Hacker News Reader

Comment by bhouston | Hacker News Reader

The whole thing is messed up.

The video was created by the sister of the victim based on what she imagined he would say.

The video asked for leniency. But the family of the victim formally asked for the maximum sentence. So there is a conflict here between the video made by the family and what the family asked for - I don't understand why the video was made at all.

The maximum sentence to the accused was handed down, against the wishes of the AI video.

So they are throwing out the maximum sentence based on the AI video asking for leniency?

Regardless of this mess, AI videos of victims saying made up things should not be allowed at all.

View on HN

> So they are throwing out the maximum sentence based on the AI video asking for leniency?

It says:

> In sum, while the embedded “real” video footage of the victim was permissible, allowing the presentation of the AI video constituted fundamental error. And on this record, the judge’s consideration of the AI video so prejudiced Horcasitas as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence for manslaughter and remand for resentencing.

Which is more or less; "AI videos of victims saying made up things should not be allowed at all.".

Right. All of that makes sense, but you didn't address the directionality: the direction of the AI sentence was "make sentence more lenient", and (according to the person you are replying to) the sentence was the maximum sentence possible. So if we removed the influence of the AI video, the sentence can not increase from what is already the maximum.

You assume the intent of the video was to be listened to and accepted as actual input.

My assumption is roughly the opposite - the intent of the video was to prejudice the jury as far as possible against the accused (he killed a person honorable enough and empathetic enough to suggest a more lenient sentence! To the pit with him!)

It wasn't about the content of the video - it was about the emotional response to an AI generated facsimile of the victim.

> intent of the video was to prejudice the jury

It was turned over for 'prejudice' to the judge, not the jury. So this take isn't supported by the decision

Sure, not a jury recommendation in this case. But it absolutely is supported.

The whole resentencing judgement came in part because the original judge stated how much he liked the ai video of the victim.

If you replace "jury" with "judge" then their (excellent) point stands with no other modifications.

Is your point merely that they accidentally used the wrong word here? This strikes me as one of those shallow dismissals that the HN guidelines (wisely) caution against:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Thank you. This comment clarified my (sometimes all-too-literal!) feelings about this incident.

That makes sense. Thanks!

from what I understand, there’s a high standard here, beyond “beyond reasonable doubt”, along the lines of “no appearance of impropriety”

Perhaps the prejudice is that the AI video is a means of manipulation making the victim appear more sympathetic. "This person must be an absolute monster to shoot such a good, kind forgiving guy." That was exceptionally poor judgement on the part of the judge. -Edit: Exactly what the comment above said.

Why on earth was an AI video shown before the court? Since when are KNOWN forgeries acceptable as anything? Why aren't anybody addressing this???

Everybody agrees that the AI video shouldn't have been shown, so there isn't much need to address that point.

I think they meant how/why was it allowed to be shown in the first place.

I don't think the killer was actually prejudiced by this at all, but I think it was done as a way to say this nonsense shouldn't be in court at all.

Why can't the sentence increase? Maybe the judge was so touched by this video that he gave more weight to the family's request for a harsh sentence. Maybe it just enraged him to see the grieving family affected like this. You're applying frictionless-sphere physics to complicated human thoughts.

The sentence can't increase, it's mathematically impossible. There's no additional number of years the judge could have given.

The video came before the sentencing. The person I replied to is saying the video couldn’t have resulted in a worse sentence than would have been given without the video.

Maximum sentence can't be increased because it's already the maximum.

Why does the directionality matter? The initial sentence was untrustworthy, so a resentencing is necessary. Discussing the directionality of bias would just introduce another point of failure and more inefficiency in the system: maybe you believe the direction of bias is clear here, but I'm in many cases it might be less clear and so you would necessarily have to get lawyers involved to make arguments on each side.

So basically it's that they believe the AI video was so off-putting that it sabotaged its own case in the judge's eyes? And that the case for leniency is stronger without the AI video so let the trial run again so the case can be heard without the AI video??

How was this even allowed by the judge? I wonder, if AI videos weren't a thing yet, would the judge allow one of the parties to bring in an actor dressed up and made up to look like the victim to offer testimony?

No, the prosecution didn't ask for the maximum sentence. They asked for 9 years. The judge went with the maximum of 10.5 years anyway and was clearly influenced by the video, regardless of the family's intentions.

The ruling on this is here and is perfectly readable: https://coa1.azcourts.gov/Portals/1/OpinionFiles/Div1/2026/S.... The reporting of it has been abysmal.

Also note the obvious (but usually glossed over in news articles) fact that vacating the sentence doesn't mean he doesn't get a sentence. It means he gets remanded for resentencing (by a different judge, I imagine, but IANAL). Edit: Reading about resentencing processes it sounds like it could go back to the same judge, actually.

Yeah it’s super confusing to be honest. The judge liked the “remorse / forgiveness” video so much he did the opposite, and now they are saying the video caused the opposite of what was said in it.

It’s kinda crazy that this is even a discussion at all, the judge seems to not be fit for the job if they treat fabricated materials with any relevance. This is close to forgery of court materials.

https://youtu.be/cMs-_8etNts?t=83

1:23 if you wanna watch it, it's uh... quite something.

And the judges reaction to the AI video in court: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr9b1_rintk

It's in the group of statements which begin: "I think what God meant to say..." (and that target audience)

I suspect the sister did not anticipate the implications of the video. She might have initially created it for herself as a kind of therapy to help her cope, then thought it might help the families case if she showed it. I am just speculating though.

Except her lawyer was there to explain court procedure and implications.

In vigorously advocating for her client, who expressed a desire for maximum sentencing, the laywer presumably would have explained its pikely effect (biasing the judge).

>The video was created by the sister of the victim based on what she imagined he would say

you don't know this, she could have been working based on advice from their attorney as to "how to get the maximum sentence"

The attorney thinks the best way to get the maximum sentence is to make an AI video of the victim asking for leniency in sentencing?

What kind of 4D chess is this?

Yeah. The people in these comments aren't following the story.

Makes the victim more real (to the judge), I guess. And the family are victims too, the ones who continue to suffer, so I guess the 4D chess is demonstrating what the victims lost.

It eventually makes sense to my brain, aside from the AI part of course. If I'm a remarkably forgiving person my family might both appreciate that about me, and not be remarkably forgiving themselves. And they might say look, we lost this remarkable human being, punish the responsible party harshly.

> The attorney thinks the best way to get the maximum sentence is to make an AI video of the victim asking for leniency in sentencing?

Ab-so-fucking-lutely. This paints the victim in the most positive light. And makes killing them seem even worse.

Again, attorneys understand that a lot of times you're looking for an emotional hook, not straight up "facts". This video made the victim seem moral, empathetic, full of forgiveness... as close to freaking jesus as you can get.

And that other person killed them.

Now go sentence that person.

---

Instead imagine the video was of the victim smoking a cigar, laughing, and suggesting that he'd never forgive him and he should be put to death?

---

Which video makes the jury more likely to actually come back with a tougher sentence? The one where he's a bastard, or the one where he's a saint?

Agree with your post, but judges sentence, not juries.

fair - I've lived in places where juries can recommend sentencing. You're right here.

Depending on the state and criminal penalty (typically capital punishment), juries can recommend sentences.

It worked...

It isn't clear who created the video. It is possible the person who created disagrees with the rest of the family.

Hard to say who was thinking what.

I am paraphrasing from the decision itself to overturn, so I am not sure what you are made about. Here is what it said:

"Indeed, rather than documenting 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."

Wait till you hear about some of the "Day in the Life" videos that ambulance chasers use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com