Technology

Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it.
No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions.

It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted.

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.

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 defense attorney could 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.”

boomer brained judge

Boomer here. Don't assume we all think the same. Determining behavior from age brackets is about as effective as doing it based on Chinese astrology (but I'm a Monkey so I would say that, wouldn't I?)

The judge's problem is being a nitwit, not what year they were born in.

I was able to be digitally regenerated

I would like to make my own impact statement

you allowed Chris to speak from his heart as you saw it. I didn’t hear him asking for the maximum sentence.

These, especially the second, cross the line imo. The judge acknowledges it's AI but is acting like it isn't, and same for the sister especially.

Your emotions don't always line up with "what you know" this is why evidence rules exist in court. Humans don't work that way. This is why there can be mistrials if specific kinds of evidence is revealed to the jury that shouldn't have been shown.

Digital reenactments shouldn't be allowed, even with disclaimers to the court. It is fiction and has no place here.

No, this is exactly why it shouldn't be allowed. This isn't akin to playing a video of home movies because this is a fake video of the victim. This is complete fiction and people thinking it's the same thing is what makes it wrong.