Why would a judge allow this? It’s like showing the jury a made-for-TV movie based on the trial they’re hearing.
Not only did he allow it,
While the state asked for a nine-and-a-half year sentence, the judge handed Horcasitas a 10-and-a-half year sentence after being so moved by the video, Pelkey’s family said, noting the judge even referred to the video in his statement.
It has about as much evidentiary value as a ouija board, but since the victim was a veteran and involved with a church and the judge likes those things we can ignore pesky little things like standards of proof and prejudice
Twist: the judge used AI to write his sentencing statement. It’s chat bots all the way down.
Arizona State professor of law Gary Marchant said the use of AI has become more common in courts.
“If you look at the facts of this case, I would say that the value of it overweighed the prejudicial effect, but if you look at other cases, you could imagine where they would be very prejudicial,” he told AZFamily.
Could you imagine how prejudicial such a thing might be? Not here, of course. /S
