Can AI Bring the Dead to Court? One Family’s Groundbreaking Use of Technology in Justice

When a grieving family used AI to let their murdered brother speak in court, it sparked a legal and ethical revolution. But is this the future of justice—or a dangerous precedent? Stacey Wales’ brother, Christopher Pelkey, was killed in a 2021 road rage incident. At his killer’s sentencing, she didn’t just read a statement—she resurrected him with AI. The result? A courtroom first that’s forcing us to ask: How far should technology go in shaping legal outcomes? Let’s dive in.

🎭 The Problem: Capturing Humanity in a Legal Void

• Victim impact statements often struggle to convey the essence of the deceased. Wales spent two years crafting her statement but felt it couldn’t capture her brother’s forgiving nature.
• Courts rely on cold evidence: autopsy photos, surveillance footage. Pelkey’s family wanted the judge to see him alive—not just as a victim.
• AI’s legal role is exploding, but this case marks the first use of AI to recreate a victim for their own statement. No precedent, no rules—just raw emotion meets cutting-edge tech.

✅ The Solution: A Digital Resurrection

• Stacey and her husband, both tech professionals, used AI software trained on photos and old videos of Pelkey to create a lifelike avatar.
• The AI Pelkey delivered a scripted message of forgiveness, written by Stacey but voiced in his recreated tone: “In another life, we probably could have been friends.”
• Result: The judge added 1 extra year to the killer’s sentence (10.5 years vs. the state’s requested 9.5), citing the AI’s emotional impact.
• ✅ Healing for the family: Stacey’s 14-year-old son said, “I needed to see and hear from Uncle Chris one more time.”

🚧 Challenges: Ethics, Bias, and Legal Backlash

• ⚠️ “Unfair advantage?” Defense attorney Jason Lamm called the AI video a potential appeal issue, arguing it may have swayed the judge unduly.
• 🚧 No prior notice: The defense wasn’t warned about the AI statement, raising questions about procedural fairness.
• ⚠️ Slippery slope: Duke Law professor Paul Grimm warns AI could distort court records by amplifying sympathy or bias. Example: A 2024 New York case banned an AI avatar from arguing in court after it impersonated a human lawyer.

🚀 Final Thoughts: A New Frontier—With Guardrails

This case isn’t just about closure—it’s a legal watershed. For AI in courtrooms to work:

• 📈 Transparency: Opposing counsel must review AI content pre-trial to flag distortions.
• 📉 Limits: Grimm suggests restricting AI to post-verdict phases (like sentencing) to avoid jury bias.
• 🚀 Innovation: As Stacey noted, this wasn’t evidence—it was a “human that’s no longer here for who he was.”

Could AI help victims’ families heal while keeping courts fair? Or does it risk turning justice into a tech spectacle? What do you think?

Let us know on X (Former Twitter)

Sources: Clare Duffy. He was killed in a road rage incident. His family used AI to bring him to the courtroom to address his killer, May 9, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/09/tech/ai-courtroom-victim-impact-statement-arizona