that's a leap i'm unwilling to take.
NGL, I'd take that over a jury trial any day of the week, if I were in fact innocent. Ditto for a trial by a biased or incompetent judge.
This judge should lose his job
Only slightly less absurd than the witch trial in Monty Python's Holy Grail.
But this definitely feels like like digging up someone's corpse and performing ventriloquy for testimony, only with better technology. It should probably be illegal for the same reasons, and not just in court.
Also, the judge says explicitly that it was AI? But that it was also "genuine"? Very hard to follow.
The AI statement was effectively a statement from the victim's sister. She can get up on the stand and talk about how genial and forgiving her brother was herself, and it will likely result in a similar sentence. Then, that sentence will be based on actual testimony and not invented testimony.
And to those questioning why the lawyer challenged the sentence, a defense attorney is going to look at any opportunity to argue for a lesser sentence as one worth taking. You may think this testimony yielded a "better" sentence for the defendant, but I'm sure the attorney thinks otherwise.
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.
If someone wants to watch fiction, it can do it in a more appropriate place and not in a court of law.
Family can read fictional poems, personal thoughts, videos or photo montages. They can put up a picture of the deceased, and make statements like if "Bob was here, he would say x, y, and z"
The point is to influence the sentence.
Provided that the family was very clear this was not historic video, and I think it was, then one can see how this isn't obviously out of bounds
But yeah it would be funny if this backfires. 10 years for murder seems like a great deal for the murderer!
It's better than being murdered, of course. But that isn't saying much! Right? The point is the whole situation is a tragedy all around.
Which is why fundamentally we need to move past this societal obsession with "solving" problems with firearms. The dynamic of firearms is pure spite - they make a bad situation for you into a slightly worse situation, while making it much worse for the other guy. While this is a necessary dynamic in some situations, it is most certainly not a first-line solution to how one should be approaching every difficulty!
But yet we've got pop media that demonstrates them as if they're simply some kind of "remote control" for other people. "I've got the gun, now you do what I say". "Oops, now you have the gun, I have to do what you say" and on and on and on. Obviously this is quite idyllic compared to what ends up happening in the real world.
(My opinion - it seems this AI video has been part of their way of processing grief and honouring the deceased.)
It seems the lawyers representing the killer have found a loophole that will eventually lead to every prosecution being thrown out on the same technicality. That would potentially lead to the killer being released, and not serving the 10 year sentence.
It's ok. Not only the second source published here contradicts the first (nothing was quashed, killer got maximum), the judge's speech is contradictory itself. "As angry as you are ... I heard the forgiveness". How could he hear both anger and forgiveness? It's either one or another (or schizophrenia if both). And if he heard the forgiveness, why is the sentence maximal?
The sentence the judge handed down was the maximum available and more than the prosecutors requested. The defence was apealing the sentencing, which was the judge's choice, not the jury's verdict. The judge was influenced by the video (as the appeals court concluded) and, regardless of the intentions of the prosecution, seeing a fake image of the victim "forgiving" the defendant could have pushed him towards a tougher sentence.
I doubt the direction of the influence actually mattered for the appeals court decision, though - they just vacated the sentence as the video wasn't allowed by law - and as the sentence was the maximum possible for the conviction it doesn't sound like there was much risk in appealing.
cf100clunk•1h ago