Skip to main content
NOPE
Medium reported severity

Arizona: an appeals court vacates a manslaughter sentence after finding that an AI-generated video of the deceased victim, played by his family at sentencing, made the procedure fundamentally unfair

At a 2025 sentencing hearing in Maricopa County Superior Court, Arizona, the family of a man killed in a 2021 road-rage shooting in Chandler played a video that combined real footage with an AI-generated likeness and voice of the victim delivering a script written by his sister, including statements of forgiveness addressed to the defendant. The judge said he loved the video, described it as genuine and referred to the forgiveness it expressed, then imposed the presumptive 10.5-year term for manslaughter, longer than the nine years prosecutors had requested, according to ABC15. On 30 September 2026 the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but vacated the sentence, holding that the judge's consideration of the AI video so prejudiced the defendant that the sentencing procedure was fundamentally unfair. The case returns to the trial court for resentencing.

AI system
Unidentified video tool
Occurred
2025
Reported
30 September 2026
Event location
United States
What the AI did
Relation unknown
Reported harm
Legal Harm
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Justice
Evidence
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources
6 claims: 2 corroborated, 4 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Unidentified AI tools used by the victim's family to generate a likeness and voice of the deceased victim from a recorded video, a picture and a written script

What Happened

The video. The family of the man killed in a November 2021 road-rage shooting in Chandler, Arizona, made a video for the sentencing hearing. AZFamily reports that it was built from a previously recorded video, a picture and a script written by the victim's sister. ABC15 reports that it 'included some real footage of the victim, but also had an AI-generated version of him delivering statements about his beliefs, forgiveness and his family.' The ABA Journal, citing Reuters, describes the victim as depicted 'talking about forgiveness and addressing the defendant directly.'

The sentencing. According to ABC15, the judge later said he 'loved' the video, described it as 'genuine' and referred to what he saw as the victim's forgiveness of the defendant. AZFamily reports that the judge noted the 'obvious forgiveness' in the AI statement before handing down the punishment. The judge imposed the presumptive 10.5-year term for manslaughter; ABC15 reports that prosecutors had asked for nine years.

The appeal. On Wednesday 30 September 2026 the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the conviction, vacated the sentence and returned the case to Maricopa County Superior Court for resentencing. The opinion, as quoted by the ABA Journal from Reuters, found that consideration of the AI video so prejudiced the defendant as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair. ABC15 reports that the court accepted the real footage and focused on the AI-generated portions portraying the victim saying things he never said, and that it held that a victim's right to be heard at sentencing does not override a defendant's right to due process.

Next steps. The defense attorney told ABC15 that the new sentence could range from seven to ten and a half years and that the case could reach the Arizona Supreme Court. The victim's sister told ABC15 she was 'all for' removing the AI layer if that erased doubt about the sentence, and that the family would be okay with a sentence the judge said would be the same with or without AI.

Limits. The opinion, at an azcourts.gov address that a web search associated with this appeal, returned HTTP 403 and had no archive capture, so the holding is taken from news reports. The day of the 2025 sentencing hearing is not stated in the retained sources.

Reported harm

The Arizona Court of Appeals found that the sentencing judge's consideration of an AI-generated video of the victim prejudiced the defendant and made the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair, vacating his 10.5-year sentence and ordering resentencing.

Outcome

Pending

On 30 September 2026 the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the conviction, vacated the 10.5-year sentence and remanded for resentencing in Maricopa County Superior Court. The defense attorney said the case could reach the Arizona Supreme Court.

What remains unknown

  • The full text of the appeals opinion, which was not read.
  • The day of the 2025 sentencing hearing.
  • The AI tools used to make the video.
  • The outcome of resentencing and whether the State seeks further review.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: supported. ABC15, AZFamily and the ABA Journal (relaying Reuters, which quotes the opinion) describe the video as AI-generated by the victim's family from real footage, a picture, a voice profile and a family-written script. The AI-generated likeness depicted the deceased victim and, according to the ABA Journal, addressed the defendant directly. The person counted as harmed is the defendant, whose sentencing the appeals court found unfair; none of the five relations clearly describes the AI's relation to him, so it is recorded as unknown.

6 claims: 2 corroborated, 4 reported. What the statuses mean

Corroborated On Wednesday 30 September 2026 the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the manslaughter conviction of a man who killed another driver in a 2021 road-rage confrontation, vacated his 10.5-year prison sentence and ordered that he be resentenced.

Causal attribution. The appeals ruling as reported by two Arizona newsrooms; the opinion returned HTTP 403 and was not read.

  • abc15.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'An Arizona appeals court has upheld the manslaughter conviction of a man who fatally shot another driver during a road rage confrontation, but it has ordered a new sentencing hearing after finding a judge improperly relied on an AI-generated video portraying the victim.'; 'The court affirmed his conviction but vacated his 10.5-year prison sentence and sent the case back to Superior Court for resentencing.'; 'The case will return to Maricopa County Superior Court for a new sentencing hearing.'
  • azfamily.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'will have to be resentenced after the Arizona Court of Appeals vacated his sentence for a 2021 road rage killing in Chandler due to an AI video of the victim affecting the judge'; 'manslaughter conviction is upheld, but the 10 1/2-year sentence is vacated, and he will be resentenced.'
Corroborated The appeals court found that the sentencing judge's consideration of the AI-generated video of the victim made the sentencing fundamentally unfair.

Causal attribution. Finding of the appeals court, reported by AZFamily and by the ABA Journal citing Reuters.

  • azfamily.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'In its decision announced Wednesday, the state Court of Appeals said the sentencing judge was prejudiced by the AI video, which made his decision fundamentally unfair.'
  • abajournal.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'consideration of the AI video so prejudiced'; 'as to render the sentencing procedure'; 'improperly allowed at a sentencing hearing an artificial intelligence-generated video in which the victim is depicted talking about forgiveness and addressing the defendant directly.'
Reported The video, made by the victim's family and played at the sentencing hearing in 2025, used the victim's picture and voice profile and combined some real footage with an AI-generated version of the victim delivering statements about his beliefs, forgiveness and his family, from a script written by his sister.

Causal attribution. Description of the video by ABC15 and AZFamily.

  • abc15.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'It included some real footage of the victim, but also had an AI-generated version of him delivering statements about his beliefs, forgiveness and his family.'; 'picture and voice profile'
  • azfamily.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'using a previously recorded video, a picture and a script written by'; 'sister. That video was played during the sentencing.'; 'was sentenced to 10 1/2 years in prison last year'
Reported The sentencing judge said he loved the AI video, described it as genuine and referred to the forgiveness it expressed, then imposed the presumptive 10.5-year term, longer than the nine years prosecutors had requested.

Causal attribution. Reports of the sentencing hearing record; the comparison with the prosecution request comes from ABC15 alone.

  • abc15.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The sentencing judge later said he "loved" the AI video and described it as "genuine."'; 'The judge specifically referenced what he viewed as the victim'; 'the presumptive 10.5 years in prison for manslaughter'; 'a longer sentence than the nine years requested by prosecutors'
  • azfamily.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'obvious forgiveness'; 'expressed in'; 'before handing down the punishment'
Reported According to ABC15, the appeals court said the real footage of the victim was permissible and focused its ruling on the AI-generated portions that portrayed the victim saying things he never said.

Causal attribution. ABC15 summary of the opinion.

  • abc15.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'The appeals court specifically said the real video footage of the victim was permissible. Its ruling was focused on the AI-generated portions that portrayed the victim saying things he never actually said.'
Reported The defense attorney said the new sentence could range from seven to ten and a half years and that the case could still reach the Arizona Supreme Court.

Causal attribution. Statement by the defense attorney to ABC15.

  • abc15.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'He says the new sentence could range from seven to ten and a half years, and the case could still reach the state supreme court.'

Sources

3 sources inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English on 2026-10-02 (ABC15 Arizona, published 30 September 2026 and updated 1 October 2026 according to the page metadata). Own reporting with interviews of the victim's sister and the defense attorney. Applies to s1.

Read in English on 2026-10-02 (AZFamily, published 30 September 2026 at 5:36 PM MST). Own report of the ruling. Applies to s2.

Read in English on 2026-10-02 (ABA Journal, 1 October 2026), which relays a Reuters story and quotes the opinion; Reuters itself returned HTTP 401. Applies to s3.

Event countries: United States. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: United States.

The sentencing took place in Maricopa County Superior Court, Arizona, and the appeal was decided by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One (ABC15, AZFamily). The defendant's residence is not stated.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-02: Published as a concrete adverse consequence of an AI-generated depiction used in a criminal proceeding: an appeals court found that the video made a sentencing fundamentally unfair and vacated the sentence. Two independent Arizona newsrooms report the ruling; names of the deceased victim, his family and the defendant are left out of the summary and claims.

People described

The defendant in a Maricopa County manslaughter case, whose sentencing the appeals court found was prejudiced by the AI-generated victim video

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One person: the defendant whose sentencing the appeals court found fundamentally unfair. He did not use the AI tool, so he is counted among people harmed through others' use. The victim's family is not counted because no harm to them from the AI video is reported. Exact 1.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#ai-video#deepfake#victim-impact-statement#courts#sentencing#arizona#justice

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Arizona: an appeals court vacates a manslaughter sentence after finding that an AI-generated video of the deceased victim, played by his family at sentencing, made the procedure fundamentally unfair. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-chandler-arizona-ai-victim-video-sentencing-vacated

BibTeX

@misc{2025_chandler_arizona_ai_victim_video_sentencing_vacated,
  title = {Arizona: an appeals court vacates a manslaughter sentence after finding that an AI-generated video of the deceased victim, played by his family at sentencing, made the procedure fundamentally unfair},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-chandler-arizona-ai-victim-video-sentencing-vacated}
}

Related cases

Medium Unidentified video tool

Miami: scammers cloned immigration attorney Ángel Leal's face and voice with AI to defraud immigrants seeking legal help

From around October 2025, criminals used AI to clone the image, voice, name, signature and firm logo of Ángel Leal, a long-established immigration attorney in Doral, Florida. They created fake videos, look-alike websites, forged contracts and even fabricated Zoom 'immigration hearings' to persuade immigrants to pay for legal services Leal never provided. Immigrants were defrauded of money, and some believed their cases were progressing when they were not; Leal received one to two defrauded callers a day, changed his phone number, hired an anti-piracy firm that removed thousands of fake profiles and videos, and reported the fraud to local police and federal authorities.

Low Unidentified video tool

Texas: State Rep. Vikki Goodwin, the Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor, filed a sworn complaint with the Travis County Sheriff's Office on 19 September 2026 alleging that two campaign ads posted on Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick's X account used AI-generated video of her saying things she never said; the posts were deleted the next day, her campaign says, and Patrick's campaign calls them obvious parody

On Saturday 19 September 2026 Vikki Goodwin, an Austin state representative running against Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, filed a complaint with a notarised affidavit at the Travis County Sheriff's Office accusing Patrick of violating Texas's 2019 election deepfake law, after his campaign posted two ads (5 and 12 September, on his non-government X account) containing AI-generated videos of her. In the affidavit she stated: 'I did not personally do or say the things depicted in the video; although the "person" in the video appears to be me, it was not actually me', and that the video was posted 'with the intent to deceive Texans, injure a candidate, or influence the result of an election'. She told KUT the ads made it look as though she favoured raising taxes, which she says she opposes in every campaign speech. The sheriff's office confirmed receipt of the complaint without further comment. Patrick's campaign spokesman told the New York Times the material was 'an obvious parody produced to entertain' and that none of it was published within 30 days of the election; the posts were taken down the day after the complaint, according to Goodwin's communications director. Goodwin said she doubted the sheriff's office would follow up now that the posts were removed. A conviction under the law is a class A misdemeanour.

Low Claude

S.D.N.Y.: Judge Rakoff rules that a fraud defendant's written exchanges with Claude about his defence, seized by the FBI, are protected by neither attorney-client privilege nor work product

Bradley Heppner, a corporate executive charged in the Southern District of New York with securities fraud, wire fraud and related offences, used Anthropic's Claude in 2025, after receiving a grand jury subpoena, to prepare reports outlining his defence strategy. His counsel had not directed him to do so. FBI agents seized about thirty-one documents memorialising those exchanges when they searched his home in connection with his arrest in November 2025. Heppner claimed privilege over them. On 10 February 2026 Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted from the bench the Government's motion for a ruling that the documents were not protected from Government inspection by either the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, and a memorandum filed 17 February 2026 gave the reasons: Claude is not an attorney, and the communications were not confidential under Anthropic's privacy policy. The court described the question as one of first impression nationwide. Heppner was convicted in May 2026 of securities fraud, wire fraud and other charges; no inspected source says whether the Claude documents were used at trial.

High Grok

St. Clair v. xAI: a writer says Grok made and published sexualized images of her on X, including from a photo of her at 14, after it told her it would not; xAI sued her in Texas and her New York case was ordered transferred there, an order the Second Circuit has stayed pending her mandamus petition

Ashley St. Clair, a writer and political commentator with about 1 million followers on X, sued xAI in New York on 15 January 2026. She alleges that from on or about 4 January 2026 Grok, prompted by other X users, altered photos of her into sexualized images and published them on X, including one made from a photo of her at 14. She says @Grok told her that her images would not be used or altered without explicit consent, but many more images followed. She also says X's reporting channel found no violation and that X removed her Premium subscription, verification checkmark and monetization. She says she has suffered serious pain, mental distress and humiliation. The same day, xAI sued her in federal court in Texas, arguing that its terms of service required her to sue there. On 23 June 2026 the New York federal court ordered her case transferred to Texas. On 8 July the Second Circuit stayed that order administratively while it considers her mandamus petition, which was still pending on 24 August. The Texas case is set for trial on 1 March 2027.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents