Chris Pelkey died in a road rage shooting in Arizona three years ago.
But with the help of artificial intelligence, he returned earlier this month at his killer’s sentencing to deliver a victim’s statement himself.
Family members said they used the burgeoning technology to let Mr Pelkey use his own words to talk about the incident that took his life.
While some experts argue the unique use of AI is just another step into the future, others say it could become a slippery slope for using the technology in legal cases.
His family used voice recordings, videos and pictures of Mr Pelkey, who was 37 when he was killed, to recreate him in a video using AI, his sister Stacey Wales told the BBC.
Ms Wales said she wrote the words that the AI version read in court based on how forgiving she knew her brother to be.
“To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me, it is a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances,” said the AI version of Mr Pelkey in court. “In another life, we probably could have been friends.”
“I believe in forgiveness, and a God who forgives. I always have and I still do,” the AI verison of Mr Pelkey – wearing a grey baseball cap – continues.
The technology was used at his killer’s sentencing – Horcasitas already had been found guilty by a jury – some four years after Horcasitas shot Mr Pelkey at a red light in Arizona.
The Arizona judge who oversaw the case, Todd Lang, seemed to appreciate the use of AI at the hearing. He sentenced Horcasitas to 10-and-a-half years in prison on manslaughter charges.
“I loved that AI, thank you for that. As angry as you are, as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness,” Judge Lang said. “I feel that that was genuine.”
Paul Grimm, a retired federal judge and Duke Law School professor, told the BBC he was not surprised to see AI used in the Horcasitas sentencing.
Arizona courts, he notes, already have started using AI in other ways. When the state’s Supreme Court issues a ruling, for example, it has an AI system that makes those rulings digestible for people.
And Mr Grimm said because it was used without a jury present, just for a judge to decide sentencing, the technology was allowed.
“We’ll be leaning [AI] on a case-by-case basis, but the technology is irresistible,” he said.
But some experts like Derek Leben, a business ethics professor at Carnegie Mellon University, are concerned about the use of AI and the precedent this case sets.
While Mr Leben does not question this family’s intention or actions, he worries not all uses of AI will be consistent with a victim’s wishes.
“If we have other people doing this moving forward, are we always going to get fidelity to what the person, the victim in this case, would’ve wanted?” Mr Leben asked.
For Ms Wales, however, this gave her brother the final word.
“We approached this with ethics and morals because this is a powerful tool. Just like a hammer can be used to break a window or rip down a wall, it can also be used as a tool to build a house and that’s how we used this technology,” she said.
