A man convicted of manslaughter in Arizona will be resentenced because an AI-generated video of his victim speaking from beyond the grave was ruled to have carried “undue emotional weight” as an impact statement. An appellate court in Arizona ruled that the manslaughter charge will remain, but the judge must reconsider the length of the man’s prison term because of AI.

In 2021, Gabriel Horcasitas shot and killed Christopher Pelkey during a road rage incident. A jury found him guilty of manslaughter. During Horcasitas’ sentencing hearing, Pelkey’s sister Stacey Wales played an AI-generated video of her brother as part of her victim’s impact statement. In the video, which she scripted with her own words that she made an AI generated likeness of Pelkey say, the AI avatar of Pelkey forgives his killer and said they “could have been friends” in another life. 

“I loved that video,” the judge said while handing down the maximum sentence of 10 and a half years.

Wales told 404 Media that her intent with the video was to sway the judge. “Isn’t that what you want human connection to be?” she said. “Do you ever come out of a movie and say: ‘Well, that was too emotional. That was too powerful. Human connection is powerful, and trying to convey that to somebody that's never known another person, this person on the earth, to convey their lifetime of 37 years down to a two-hour sentencing event is hard to do, and I think that victims and victims' families should be afforded every opportunity.”

After sentencing, Horcasitas appealed. He argued that the AI Pelkey video was inadmissible because it carried “undue emotional weight” and that the “lifelike AI recreation of the victim conveyed an authority and authenticity” had a “psychological impact” on the judge, according to court documents reviewed by 404 Media.

The appellate court agreed and cited State v. Rose, a 2007 murder case where a man was sentenced to death for the murder of a police officer. During the victim impact portion of the sentencing in that case, the judge saw photos of the police officer’s children at his graveside. The court said those photos almost crossed the line into prejudicing the judge.

“The AI video crossed that line. Unlike the photographs in Rose, which captured a particularly poignant moment for the young surviving victims, the AI video here [...] does not reflect actual events,” court documents said.

“It clearly impacted the sentencing judge, who said he ‘loved the video’ and felt it ‘was genuine,’ pointing to the AI victim’s ‘obvious forgiveness’ of Horcacistas,” the court documents said. “On this record, the judge’s consideration of the AI video so prejudiced Horcasitas as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair.”

Wales and the rest of Pelkey’s family have spent the last five years in and out of various court rooms related to his death. If the current ruling holds, then she'll travel to Arizona from New York and give the same statement she did the first time through her brother’s AI-generated mouth, minus the AI-generated video. The same judge who originally said “I loved that video” will do the sentencing.

“Likely, the same people will go back down and make their speeches, and I will be making my victims' impact statement that I wrote for myself the first time around again, and I will be delivering Chris's AI script sentiment again,” she said. “If I need to stand there and read it myself, which would be legally lawful, I am prepared to do that. Chris's sentiment does not change. The delivery method will.”

Wales said she wrote the words that came out of the AI version of her brother, they weren’t AI-generated. She also noted that only the judge, her family, and the Horcacistas family were the only people who saw it during the trial. “This was not offered as evidence. Juries never saw this,” she said. “This was only created after a verdict was solidified, a guilty verdict.”

She also noted that the AI video was only one of a larger piece of testimony given that day. “I think that [the judge] is unfairly represented with a soundbite,” she said. According to Wales, the judge spoke for around half an hour and only mentioned the AI video once. Wales herself uploaded the soundbite from the judge saying he loved the AI-generated impact statement to YouTube, where it went viral.

But she also said she understood that AI is a new technology and when she played the AI-generated video of her brother that she was doing something no one else had done yet. She compared it to the way courts thought of photography in the late 19th century. 

“It took about 15 years [...] and about five landmark cases in the United States that went all the way up to the Supreme Court before photography was an accepted standard to be used in the courtroom for evidence, identification, and testimony, et cetera,” she said. “I believe that's what we're seeing now with AI. It is a brand new medium.”

Wales said she understood she was setting a precedent, for good and for bad, and that she was OK with that. “There is always that first case, and so that mantle weighs on me that I need to be careful with how I defend this and how I explain the impetus, the goals, the motivations, and the veracity of what was created, because there are victims that depend on freedom of speech for the future, and I do believe that victims and their families should have every opportunity available to them to make their their points,” she said.

There’s no firm date for the new sentencing. “We do respect the court's opinion, and if we need to operate in those guardrails, I am prepared to read the same script that the AI version of Chris read the first time around,” she said. “His sentiment has not changed. Our opinion of what we believed he would think about this whole thing has not changed. The words I penned as Chris's imagined opinion still have not changed and will not change.”

And 404's Flock coverage cited in proposed legislation.

Multiple Democrat, Republican, and Independent lawmakers have introduced new pieces of legislation that, if passed, would dramatically curb federal agencies’ access to Flock cameras, with the lawmakers referencing reporting by 404 Media in their explanations for why the legislation is needed.

On Friday Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) announced the Ban Flock Act, which would prohibit federal agencies from using automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) and block federal funding from state and local governments that use the cameras. It would also let Americans sue the federal government for violation of their rights through ALPRs.

“At a time of growing concern about the unchecked power of artificial intelligence, Flock is eviscerating the very notion of privacy by installing tens of thousands of cameras in communities across America without their consent,” Sanders said in the announcement posted to his website. “Going to the doctor? Flock knows. Dropping your kid off at school? Flock is tracking you. Flock is always watching. We cannot allow America to become a surveillance state where a handful of AI oligarchs profit by giving the government the power to track our every movement.”

Ocasio-Cortez said, “AI-powered cameras are keeping track of our every move and weaponizing this data against working people to make record profits. The widespread integration of this technology into American society is unconscionable.” Merkley added, “No one should have this unchecked surveillance power at their fingertips, which is why I’m teaming up with Senator Sanders to rein in this dangerous technology.”

Sanders’ announcement says that one reason for the legislation is Flock has shared state information with federal immigration officials. In May 2025, 404 Media revealed local cops were doing lookups in Flock for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). After that report, Flock made dramatic changes to its product, including stopping other agencies searching cameras in Illinois, California, and Virginia. Flock said it also introduced a new tool that blocks impermissible searches in real time. 

The announcement also said law enforcement have used Flock data to investigate protests against ICE raids and ‘No Kings’ demonstrations. 404 Media revealed both of these, reporting that California cops investigated an “immigration protest” using Flock lookups, and, using data from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, that cops used Flock to monitor No Kings protests around the country. 404 Media also recently reported Flock itself taught cops how to surveil No Kings protesters in a company webinar.

Hajar Hammado, senior policy advisor at activist and progressive policy group Demand Progress, said in a press release “The Ban Flock Act is the gold standard for any legislation working to fight invasive Flock cameras on the federal level. Flock and other ALPR companies have wormed their way into communities across the nation and drastic, all-encompassing action is needed to root them out.”

Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) announced his own piece of proposed legislation late last month. The Stop Flock Abuse Act would require a written approval process for each search; force agencies to delete driver data after ten days, with exceptions for active investigations; and ban ALPR networks from incorporating facial recognition technology. During a recent senate hearing, Hawley pointed to 404 Media’s reporting specifically.

Separately, Representatives Greg Casar and Shontel Brown recently wrote to FBI Director Kash Patel asking how the agency plans to acquire nationwide access to ALPR data, Semafor reported. 404 Media first revealed this plan in May. The letter also referenced 404 Media’s reporting which revealed a cop in Texas used Flock to search ALPRs nationwide for a woman who self-administered an abortion.