Hacker News Reader

“Rather than document an event or recording a particular moment, the AI video presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim's sister," the court of appeals wrote on Wednesday.

The issue is it’s not real testimony one way or the other, it’s a fabrication. And allowing it is opening the door for all kinds of things. I think it’s the right move.

View on HN

The confusion isn't why the video is a problem, but why the defense made this argument, rather than the prosecution.

Well it got his sentence quashed didn't it

It's confusing yeah, but after getting a sentence you don't want, you'll use any reason to discredit the trial, even if it was something seemingly in your favor, also even if the video and the judge's reaction were in favor of the perpetrator, it's possible the jury did not like it and had a negative reaction.

> it's possible the jury did not like it and had a negative reaction.

This video was played in the sentencing phase. In a non-capital case, the sentencing phase is normally judge-only, the jury has already been discharged. So the video had no impact on the jury, since by the time it was played their role in the case was already over.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com