3: a lot of people miss that Chris doesn't actually forgive 246 00:12:50,160 --> 00:12:53,240 Speaker 3: the shooter. It sounds like that, but I didn't script 247 00:12:53,320 --> 00:12:55,960 Speaker 3: him to write that. He says, in another life we 248 00:12:56,000 --> 00:12:58,680 Speaker 3: could have been friends. I believe in forgiveness and in God, 249 00:12:58,679 --> 00:13:01,520 Speaker 3: who forgives, I always have I still do, and I 250 00:13:01,600 --> 00:13:05,240 Speaker 3: don't make Chris's AI avatars say I forgive you. 251 00:13:05,840 --> 00:13:09,520 Speaker 4: I let the reader think if he would or not. 252 00:13:09,920 --> 00:13:12,800 Speaker 3: I didn't make him say that because I do believe 253 00:13:12,840 --> 00:13:13,679 Speaker 3: he would, so. 254 00:13:13,679 --> 00:13:17,160 Speaker 1: He left some level interpretation in the listener. 255 00:13:17,240 --> 00:13:18,240 Speaker 4: Yes, that's correct. 256 00:13:18,400 --> 00:13:21,640 Speaker 3: Because of where it's placed in the four minute dialogue. 257 00:13:21,760 --> 00:13:24,960 Speaker 3: People infer that he forgave the shooter, and I like 258 00:13:25,000 --> 00:13:27,040 Speaker 3: to think that he would, but I didn't take that 259 00:13:27,080 --> 00:13:30,160 Speaker 3: final leap to connect that the reader and anybody who 260 00:13:30,200 --> 00:13:33,120 Speaker 3: knows Chris would take that final leap to say, yeah, 261 00:13:33,160 --> 00:13:35,960 Speaker 3: he totally would have forgiven him or he was a 262 00:13:36,120 --> 00:13:40,760 Speaker 3: very forgiving person, absolutely, But he also believed in accountability 263 00:13:40,800 --> 00:13:41,480 Speaker 3: and justice. 264 00:13:41,640 --> 00:13:43,359 Speaker 4: And that's why I didn't even. 265 00:13:43,200 --> 00:13:46,880 Speaker 3: Script Chris asking for the maximum or a number of years, 266 00:13:47,200 --> 00:13:49,280 Speaker 3: because though I believe he would want a number of 267 00:13:49,360 --> 00:13:52,080 Speaker 3: years and a punishment for what we've suffered, I don't 268 00:13:52,120 --> 00:13:54,040 Speaker 3: know how many years he would like, so I didn't 269 00:13:54,040 --> 00:13:54,920 Speaker 3: have him say that either. 270 00:13:55,040 --> 00:13:58,280 Speaker 2: Well, here's the thing he as I understand it, was 271 00:13:58,320 --> 00:14:01,280 Speaker 2: sentenced to ten and a half years, which was exactly 272 00:14:01,320 --> 00:14:03,480 Speaker 2: what you asked for. And I'm not saying that it's 273 00:14:03,520 --> 00:14:06,000 Speaker 2: because you asked for it. Maybe the judge formed a 274 00:14:06,080 --> 00:14:09,920 Speaker 2: view on the gravinum of the offense. Given the capital 275 00:14:09,960 --> 00:14:14,360 Speaker 2: punishment potentially had been on the table, he got off light, 276 00:14:14,920 --> 00:14:18,360 Speaker 2: and he gave him the most punishment available to him 277 00:14:18,360 --> 00:14:20,360 Speaker 2: according to the statute law. Correct. 278 00:14:20,640 --> 00:14:24,280 Speaker 3: You're absolutely correct the manslaughter charge. If the state had 279 00:14:25,160 --> 00:14:28,760 Speaker 3: argued something called aggravators a manslaughter charge could have gone 280 00:14:28,800 --> 00:14:31,960 Speaker 3: up to twenty years. So the sentencing range for what 281 00:14:32,000 --> 00:14:34,960 Speaker 3: they did go for was seven years to ten and 282 00:14:34,960 --> 00:14:37,120 Speaker 3: a half years, and the state came in and they 283 00:14:37,120 --> 00:14:39,040 Speaker 3: were going to ask for nine years, which we were 284 00:14:39,080 --> 00:14:42,080 Speaker 3: surprised that day. So I'm thankful that everybody that wrote in, 285 00:14:42,120 --> 00:14:44,560 Speaker 3: those forty nine people and ten people that spoke in person, 286 00:14:44,760 --> 00:14:47,880 Speaker 3: we all asked for the max. And the judge even 287 00:14:47,960 --> 00:14:51,160 Speaker 3: commented that he thought that the grief that we expressed 288 00:14:51,320 --> 00:14:55,800 Speaker 3: collectively outweighed the mitigating factors that the defense presented for 289 00:14:55,840 --> 00:14:57,520 Speaker 3: their client being a first time offender. 290 00:14:57,800 --> 00:14:59,680 Speaker 1: And how did the judge. I mean, I've seen it, 291 00:14:59,680 --> 00:15:02,160 Speaker 1: but I was interested to hear in your own words, 292 00:15:02,200 --> 00:15:05,200 Speaker 1: how you felt the judge actually responded. And again the 293 00:15:05,280 --> 00:15:08,080 Speaker 1: listeners can see this in the notes we'll add the 294 00:15:08,120 --> 00:15:10,680 Speaker 1: links so that you can see for yourselves, but can 295 00:15:10,720 --> 00:15:13,400 Speaker 1: you just talk us through how the judge actually responded, 296 00:15:13,440 --> 00:15:16,120 Speaker 1: because obviously first time he'd seen anything like this as well. 297 00:15:16,560 --> 00:15:19,720 Speaker 3: His response was very interesting because what's out there that 298 00:15:19,760 --> 00:15:22,560 Speaker 3: I posted on the internet is only about a minute 299 00:15:22,560 --> 00:15:27,240 Speaker 3: and forty five seconds of his twenty minute monologue that 300 00:15:27,320 --> 00:15:30,640 Speaker 3: he gave to us to the whole court. Because after 301 00:15:30,800 --> 00:15:33,400 Speaker 3: we had given our statements and Chris was the very 302 00:15:33,480 --> 00:15:36,280 Speaker 3: last piece that we played, then we sat down and 303 00:15:36,320 --> 00:15:39,440 Speaker 3: the defense went. They had their letters, they had three 304 00:15:39,480 --> 00:15:42,520 Speaker 3: people speak in person, and the shooter also spoke, and 305 00:15:42,560 --> 00:15:45,600 Speaker 3: then the last thing was defense attorney spoke was the 306 00:15:45,680 --> 00:15:47,800 Speaker 3: last person to speak to the judge before he decided 307 00:15:47,840 --> 00:15:52,040 Speaker 3: a sentence. The defense attorney actually quoted the AI and 308 00:15:52,160 --> 00:15:54,880 Speaker 3: said to the judge, I tend to agree with Chris 309 00:15:54,920 --> 00:15:57,440 Speaker 3: Pelke that I believe these two could have been friends. 310 00:15:57,600 --> 00:15:59,880 Speaker 3: And at that moment is when I knew that this 311 00:16:00,120 --> 00:16:05,760 Speaker 3: was effective, that we worked humanizing Chris. This presentation humanized 312 00:16:05,840 --> 00:16:08,680 Speaker 3: Chris because the defense was quoting him for leniency. And 313 00:16:08,760 --> 00:16:12,000 Speaker 3: so then the defense sat down and the judge spoke 314 00:16:12,080 --> 00:16:15,920 Speaker 3: for twenty minutes at length, and he was ebbing and flowing, 315 00:16:16,000 --> 00:16:18,960 Speaker 3: and he was agreeing with us, and he was agreeing 316 00:16:18,960 --> 00:16:21,080 Speaker 3: with the other side, and it was very difficult to 317 00:16:21,120 --> 00:16:22,920 Speaker 3: try to follow along which way he was. 318 00:16:22,880 --> 00:16:23,440 Speaker 4: Going to go. 319 00:16:23,880 --> 00:16:27,360 Speaker 3: He was presenting his opinion from all angles, which I 320 00:16:28,120 --> 00:16:30,360 Speaker 3: do really appreciate that he did that, because it was 321 00:16:30,480 --> 00:16:33,520 Speaker 3: very poignant, indeed. But in any event, that's when we 322 00:16:33,560 --> 00:16:35,720 Speaker 3: got to that one section that's out there, the clip 323 00:16:35,720 --> 00:16:38,160 Speaker 3: on the internet, the SoundBite that says that he agreed 324 00:16:38,240 --> 00:16:41,240 Speaker 3: with what he had been reading about, what he had 325 00:16:41,280 --> 00:16:44,120 Speaker 3: been hearing about Chris for the last few days. 326 00:16:44,400 --> 00:16:46,880 Speaker 4: Was in line with what he thought we presented. 327 00:16:47,200 --> 00:16:50,680 Speaker 6: I love that, AI, thank you for that. And as 328 00:16:50,720 --> 00:16:53,840 Speaker 6: angry as you are, justifiably angry as the family is, 329 00:16:54,760 --> 00:16:57,240 Speaker 6: I heard the forgiveness, and I know mister hope to 330 00:16:57,280 --> 00:17:01,880 Speaker 6: see this, appreciate it, sort it out. But I love 331 00:17:02,320 --> 00:17:06,399 Speaker 6: the beauty and what Christopher and I call him Christopher. 332 00:17:06,400 --> 00:17:08,480 Speaker 6: I always call people by their last names. It's a 333 00:17:08,520 --> 00:17:11,560 Speaker 6: formality of the court, but I feel like calling him Christopher, 334 00:17:12,000 --> 00:17:15,120 Speaker 6: as we've gotten to know him today, well, I feel 335 00:17:15,160 --> 00:17:21,000 Speaker 6: that that was genuine, that who's obvious forgiveness of Casitas 336 00:17:22,680 --> 00:17:24,520 Speaker 6: reflects the character I heard about today. 337 00:17:25,240 --> 00:17:28,040 Speaker 3: He also called Chris by his first name, and he 338 00:17:28,080 --> 00:17:31,000 Speaker 3: says it is a formality of the court to use 339 00:17:31,000 --> 00:17:33,280 Speaker 3: the last name, and he says, but I feel like 340 00:17:33,359 --> 00:17:36,119 Speaker 3: I've been getting had a chance to get to know 341 00:17:36,200 --> 00:17:38,720 Speaker 3: this person more than just a piece of evidence presented 342 00:17:38,800 --> 00:17:39,479 Speaker 3: during trial. 343 00:17:39,920 --> 00:17:41,919 Speaker 1: And that's exactly what you wanted. 344 00:17:42,480 --> 00:17:43,800 Speaker 2: He humanized him. 345 00:17:45,160 --> 00:17:47,280 Speaker 3: That's the second time that I knew that this worked, 346 00:17:47,320 --> 00:17:49,679 Speaker 3: and it humanized Chris because he was calling him by 347 00:17:49,720 --> 00:17:50,440 Speaker 3: his first name. 348 00:17:50,640 --> 00:17:53,800 Speaker 2: Well, you achieved a great deal by what you did, 349 00:17:53,800 --> 00:17:56,679 Speaker 2: and it took great courage, if on Isaia, Sir to 350 00:17:56,800 --> 00:17:59,919 Speaker 2: do that. Were you surprised by the glible reaction to this, 351 00:18:01,000 --> 00:18:06,760 Speaker 2: because everybody is kind of excuse the term blown away 352 00:18:06,840 --> 00:18:07,840 Speaker 2: by the footage. 353 00:18:07,880 --> 00:18:08,560 Speaker 1: It is amazing. 354 00:18:08,880 --> 00:18:10,760 Speaker 2: Were you surprised? Yeah? 355 00:18:10,800 --> 00:18:12,840 Speaker 3: Well, one of the reasons I did not tell my 356 00:18:12,960 --> 00:18:15,320 Speaker 3: family going into this is because I knew this was 357 00:18:15,320 --> 00:18:17,679 Speaker 3: a good risk, and I knew it was something I 358 00:18:17,680 --> 00:18:20,280 Speaker 3: hadn't been done before, and for that I kept it. 359 00:18:20,359 --> 00:18:22,160 Speaker 3: My husband and I kept it close to our chest 360 00:18:22,240 --> 00:18:24,800 Speaker 3: because we didn't want to burden anybody else going in 361 00:18:24,840 --> 00:18:27,960 Speaker 3: that day to make their impact statements, to be able 362 00:18:28,000 --> 00:18:31,679 Speaker 3: to get through what they needed to do emotionally and 363 00:18:31,760 --> 00:18:33,800 Speaker 3: so I knew that there was a huge risk with that, 364 00:18:34,440 --> 00:18:38,040 Speaker 3: and we did know that it was going to be controversial. 365 00:18:38,320 --> 00:18:40,560 Speaker 3: So there are some things that my husband, who created 366 00:18:40,560 --> 00:18:45,000 Speaker 3: the AI put into the technology output of it. For example, 367 00:18:45,240 --> 00:18:48,560 Speaker 3: the frequencies of the voice that was used traces back 368 00:18:48,600 --> 00:18:55,560 Speaker 3: to the video that's presented within the AI video. We 369 00:18:55,680 --> 00:18:58,159 Speaker 3: also used a very well known photograph of Chris that 370 00:18:59,119 --> 00:19:01,680 Speaker 3: can be tied back to his funerals that they were 371 00:19:01,880 --> 00:19:04,720 Speaker 3: very publicly seeing the image the source image that we used, 372 00:19:05,040 --> 00:19:08,080 Speaker 3: So we tried to put in the safeguards in there 373 00:19:08,160 --> 00:19:10,640 Speaker 3: to say, oh AI, if there were claims AI made 374 00:19:10,680 --> 00:19:13,119 Speaker 3: the whole thing, that's an AI image and that's an 375 00:19:13,160 --> 00:19:17,119 Speaker 3: AI voice, Well not really, those are based in reality. 376 00:19:17,480 --> 00:19:22,840 Speaker 3: But when it did release, I was first stunned at 377 00:19:23,280 --> 00:19:26,720 Speaker 3: how it caught firel around the world. I was thankful 378 00:19:26,840 --> 00:19:31,359 Speaker 3: that and appreciative that Chris's moral tenants were being talked 379 00:19:31,400 --> 00:19:34,240 Speaker 3: about forgiveness and God and people and that's everything he 380 00:19:34,320 --> 00:19:34,760 Speaker 3: stood for. 381 00:19:34,920 --> 00:19:36,320 Speaker 4: So I was very thankful for that. 382 00:19:37,400 --> 00:19:40,639 Speaker 3: But I am aware of the polarizing effect that this has, 383 00:19:40,840 --> 00:19:44,040 Speaker 3: and that for me is okay, I want people to 384 00:19:44,119 --> 00:19:48,280 Speaker 3: discuss this. It's not for everybody, and I do believe 385 00:19:48,560 --> 00:19:51,200 Speaker 3: just like when photography was invented one hundred and ninety 386 00:19:51,240 --> 00:19:55,240 Speaker 3: years ago, there was a very polarizing societal reaction to it. 387 00:19:55,480 --> 00:19:58,440 Speaker 3: Some people think it's unnatural, that maybe it's spiritual peace 388 00:19:58,480 --> 00:20:00,679 Speaker 3: that you're messing with, that you shouldn't be trying to 389 00:20:00,720 --> 00:20:03,840 Speaker 3: invoke anybody, and other people with photography thought it was 390 00:20:03,880 --> 00:20:07,360 Speaker 3: a beautiful new expression form of medium to really unite 391 00:20:07,680 --> 00:20:10,520 Speaker 3: and capture humanity. And that's how I believe that this 392 00:20:10,880 --> 00:20:13,520 Speaker 3: can be used. It's not lost on me that this 393 00:20:13,560 --> 00:20:17,040 Speaker 3: could be used nefariously or with bad actors. We've seen 394 00:20:17,040 --> 00:20:20,399 Speaker 3: that with photography to this day. Thanks yeah, pornography or 395 00:20:20,480 --> 00:20:23,800 Speaker 3: for pedophilia, yes, but there can be great things done 396 00:20:23,800 --> 00:20:24,080 Speaker 3: with it. 397 00:20:24,359 --> 00:20:26,720 Speaker 1: Are you still glad that you did it? Then? That 398 00:20:26,760 --> 00:20:30,480 Speaker 1: you have made such an impact not only for your 399 00:20:30,520 --> 00:20:34,320 Speaker 1: brother and in his case, but much more broadly, potentially 400 00:20:34,320 --> 00:20:36,159 Speaker 1: across the entire criminal justice system. 401 00:20:36,560 --> 00:20:40,360 Speaker 3: So I am very thankful that in Arizona we had 402 00:20:40,359 --> 00:20:43,159 Speaker 3: the right to present this. So I would like to 403 00:20:43,240 --> 00:20:47,000 Speaker 3: offer to other people in other states or countries that 404 00:20:47,080 --> 00:20:50,320 Speaker 3: if your country or state, your jurisdiction allows you to 405 00:20:50,359 --> 00:20:53,960 Speaker 3: be heard, think about how you can humanize people may 406 00:20:53,960 --> 00:20:57,199 Speaker 3: not have access to technology to make it fancy like this. 407 00:20:57,640 --> 00:20:59,800 Speaker 3: But maybe if I just stood there, or I had 408 00:20:59,800 --> 00:21:02,680 Speaker 3: my brother real letter with a picture of Chris and 409 00:21:02,760 --> 00:21:05,680 Speaker 3: a man's voice over his shoulder to show the judge 410 00:21:05,680 --> 00:21:08,720 Speaker 3: a picture and a sounding like a man, maybe could 411 00:21:08,720 --> 00:21:12,000 Speaker 3: invoke that. I was thankful that this medium was available. 412 00:21:11,600 --> 00:21:14,000 Speaker 2: To you, though, well, I think it's established a very 413 00:21:14,000 --> 00:21:18,280 Speaker 2: interesting precedent it it'd be interesting to see whether something 414 00:21:18,400 --> 00:21:23,040 Speaker 2: like this occurs in Australia. It's been an incredibly interesting 415 00:21:23,119 --> 00:21:26,800 Speaker 2: conversation and thank you for your time and sharing your 416 00:21:26,840 --> 00:21:29,679 Speaker 2: story with us. Stacey, It's been a great privilege to 417 00:21:29,720 --> 00:21:30,000 Speaker 2: meet you. 418 00:21:30,240 --> 00:21:32,159 Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you so much for your time and the 419 00:21:32,160 --> 00:21:34,879 Speaker 1: wonderful thing that you did for your brother. And I 420 00:21:35,000 --> 00:21:37,960 Speaker 1: urge all our listeners to watch the impact statement because 421 00:21:38,000 --> 00:21:41,160 Speaker 1: it really is incredibly powerful. So thank you so much 422 00:21:41,280 --> 00:21:43,399 Speaker 1: for sharing that with us. 423 00:21:43,440 --> 00:21:44,000 Speaker 4: My pleasure. 424 00:21:44,080 --> 00:21:47,280 Speaker 3: Thank you for telling Chris a story. 425 00:21:48,280 --> 00:21:50,000 Speaker 1: We're going to take a quick break, but stay with 426 00:21:50,080 --> 00:21:52,400 Speaker 1: us because we will shortly be talking to Duke Law 427 00:21:52,440 --> 00:22:02,719 Speaker 1: professor and former judge Paul Grimm to unpack this remarkable story. 428 00:22:03,080 --> 00:22:07,160 Speaker 2: This case obviously raises a lot of complex questions around 429 00:22:07,240 --> 00:22:11,280 Speaker 2: the legal and ethical implications of AI and the legal. 430 00:22:11,000 --> 00:22:13,840 Speaker 1: System to help us unpack the bigger picture. We're joined 431 00:22:13,840 --> 00:22:16,960 Speaker 1: now by Duke Law Professor Paul Grimm, is a former 432 00:22:17,040 --> 00:22:20,560 Speaker 1: federal judge now specializing in the intersection of AI and 433 00:22:20,600 --> 00:22:24,040 Speaker 1: the law. Professor Grimm, Welcome to Motive and Method. 434 00:22:24,480 --> 00:22:26,800 Speaker 7: Thank you so real pleasure, honor to be joining you. 435 00:22:27,200 --> 00:22:30,640 Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Professor. What did you think when 436 00:22:30,640 --> 00:22:35,200 Speaker 2: you first heard about Christopher Pelke's AI victim impact statement, 437 00:22:35,560 --> 00:22:37,439 Speaker 2: Because as far as I can tell, it's almost a 438 00:22:37,480 --> 00:22:38,199 Speaker 2: world first. 439 00:22:39,240 --> 00:22:42,119 Speaker 7: I think you're right. I think you're right. I have 440 00:22:42,240 --> 00:22:47,000 Speaker 7: not heard of any other instances in which artificial intelligence 441 00:22:47,119 --> 00:22:52,879 Speaker 7: generative AI have been used as part of the fact 442 00:22:52,920 --> 00:22:56,440 Speaker 7: finding process in an actual courtroom. Now, just about two 443 00:22:56,480 --> 00:23:02,639 Speaker 7: weeks before, a self represent litigant in an appellate case 444 00:23:02,720 --> 00:23:07,960 Speaker 7: before a court in New York had the unfortunate experience 445 00:23:07,960 --> 00:23:11,159 Speaker 7: of trying to speak through an AI avatar that he 446 00:23:11,320 --> 00:23:15,960 Speaker 7: created and had read the argument he wanted to give 447 00:23:16,000 --> 00:23:18,840 Speaker 7: to the court, and the presiding judge was not best 448 00:23:18,840 --> 00:23:22,880 Speaker 7: pleased and she shut it down immediately. So that was argument, 449 00:23:23,000 --> 00:23:27,440 Speaker 7: not evidence. This, of course, as you point out quite correctly, 450 00:23:28,480 --> 00:23:30,320 Speaker 7: was the first time it was used to make a 451 00:23:30,320 --> 00:23:34,320 Speaker 7: presentation that was designed to influence the actual ruling of 452 00:23:34,400 --> 00:23:39,080 Speaker 7: a court, although the circumstances are unique in the context 453 00:23:39,080 --> 00:23:42,200 Speaker 7: that it was a sentencing before a judge alone, therefore 454 00:23:42,240 --> 00:23:45,520 Speaker 7: no jury, and in which there are no rules of evidence, 455 00:23:45,560 --> 00:23:48,480 Speaker 7: and the victims have a very broad statutory right to 456 00:23:48,480 --> 00:23:52,240 Speaker 7: say basically whatever they want. So they're somewhat unique characteristics. 457 00:23:52,240 --> 00:23:54,439 Speaker 1: But it was a first We you shocked when you 458 00:23:54,480 --> 00:23:58,359 Speaker 1: heard about it, because before we were told about this, 459 00:23:58,640 --> 00:24:01,720 Speaker 1: I don't even never even imagined AI would be used 460 00:24:01,760 --> 00:24:04,280 Speaker 1: like this. Maybe that speak to my own lack of imagination, 461 00:24:04,480 --> 00:24:07,639 Speaker 1: but I was amazed and when I saw the impact 462 00:24:07,680 --> 00:24:11,879 Speaker 1: statement that was created as well, it really is impactful 463 00:24:11,960 --> 00:24:13,359 Speaker 1: as they're intended to be. 464 00:24:13,480 --> 00:24:14,480 Speaker 2: But it's powerful. 465 00:24:14,600 --> 00:24:18,679 Speaker 1: It's very powerful, and it obviously had a significant impact 466 00:24:18,760 --> 00:24:22,120 Speaker 1: on the judge. You know, we've seen clips of his ruling. 467 00:24:22,280 --> 00:24:23,880 Speaker 1: So what were your thoughts. 468 00:24:24,600 --> 00:24:29,840 Speaker 7: Well, I'm not surprised that it was impactful. I'm not 469 00:24:29,880 --> 00:24:32,400 Speaker 7: surprised that it was emotional. I'm not surprised that it 470 00:24:32,480 --> 00:24:37,119 Speaker 7: was one of those things that really riveted everyone's attention 471 00:24:37,240 --> 00:24:41,440 Speaker 7: in the courtroom. You know, the sentencings, when victims have 472 00:24:41,480 --> 00:24:44,520 Speaker 7: a right to be heard, oftentimes do have emotions. I 473 00:24:44,520 --> 00:24:47,560 Speaker 7: mean I had one sentencen I'll will never forget where 474 00:24:47,960 --> 00:24:50,560 Speaker 7: a person was killed because of the drunken negligence of 475 00:24:50,600 --> 00:24:54,040 Speaker 7: a driver and a fight broke out. The young members 476 00:24:54,040 --> 00:24:56,600 Speaker 7: of the family of the victim rushed to defendant because 477 00:24:56,640 --> 00:24:59,159 Speaker 7: they were overwhelmed with grief, and one of their family 478 00:24:59,200 --> 00:25:01,320 Speaker 7: members had a melt when she was trying to address 479 00:25:01,320 --> 00:25:07,680 Speaker 7: the court. So emotionality and unpredictability and no advance notice 480 00:25:07,880 --> 00:25:10,320 Speaker 7: are sort of part and partial of that aspect. But 481 00:25:10,400 --> 00:25:13,240 Speaker 7: what was new, of course, And I don't think that 482 00:25:13,280 --> 00:25:16,399 Speaker 7: you should hold yourself accountable that you had never imagined it, 483 00:25:16,440 --> 00:25:18,760 Speaker 7: because two years ago no one had ever heard of 484 00:25:18,800 --> 00:25:22,359 Speaker 7: generative AI. It was twenty twenty two before we first 485 00:25:22,400 --> 00:25:25,439 Speaker 7: heard of it. And it has developed so well now 486 00:25:25,520 --> 00:25:28,800 Speaker 7: that all those you know, hesitations where the voice sounded 487 00:25:28,920 --> 00:25:31,760 Speaker 7: robotic so it was close but not really good, they're 488 00:25:31,800 --> 00:25:36,040 Speaker 7: gone now. And it is It is eerie how accurate 489 00:25:36,160 --> 00:25:37,720 Speaker 7: and what was good or a. 490 00:25:37,640 --> 00:25:40,960 Speaker 1: Bad thing though, like you're saying, it's eerily accurate, and 491 00:25:41,040 --> 00:25:45,040 Speaker 1: I agree. And when we heard Chris, the victim's case speak, 492 00:25:45,480 --> 00:25:47,560 Speaker 1: you know his sister's words, but you know in his 493 00:25:47,600 --> 00:25:52,320 Speaker 1: own voice and his own mannerism recreated. It is eerie, 494 00:25:52,520 --> 00:25:56,159 Speaker 1: and I was really conflicting how I felt about it, Like, 495 00:25:56,600 --> 00:25:58,240 Speaker 1: you know, is this a good or a bad thing? 496 00:25:58,560 --> 00:25:59,959 Speaker 1: I'm still undecided. 497 00:26:00,720 --> 00:26:02,919 Speaker 7: Well, I think I think the concern that everyone's going 498 00:26:02,960 --> 00:26:04,800 Speaker 7: to have is does it have a tendency to have 499 00:26:04,840 --> 00:26:09,240 Speaker 7: an undue influence on the outcome of the proceeding? And 500 00:26:10,119 --> 00:26:13,080 Speaker 7: you got one snippet of what the judge said about 501 00:26:13,080 --> 00:26:15,320 Speaker 7: when he said, I really love the AI. I actually 502 00:26:15,320 --> 00:26:17,000 Speaker 7: had an opportunity to speak for an hour to the 503 00:26:17,040 --> 00:26:21,200 Speaker 7: sister of the victim, and what she said was the judge, 504 00:26:21,240 --> 00:26:24,240 Speaker 7: for about twenty minutes, summed up all the reasons why 505 00:26:24,800 --> 00:26:26,800 Speaker 7: he made the sentence that he did, because he gave 506 00:26:26,840 --> 00:26:31,600 Speaker 7: a higher sentence than what the prosecution asked, I understand 507 00:26:33,359 --> 00:26:36,880 Speaker 7: is correct, correct, And of course the immediate question is now, 508 00:26:36,920 --> 00:26:41,240 Speaker 7: did this cause a have an overly great impact on 509 00:26:41,280 --> 00:26:44,679 Speaker 7: the judge's ruling if you look at the full text 510 00:26:44,720 --> 00:26:46,760 Speaker 7: of it. I am told I haven't heard it. He 511 00:26:46,920 --> 00:26:50,359 Speaker 7: explained on all of the different factors, but you are 512 00:26:50,400 --> 00:26:52,440 Speaker 7: always going to be worried about the fact that this 513 00:26:52,560 --> 00:26:56,560 Speaker 7: is going to cause undue prejudice. And apparently the defense 514 00:26:56,560 --> 00:26:59,840 Speaker 7: attorney did not object when it was started, so there 515 00:26:59,840 --> 00:27:02,760 Speaker 7: may have been a waiver of any objection, but I 516 00:27:02,800 --> 00:27:05,119 Speaker 7: can see judges in the future saying, now, look, if 517 00:27:05,119 --> 00:27:07,800 Speaker 7: we're going to have this kind of presentation, I want 518 00:27:07,840 --> 00:27:10,399 Speaker 7: advance notice about it so that if there are any objections, 519 00:27:10,440 --> 00:27:12,080 Speaker 7: I can deal with them before we get in the 520 00:27:12,080 --> 00:27:14,080 Speaker 7: middle of a courtroom full of people a hearing. 521 00:27:14,119 --> 00:27:18,240 Speaker 2: Before the hearing, one of the things at Stacey, his 522 00:27:18,359 --> 00:27:22,560 Speaker 2: sister said was that she in fact didn't forgive the 523 00:27:22,600 --> 00:27:26,840 Speaker 2: offender because I'd wondered how much of it was her 524 00:27:26,920 --> 00:27:30,600 Speaker 2: projecting her own feelings into the equation as opposed to 525 00:27:30,640 --> 00:27:35,280 Speaker 2: an assessment of what he might have thought. But nonetheless 526 00:27:35,320 --> 00:27:40,600 Speaker 2: the judge gave him the maximum milable sentences. I understand it. 527 00:27:40,640 --> 00:27:44,080 Speaker 7: For Matt Slaughter, You're absolutely right. I spoke with her 528 00:27:44,119 --> 00:27:47,600 Speaker 7: and she said, I have not forgiven him. I'm trying 529 00:27:47,640 --> 00:27:49,320 Speaker 7: to work on that. Maybe I'll get there, but I 530 00:27:49,400 --> 00:27:51,720 Speaker 7: know my brother would and it was important for me 531 00:27:51,760 --> 00:27:54,320 Speaker 7: to try to make sure it was as authentic as 532 00:27:54,359 --> 00:27:57,040 Speaker 7: I could make it, not for my views, but for 533 00:27:57,119 --> 00:27:59,280 Speaker 7: what his views would have been. So I'll give a 534 00:27:59,280 --> 00:28:03,399 Speaker 7: credit for that, because she really certainly did not try 535 00:28:03,480 --> 00:28:09,480 Speaker 7: to project her feelings through this very realistic avatar of 536 00:28:09,520 --> 00:28:13,520 Speaker 7: her brother, but rather to help the judge understand as 537 00:28:13,880 --> 00:28:16,240 Speaker 7: in a way that could otherwise not be put together 538 00:28:16,840 --> 00:28:18,760 Speaker 7: how it would happen. And that's what's unique about this. 539 00:28:18,960 --> 00:28:21,760 Speaker 7: You can't do that with a slide show or some 540 00:28:21,920 --> 00:28:22,960 Speaker 7: other kind of compilation. 541 00:28:23,720 --> 00:28:24,800 Speaker 2: Good humanized him. 542 00:28:25,200 --> 00:28:27,520 Speaker 1: It did, and I think that the judge, you know, 543 00:28:27,600 --> 00:28:29,560 Speaker 1: expressed that in the clip that I have seen it said, 544 00:28:29,600 --> 00:28:32,119 Speaker 1: you know, he's calling Christopher by his first name. Normally 545 00:28:32,160 --> 00:28:33,959 Speaker 1: he use his surnames. That's the kind of you know, 546 00:28:35,200 --> 00:28:38,160 Speaker 1: the way the court works. But was it so impactful 547 00:28:38,160 --> 00:28:40,680 Speaker 1: do you think because it was the first time, if 548 00:28:40,680 --> 00:28:45,040 Speaker 1: this became more standard across impact statements, that you know, 549 00:28:45,160 --> 00:28:48,200 Speaker 1: families were creating these avatars of their loved ones to 550 00:28:48,600 --> 00:28:52,400 Speaker 1: read a statement, that actually the potential for it to 551 00:28:52,440 --> 00:28:56,120 Speaker 1: be prejudicial with the judge at sentencing would be minimized 552 00:28:56,120 --> 00:28:59,000 Speaker 1: because they would be more used to seeing this humanization 553 00:28:59,240 --> 00:29:00,560 Speaker 1: of the victim. 554 00:29:00,680 --> 00:29:05,080 Speaker 7: Yeah. I think what you'll start to see is lawyers 555 00:29:05,080 --> 00:29:07,960 Speaker 7: are always pushing the envelope. That's their job. You'll see 556 00:29:07,960 --> 00:29:10,320 Speaker 7: more people start to try to do this. They'll succeed 557 00:29:10,360 --> 00:29:13,200 Speaker 7: in some instances, they'll fail in others. You'll see judges 558 00:29:13,240 --> 00:29:15,959 Speaker 7: trying to get ahead of it by perhaps requiring disclosure, 559 00:29:17,360 --> 00:29:21,640 Speaker 7: and usually there are sentencing memoranda with all the materials 560 00:29:21,640 --> 00:29:26,200 Speaker 7: that are filed, but victim statements oftentimes there's no requirement 561 00:29:26,280 --> 00:29:28,720 Speaker 7: that they provide advanced notice of it. So as a 562 00:29:28,800 --> 00:29:31,040 Speaker 7: judge you're always a little bit nervous about whether they're 563 00:29:31,080 --> 00:29:33,440 Speaker 7: going to follow the time guidelines that you've given them, 564 00:29:33,520 --> 00:29:36,120 Speaker 7: or whether they're going to keep control of their emotions. 565 00:29:36,160 --> 00:29:39,880 Speaker 7: So there's always some unpredictability about it. But I think 566 00:29:39,960 --> 00:29:45,840 Speaker 7: that as it becomes sort of more common, then the 567 00:29:45,880 --> 00:29:48,760 Speaker 7: novelty of it dies away and it's like, Okay, yeah, 568 00:29:48,800 --> 00:29:52,120 Speaker 7: this is just another AI recreation, and so it lowers 569 00:29:52,200 --> 00:29:55,200 Speaker 7: the impact. You don't know, we're at the very beginning 570 00:29:55,200 --> 00:29:55,400 Speaker 7: of this. 571 00:29:56,040 --> 00:30:00,440 Speaker 2: It's very interesting and recently I'm a criminal psychology time 572 00:30:00,880 --> 00:30:04,720 Speaker 2: an expert witness. I've been doing it far too long, 573 00:30:04,800 --> 00:30:09,200 Speaker 2: nearly forty eight years. But as recently as yesterday I 574 00:30:09,360 --> 00:30:12,560 Speaker 2: had filed a report with an attorney, and the attorney 575 00:30:12,640 --> 00:30:14,360 Speaker 2: right back and said, look, you're not aware of the 576 00:30:14,400 --> 00:30:17,640 Speaker 2: new practice direction, but can you put in a sentence 577 00:30:18,320 --> 00:30:21,080 Speaker 2: at the end of your report stating that you did 578 00:30:21,080 --> 00:30:25,680 Speaker 2: not rely on AI in any way in compiling the report, 579 00:30:26,000 --> 00:30:28,760 Speaker 2: things are catching up. A year ago, I would have thought, 580 00:30:29,280 --> 00:30:32,600 Speaker 2: what's this all about? Really, that's what's happening. 581 00:30:32,280 --> 00:30:34,120 Speaker 1: Now, things are moving very quickly. 582 00:30:34,280 --> 00:30:36,800 Speaker 7: Yeah, you're right. There is at least one instance of 583 00:30:36,840 --> 00:30:39,880 Speaker 7: a court in New York, I know, in a state 584 00:30:39,960 --> 00:30:45,320 Speaker 7: matter excluding an experts report because the experts report was 585 00:30:45,960 --> 00:30:49,760 Speaker 7: generated by artificial intelligence, not by the expert, and one 586 00:30:49,800 --> 00:30:53,840 Speaker 7: other case in which rather a very otherwise well regarded 587 00:30:55,000 --> 00:30:59,720 Speaker 7: expert had their opinion stricken because they let AI generate it. 588 00:31:00,000 --> 00:31:03,120 Speaker 7: We'll start to see some of these disclosure requirements I 589 00:31:03,160 --> 00:31:06,680 Speaker 7: think tim that require advanced notice and judges will sort 590 00:31:06,680 --> 00:31:07,440 Speaker 7: of take it by there. 591 00:31:07,840 --> 00:31:12,040 Speaker 2: And there's been another example in Australia where submissions were 592 00:31:12,080 --> 00:31:15,400 Speaker 2: made on behalf of the accused in terms of the 593 00:31:15,440 --> 00:31:20,680 Speaker 2: sentencing process, where the attorney had relied on AI generated 594 00:31:20,720 --> 00:31:25,000 Speaker 2: precedents that happened to be wrong, and when the judge 595 00:31:25,000 --> 00:31:28,320 Speaker 2: got across this he was disciplined, not in the sense 596 00:31:28,360 --> 00:31:31,360 Speaker 2: of being struck off, but he was given a fairly 597 00:31:31,440 --> 00:31:35,200 Speaker 2: stern talking to. And that leads into I think the 598 00:31:35,280 --> 00:31:37,520 Speaker 2: issue how do you how do you know what's real 599 00:31:37,560 --> 00:31:39,480 Speaker 2: and what's not. What are the sort of checks and 600 00:31:39,560 --> 00:31:43,080 Speaker 2: safeguards you can implement authentic I mean. 601 00:31:43,000 --> 00:31:47,240 Speaker 1: Yes, in this context, the words are not obviously Christopher's words, 602 00:31:47,280 --> 00:31:49,880 Speaker 1: the victim's words. They were written by someone else, somebody 603 00:31:49,920 --> 00:31:53,920 Speaker 1: knew him very well, admittedly, But is that an authentic 604 00:31:54,240 --> 00:31:59,640 Speaker 1: impact statement? Is that really Chris speaking or not? And 605 00:31:59,720 --> 00:32:04,360 Speaker 1: there or should it be included as his words given 606 00:32:04,680 --> 00:32:07,000 Speaker 1: you know the level of impact it can have? 607 00:32:08,120 --> 00:32:10,479 Speaker 7: Yeah, I think that those are the key questions that 608 00:32:10,560 --> 00:32:13,160 Speaker 7: lawyers and judges will be balancing when they try to 609 00:32:13,200 --> 00:32:17,120 Speaker 7: determine the prejudicial impact over the usefulness and trying to 610 00:32:17,160 --> 00:32:21,040 Speaker 7: get what it's done. Oftentimes in cases you know, I've 611 00:32:21,080 --> 00:32:24,440 Speaker 7: sentenced people when there were drug overdose deaths, when there 612 00:32:24,480 --> 00:32:29,320 Speaker 7: were vehiculo homicide deaths, when they were violent deaths, and 613 00:32:29,520 --> 00:32:32,160 Speaker 7: the family comes in and they do purport to speak 614 00:32:32,160 --> 00:32:35,040 Speaker 7: for the victim, and that is certainly within the scope 615 00:32:35,040 --> 00:32:37,480 Speaker 7: of what's allowed in that narrow context where it's a 616 00:32:37,600 --> 00:32:41,440 Speaker 7: judge alone, not a jury deciding. As you start to 617 00:32:41,480 --> 00:32:45,480 Speaker 7: get its use as demonstrative evidence, here's where I see 618 00:32:45,880 --> 00:32:49,920 Speaker 7: a possible expansion. I mean, you know how very important 619 00:32:49,920 --> 00:32:53,240 Speaker 7: it is in your areas of expertise to help the 620 00:32:53,560 --> 00:33:00,400 Speaker 7: lay jury understand complicated technical matters. Well, imagine a computer 621 00:33:00,440 --> 00:33:04,200 Speaker 7: simulation that's generated by AI that purports to say, this 622 00:33:04,280 --> 00:33:07,520 Speaker 7: is the perception of the crime scene by the defendant 623 00:33:07,880 --> 00:33:12,320 Speaker 7: as he faced the victim and believed he was going 624 00:33:12,360 --> 00:33:14,760 Speaker 7: to be killed, which is why he shot. Well, you 625 00:33:14,760 --> 00:33:18,240 Speaker 7: can start to see it's not actually representation of what happened, 626 00:33:18,240 --> 00:33:21,400 Speaker 7: but this is a depiction of the view of the defendant, 627 00:33:21,640 --> 00:33:23,920 Speaker 7: and that's going to be problematic. But you can imagine 628 00:33:23,960 --> 00:33:27,440 Speaker 7: a very realistic scenario created. So I think we're going 629 00:33:27,480 --> 00:33:30,040 Speaker 7: to see more and more instance of this trying to 630 00:33:30,080 --> 00:33:31,880 Speaker 7: be used in a trial where you might even have 631 00:33:31,920 --> 00:33:35,720 Speaker 7: a jury. Number one is demonstrative but not substantive evidence. 632 00:33:36,360 --> 00:33:42,280 Speaker 7: And in these contexts in criminal sentencing where there is 633 00:33:42,320 --> 00:33:45,000 Speaker 7: a statue that allows a victim and the victims to 634 00:33:45,040 --> 00:33:48,000 Speaker 7: be heard and gives them a broad latitude about what 635 00:33:48,120 --> 00:33:48,640 Speaker 7: it is. 636 00:33:48,720 --> 00:33:50,920 Speaker 2: I would have thought the flip to that too, could 637 00:33:51,000 --> 00:33:54,240 Speaker 2: be this is what the victim saw in the last 638 00:33:54,320 --> 00:33:57,760 Speaker 2: moments of his or her life, a gunpoint at them. 639 00:33:57,800 --> 00:33:59,920 Speaker 2: You can imagine the terror that I'm out of experience. 640 00:34:00,440 --> 00:34:03,800 Speaker 2: And then it becomes highly subjective material, doesn't it in 641 00:34:03,920 --> 00:34:06,840 Speaker 2: terms of how it's produced and how it's presented right. 642 00:34:07,080 --> 00:34:10,000 Speaker 7: I think that that's a good example to him to give. 643 00:34:10,840 --> 00:34:13,920 Speaker 7: And you in your specialty have encountered that in civil 644 00:34:13,960 --> 00:34:17,560 Speaker 7: cases where you know it's it's that knowledge of death 645 00:34:17,719 --> 00:34:20,000 Speaker 7: right that is an example of what the jury can 646 00:34:20,040 --> 00:34:22,920 Speaker 7: consider in reaching the judgment. Can you imagine if you 647 00:34:22,920 --> 00:34:26,279 Speaker 7: could not just simply say, well, you know, he was 648 00:34:26,320 --> 00:34:28,120 Speaker 7: on the bridge, he saw the gap in the bridge 649 00:34:28,160 --> 00:34:31,320 Speaker 7: caused by the explosion, and is the approach that he 650 00:34:31,400 --> 00:34:33,160 Speaker 7: knew that his garb was going to go over and 651 00:34:33,200 --> 00:34:35,920 Speaker 7: he had you know, three or four seconds of falling 652 00:34:36,000 --> 00:34:38,680 Speaker 7: through the gap until he plunged into the ocean. If 653 00:34:38,680 --> 00:34:42,480 Speaker 7: you could have a scene that actually projected that, then 654 00:34:42,520 --> 00:34:45,759 Speaker 7: you really have to start to worry about the prejudicial impact, absolutely, 655 00:34:46,000 --> 00:34:46,840 Speaker 7: because we're seeing. 656 00:34:46,640 --> 00:34:50,520 Speaker 1: This already in courtrooms re enactments of incidents, you know, 657 00:34:50,640 --> 00:34:54,080 Speaker 1: as in that example le Caarl going off a bridge whatever, 658 00:34:54,560 --> 00:34:57,200 Speaker 1: and I can imagine already being used in court. You know, 659 00:34:57,560 --> 00:35:00,319 Speaker 1: the scene has been scanned and they you know, you 660 00:35:00,360 --> 00:35:04,080 Speaker 1: have very basic vehicle and very basic shape. People are 661 00:35:04,200 --> 00:35:08,160 Speaker 1: humanoids in those videos normally, but I'm imagining will soon 662 00:35:08,200 --> 00:35:10,040 Speaker 1: be at a point where that will almost be like 663 00:35:10,120 --> 00:35:14,719 Speaker 1: a movie quality, like a Hollywood quality video, and that 664 00:35:14,880 --> 00:35:17,520 Speaker 1: is going to be much more compelling in terms of 665 00:35:17,560 --> 00:35:20,920 Speaker 1: it looking like the actual truth of what happened, whereas 666 00:35:21,200 --> 00:35:23,200 Speaker 1: it's going to be hard for a jury to really 667 00:35:23,280 --> 00:35:27,120 Speaker 1: understand that's still an interpretation of what happened. 668 00:35:27,200 --> 00:35:29,400 Speaker 2: It's a subjective truth, correct, Judge. 669 00:35:29,600 --> 00:35:31,759 Speaker 7: Yeah, And I think that you're absolutely right to put 670 00:35:31,800 --> 00:35:35,080 Speaker 7: your finger on that. I mean, I know that there 671 00:35:35,120 --> 00:35:37,200 Speaker 7: have been a number of psychological studies in the United 672 00:35:37,239 --> 00:35:42,000 Speaker 7: States maybe elsewhere as well. There's something about when a 673 00:35:42,080 --> 00:35:47,040 Speaker 7: jury sees and hears an event, they then accept it 674 00:35:47,080 --> 00:35:49,440 Speaker 7: as if they were perceiving the event as it occurred, 675 00:35:49,920 --> 00:35:52,239 Speaker 7: and even if a judge gives a limit in instruction. Now, 676 00:35:52,280 --> 00:35:54,640 Speaker 7: ladies and gentlemen, this is not the actual event. It's 677 00:35:54,640 --> 00:35:57,960 Speaker 7: a representation. Do not mistake it for that event. They 678 00:35:58,080 --> 00:36:02,000 Speaker 7: just their brain chemistry has changed, and they now it 679 00:36:02,040 --> 00:36:04,120 Speaker 7: has now changed the way they view that even if 680 00:36:04,120 --> 00:36:05,360 Speaker 7: they doubted its authentic. 681 00:36:05,560 --> 00:36:08,000 Speaker 2: Well, it's see all added. You can't unsee things, you 682 00:36:08,080 --> 00:36:13,120 Speaker 2: can't unhear things, and it becomes problematic when it's a 683 00:36:13,200 --> 00:36:16,839 Speaker 2: creation not necessarily based on reality. 684 00:36:17,000 --> 00:36:18,960 Speaker 1: But is it too late to wind back from this? 685 00:36:19,000 --> 00:36:22,080 Speaker 1: I mean, aar we've had the same conversations that the 686 00:36:22,200 --> 00:36:24,879 Speaker 1: university as well. In terms of students using AI, We're 687 00:36:24,920 --> 00:36:28,360 Speaker 1: not going to stop them, right, We need to embrace 688 00:36:28,680 --> 00:36:31,440 Speaker 1: AI in terms of what it can do. And actually 689 00:36:31,640 --> 00:36:34,360 Speaker 1: a lot of my students at Central queenstun Union are 690 00:36:34,360 --> 00:36:37,280 Speaker 1: going to be using AI going forward in their careers, 691 00:36:37,640 --> 00:36:39,440 Speaker 1: so we're going to have to train them how to 692 00:36:39,520 --> 00:36:44,120 Speaker 1: use it responsibly and appropriately. But when it comes to 693 00:36:44,200 --> 00:36:46,920 Speaker 1: the core, what does that even look like? 694 00:36:47,760 --> 00:36:52,440 Speaker 7: So those are the actual critical issues that we're dealing 695 00:36:52,480 --> 00:36:56,560 Speaker 7: with now. When the rules of evidence do apply, of 696 00:36:56,560 --> 00:36:59,160 Speaker 7: course in the senten scenes they do not. Then the 697 00:36:59,239 --> 00:37:01,600 Speaker 7: key issue, as you both pointed out, as authentication is, 698 00:37:01,640 --> 00:37:04,680 Speaker 7: is what it purports to be. The barriers are pretty low. 699 00:37:04,719 --> 00:37:06,719 Speaker 7: It only has to be shown by a preponderance more 700 00:37:06,760 --> 00:37:11,160 Speaker 7: likely than not, so that's a pretty low barrier. And 701 00:37:10,360 --> 00:37:14,680 Speaker 7: the Federal Evidence Rules Advisory Committee are considering whether or 702 00:37:14,719 --> 00:37:18,840 Speaker 7: not they need a rule dealing with deep fakes or 703 00:37:19,480 --> 00:37:23,080 Speaker 7: generated evidence, and whether there's need to be requirements of 704 00:37:23,160 --> 00:37:28,719 Speaker 7: showing sufficient factual basis, reliable methodology being reliably applied, much 705 00:37:28,760 --> 00:37:31,160 Speaker 7: the same that would happen to an expert that is 706 00:37:31,239 --> 00:37:34,640 Speaker 7: used scientific or technical technology to reach an opinion I 707 00:37:34,719 --> 00:37:37,960 Speaker 7: think that's the direction we'll be going, combined with a 708 00:37:38,000 --> 00:37:42,040 Speaker 7: requirement of advance notice of the use of the evidence 709 00:37:42,080 --> 00:37:45,840 Speaker 7: created by that technology, and an opportunity for the side 710 00:37:45,920 --> 00:37:49,160 Speaker 7: opposing it to get information about how it was trained, 711 00:37:49,360 --> 00:37:51,400 Speaker 7: to be able to challenge it, and the judge to 712 00:37:51,520 --> 00:37:54,759 Speaker 7: rule before the trial or hearing on. 713 00:37:54,840 --> 00:38:00,960 Speaker 2: That are cool. Stacey's saying that the defense attorney agreed 714 00:38:01,040 --> 00:38:05,600 Speaker 2: with some of the content of the avatar generated information, saying, well, 715 00:38:06,440 --> 00:38:09,480 Speaker 2: he would have got on well with Chris, as he said, 716 00:38:10,080 --> 00:38:13,759 Speaker 2: so it can also be used. I'd imagine it's a 717 00:38:13,760 --> 00:38:16,359 Speaker 2: great advantage by defense people as well, even though it's 718 00:38:16,400 --> 00:38:17,759 Speaker 2: presented by the prosecution. 719 00:38:18,160 --> 00:38:20,680 Speaker 7: Yeah, I think that's right. And you can imagine the 720 00:38:20,719 --> 00:38:23,600 Speaker 7: defense attorney saying, you hear you heard from Chris himself 721 00:38:23,640 --> 00:38:27,840 Speaker 7: how he asked for forgiveness, and Judge, you know, I 722 00:38:28,560 --> 00:38:30,960 Speaker 7: regret this. This is my first defense. You know, I 723 00:38:31,160 --> 00:38:34,240 Speaker 7: was frightened. You know, the jury may not have found 724 00:38:34,320 --> 00:38:36,799 Speaker 7: that that was a basic of defense, but from my 725 00:38:36,960 --> 00:38:40,279 Speaker 7: reality where I was, you know, that should becountered taken 726 00:38:40,400 --> 00:38:43,320 Speaker 7: into consideration when you decide the sentence. You're absolutely right. 727 00:38:43,640 --> 00:38:48,600 Speaker 2: It's an extraordinary trajectory that we're on. And I'm not 728 00:38:48,640 --> 00:38:50,560 Speaker 2: sure how. I don't think you can corral it. It's, 729 00:38:50,600 --> 00:38:55,600 Speaker 2: as you with respect point out, you've got to have 730 00:38:55,760 --> 00:39:00,839 Speaker 2: practiced nose. Maybe legislation. This case may well create, as 731 00:39:00,880 --> 00:39:04,680 Speaker 2: we would describe it, an Australia common law precedent. It's 732 00:39:04,719 --> 00:39:07,680 Speaker 2: the first off and people may build upon that. I'm 733 00:39:07,680 --> 00:39:10,560 Speaker 2: not sure how it would work in the United States 734 00:39:10,600 --> 00:39:13,440 Speaker 2: because you have different jurisdictions in different circuits and so on. 735 00:39:13,920 --> 00:39:15,160 Speaker 2: It's a fascinating area. 736 00:39:15,800 --> 00:39:18,600 Speaker 7: It's a very fascinating area. I think you're both right. 737 00:39:18,920 --> 00:39:21,280 Speaker 7: The genie's out of the bottle. There's billions of dollars 738 00:39:21,280 --> 00:39:24,879 Speaker 7: being invested in this technology. The lawyers will be using it. 739 00:39:25,239 --> 00:39:27,279 Speaker 7: I'll give you an example. In the United States, the 740 00:39:27,320 --> 00:39:30,800 Speaker 7: American Bar Association ethics rules came out with a formal 741 00:39:30,840 --> 00:39:34,760 Speaker 7: opinion last August on sixteen pages long on ethical issues 742 00:39:34,800 --> 00:39:37,920 Speaker 7: associated with using generative AI in the practice of law. 743 00:39:38,440 --> 00:39:41,120 Speaker 7: So you've already begun to anticipate it's going to be 744 00:39:41,239 --> 00:39:44,880 Speaker 7: used enough to have ethics rules. So the question is 745 00:39:44,880 --> 00:39:47,680 Speaker 7: not whether it's how in what manner? 746 00:39:47,920 --> 00:39:52,080 Speaker 1: An interesting one to watch, and I think that this 747 00:39:52,160 --> 00:39:56,640 Speaker 1: incident may actually Yeah, as Tim says, a president worldwide. 748 00:39:57,320 --> 00:40:00,200 Speaker 1: So in a year's time this maybe totally normal. Going 749 00:40:00,239 --> 00:40:01,680 Speaker 1: to be so interesting to watch it develop. 750 00:40:02,160 --> 00:40:04,920 Speaker 2: I'll be interested to see how it takes off in Australia. 751 00:40:06,239 --> 00:40:10,000 Speaker 2: It's a global case. Inevitably someone will seize upon it 752 00:40:10,040 --> 00:40:13,920 Speaker 2: and have a crack at it, I would imagine. So look, 753 00:40:14,320 --> 00:40:17,719 Speaker 2: thank you so much, Professor Paul Grim for sharing your 754 00:40:17,760 --> 00:40:21,200 Speaker 2: expertise with our listeners. It's been a fantastic chap. We'd 755 00:40:21,239 --> 00:40:22,600 Speaker 2: like to get you back something. 756 00:40:22,400 --> 00:40:26,280 Speaker 1: Yeah, time or something we can any time. We haven't 757 00:40:26,320 --> 00:40:28,719 Speaker 1: got that crystal ball, but it would be amazing to 758 00:40:28,760 --> 00:40:31,719 Speaker 1: look back and say that conversation we had, look what 759 00:40:31,800 --> 00:40:34,080 Speaker 1: has changed, because I just think that our minds in 760 00:40:34,080 --> 00:40:35,880 Speaker 1: a year's time are going to be blown as to 761 00:40:35,920 --> 00:40:38,600 Speaker 1: what is happening for good and bad. And it'd be 762 00:40:38,600 --> 00:40:40,960 Speaker 1: great to have you come back and go, well, weren't 763 00:40:40,960 --> 00:40:41,880 Speaker 1: we just at the start. 764 00:40:42,320 --> 00:40:44,239 Speaker 7: And if for some reason I'm busy, I'm sure my 765 00:40:44,480 --> 00:40:47,080 Speaker 7: AI generated avatar will have time. 766 00:40:48,719 --> 00:40:52,120 Speaker 1: Cavars. Yeah, we won't need us anymore. 767 00:40:52,320 --> 00:40:55,200 Speaker 7: That's right, That's right. It was so much. 768 00:40:55,239 --> 00:40:56,560 Speaker 2: Thank you so much, professor. 769 00:41:02,480 --> 00:41:05,240 Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to this episode of Motive and Method. 770 00:41:05,640 --> 00:41:08,200 Speaker 1: If you're a new listener to the podcast, please press 771 00:41:08,200 --> 00:41:10,160 Speaker 1: the follow button in your podcast app. 772 00:41:10,440 --> 00:41:13,799 Speaker 2: We publish every week and the latest episode will be 773 00:41:13,880 --> 00:41:15,400 Speaker 2: here every Wednesday 774 00:41:15,560 --> 00:41:18,520 Speaker 1: For you and please feel free to leave a comment, 775 00:41:18,680 --> 00:41:21,359 Speaker 1: write a review, or give us a rating and we 776 00:41:21,400 --> 00:41:22,720 Speaker 1: will be back next week