{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-02T16:35:08.995Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"courts","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":1,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":1,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":1,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":1},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-chandler-arizona-ai-victim-video-sentencing-vacated","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c2","status":"corroborated","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'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'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'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'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'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'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'obvious forgiveness'; 'expressed in'; 'before handing down the punishment'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c6","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'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.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."}],"effects":[{"label":"sentencing procedure found fundamentally unfair because the judge considered an AI-generated video of the victim; 10.5-year sentence vacated and resentencing ordered","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.abc15.com/news/arizona-appeals-court-throws-out-sentence-after-judge-relied-on-ai-generated-victim-video","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"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.","independence_group":"abc15"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.azfamily.com/2026/10/01/court-appeals-vacates-chandler-road-rage-sentence-due-ai-victim-video/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-02 (AZFamily, published 30 September 2026 at 5:36 PM MST). Own report of the ruling.","independence_group":"azfamily"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/arizona-appeals-court-says-judge-wrongly-permitted-ai-generated-victim-video","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"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.","independence_group":"reuters"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["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."],"geography":{"basis":"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.","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"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.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-02"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"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.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["unknown"]},"name":"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","summary":"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.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-09-30","aiSystem":"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","aiProduct":"Unidentified video tool","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"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.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"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.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US-AZ","platformType":"other","outcomeStatus":"pending","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.abc15.com/news/arizona-appeals-court-throws-out-sentence-after-judge-relied-on-ai-generated-victim-video","primarySourceLabel":"ABC15 Arizona, 30 September 2026: \"Arizona appeals court throws out sentence after judge relied on AI-generated victim video\"","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-02T03:20:58.232078+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-02T03:20:58.232078+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-video","deepfake","victim-impact-statement","courts","sentencing","arizona","justice","others-use"]},{"id":"2025-taiwan-cline-chatbot-translation-oversight-letter-wrong-reading-first-person","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'Across four years of proceedings, no document was ever translated for me.'; 'Every summons, ruling, and prosecutor’s letter went into a chatbot, and what came back was the only version I had.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Across four years of criminal proceedings in Taiwan, no document was translated for him and some hearings had no interpreter; he read every summons, ruling and prosecutor's letter through a consumer chatbot, the only version he had.","causal_attribution":"His account; he says the court file records interpreters sworn at two early interrogations and an evening hearing held after he was asked in Chinese whether he understood Chinese."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'They disagreed, not on nuance but on the central holding. I believed the one that told me what I had spent four years wanting to hear.'; 'I published that reading, cited it to journalists, and began building a legal submission on it.'; 'In October 2025 the agency confirmed in writing that its letter did not say what I had understood it to say.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Both statements were wrong and are withdrawn. No authority has found me innocent; I was convicted and the conviction is final.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"In 2025 two chatbots gave opposite readings of a Taiwanese oversight body's letter; he believed the favourable one, published it, cited it to journalists and began a legal submission on it, and in October 2025 the agency confirmed in writing that the letter did not say that, after which he withdrew the claim, dropped the submission before filing and published a correction.","causal_attribution":"His account; the letter, the chatbot outputs and the agency's confirmation were not inspected. He attributes the error to relying on a fluent but wrong translation."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'I was sentenced to six months in prison; the conviction became final at the Supreme Court on Oct. 16 2024'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment under Taiwan's Personal Data Protection Act and the conviction became final at the Supreme Court on 16 October 2024; he does not attribute the conviction to the chatbot.","causal_attribution":"Context from his account with case numbers; recorded so the chatbot's role is not overstated."}],"effects":[{"label":"published and cited to journalists a wrong chatbot reading of an official letter and drafted a legal submission on it before retracting","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"read four years of court documents only through a chatbot, with no translation provided","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2026/09/when-court-interpretation-failed-in-taiwan-i-turned-to-a-chatbot/","kind":"first_person_commentary","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-09-30 (JURIST Commentary, 29 September 2026, edited by JURIST staff, with the author's disclosure).","independence_group":"ross-cline-account"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://rosscline.com/blogs/scam/media-brief","kind":"author_website","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read live in English on 2026-09-30: the author's media-brief page (version 2.0, updated 2 August 2026), reached from the JURIST disclosure link; carries the correction notice.","independence_group":"ross-cline-account"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use"],"contexts":["justice","accessibility"],"unknowns":["Which chatbots he used.","What the Control Yuan's letter held and what each chatbot output said; neither the letter nor the outputs were inspected.","Whether any legal decision in his case turned on a chatbot translation."],"geography":{"basis":"The proceedings were in Taiwan's Taichung District Court, the Taiwan High Court Taichung Branch and the Supreme Court (JURIST, with case numbers). The piece does not say where he was when he used the chatbots in 2025; he lived in Taichung for 15 years, his media-brief page (August 2026) gives New Brunswick, Canada, and JURIST says he now lives in Phnom Penh. He is Canadian, which does not establish a country of residence at the time, so the person country is unknown.","court_countries":["TW"],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published under the 2026-09-15 charter as a first-person adverse experience of ordinary assistance (a chatbot used as the only translator of legal documents produced a wrong reading that the author acted on publicly). Uncorroborated, self-disclosed account by a named author in an edited commentary, with his own published correction; the conviction is recorded as context and not attributed to AI.","reviewed_on":"2026-09-30"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The author says he put every summons, ruling and prosecutor's letter into a consumer chatbot and that two systems gave conflicting readings of an oversight body's letter in 2025 (JURIST). The systems are not named and their outputs were not inspected; his media-brief page documents the resulting correction.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"First-person account (JURIST commentary): a Canadian convicted in Taiwan who read his court documents only through consumer chatbots says two systems gave opposite readings of an oversight body's letter in 2025; he published the favourable reading, cited it to journalists and drafted a legal submission on it before the agency confirmed in writing that it was wrong","summary":"In a commentary published by JURIST on 29 September 2026, Ross Cline, a Canadian who lived in Taichung for 15 years and was convicted there under Taiwan's Personal Data Protection Act (six months' imprisonment; final at the Supreme Court on 16 October 2024), writes that across four years of proceedings no document was translated for him, some hearings had no interpreter, and he read every summons, ruling and prosecutor's letter through a consumer chatbot, 'the only version I had'. In 2025 he ran a letter from a Taiwanese oversight body (the Control Yuan, per his media-brief page) through two systems; they disagreed on its central holding. He believed the one that told him what he wanted to hear, published that reading, cited it to journalists and began building a legal submission on it. In October 2025 the agency confirmed in writing that its letter did not say that; he withdrew the claim, killed the submission before filing and rewrote his public materials so that the correction leads. His own media-brief page carries a correction notice withdrawing two earlier statements. He argues that machine translation has become the interpreter of record by default for unrepresented non-citizens, that a fluent wrong translation reads as authoritative, and that courts should enforce the existing right to an interpreter. His conviction itself is not attributed to the chatbot.","incidentDate":"2025-01-01","incidentKind":"bounded_series","incidentDatePrecision":"year","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-09-29","aiSystem":"Consumer AI chatbots used to translate Chinese-language court and agency documents (two unnamed systems)","aiProduct":"Unidentified chatbot","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["impaired_judgment","reputational_harm"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A defendant relying on chatbot translation says a wrong but fluent rendering of an official letter led him to publish a false claim about his case, cite it to journalists and draft a legal submission on it, which he then had to retract and correct publicly (his own account in JURIST and on his media-brief page).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person, the author, who used the chatbots himself (JURIST). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"TW","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2026/09/when-court-interpretation-failed-in-taiwan-i-turned-to-a-chatbot/","primarySourceLabel":"JURIST Commentary, 29 September 2026: When Court Interpretation Failed in Taiwan, I Turned to a Chatbot (Ross Cline)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-09-30T04:13:53.222314+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-09-30T04:13:53.222314+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["first-person","chatbot","machine-translation","court-interpretation","legal-documents","taiwan","canadian-abroad","access-to-justice","communicated-with"]}]}