{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-11-14T10:48:05.583Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"sentencing","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":4,"coverage":{"cases":4,"countries":2,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":1,"coreRelations":4,"contextualRelations":2,"mixedRelations":2,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"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-central-scotland-man-jailed-after-using-telegram-ai-nudify-bot-to-make-indecent-images-of-teenage-girl","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'an artificial intelligence bot on the Telegram app, which generates nude pictures from images of real people.' ... 'used this program to generate 12 indecent pseudo-images of a female child'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'an artificial intelligence bot on the Telegram app, which generates nude pictures from images of real people.' ... 'used the program to generate 12 indecent pseudo-images of a female child.' ... 'This child was identified as a teenage girl'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Police found a chat on the man's tablet between him and an artificial intelligence bot on Telegram that generates nude pictures from images of real people; he used it to generate 12 indecent pseudo-images of a female child, identified as a teenage girl known to him.","causal_attribution":"The prosecutor's account at the plea hearing, relayed by STV from one news-agency chain; the man pleaded guilty to downloading and distributing child sex abuse images. The bot is not named."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'On October 14, 2025, one of the images of the child – which police assessed as a Category C – was distributed between'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'On October 14, 2025, one of the images of the child – which police assessed as a Category C – was distributed between'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"On 14 October 2025 one of the images of the child, which police assessed as Category C, was distributed between the man and other users of an app called AnonChat.","causal_attribution":"The prosecutor's account at the plea hearing, relayed by STV from one news-agency chain."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'34 child sex abuse images and one video were found on it.' ... 'The material featured boys and girls aged approximately ten to 15 years old.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The tablet also held 34 child sex abuse images and one video featuring boys and girls aged approximately ten to 15; the reports do not say whether this material was AI-generated.","causal_attribution":"none"},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'pleaded guilty to downloading and distributing child sex abuse images.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"},{"locator":"'there was “no alternative” to a custodial sentence.' ... 'on the sex offenders’ register for ten years in addition to imposing the 12-month jail term.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The man pleaded guilty to downloading and distributing child sex abuse images; on 21 October 2026 the sheriff imposed a 12-month jail term and placed him on the sex offenders' register for ten years.","causal_attribution":"none"}],"effects":[{"label":"depicted in indecent AI-generated pseudo-images","claim_id":"c1","direction":"negative"},{"label":"one image shared with other users of an anonymous chat app","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://news.stv.tv/east-central/dad-jailed-for-using-nudify-bot-to-make-and-share-ai-image-of-schoolgirl","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-22 (HTTP 200). STV News court report credited to Central Scotland News Agency, published 21 October 2026 (sentencing hearing).","independence_group":"central-scotland-news-agency-court-reports"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://news.stv.tv/east-central/man-uploaded-photo-of-schoolgirl-into-ai-and-circulated-fake-naked-image-in-encrypted-chat","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-22 (HTTP 200). STV News court report credited to Central Scotland News Agency, published 26 August 2026 (plea hearing, prosecutor quoted).","independence_group":"central-scotland-news-agency-court-reports"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["privacy","justice"],"unknowns":["Which Telegram bot generated the images.","When the 12 pseudo-images were generated.","Whether the girl or her family learned of the images and what effect on her is reported.","Whether any of the other 34 images or the video found on the tablet were AI-generated."],"geography":{"basis":"The prosecution and sentencing took place at a sheriff court in central Scotland, and police searched the man's home there (both STV reports). The girl is described as known to him; no source places her elsewhere. The event country rests on the police search and investigation in Scotland reported in both sources.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a core case (depicted_or_impersonated): the prosecution account reported from both hearings says police found the man's chat with a Telegram AI bot that generates nude pictures from images of real people, and that the bot produced 12 indecent pseudo-images of an identified teenage girl, one of which was shared; he pleaded guilty and was jailed. Neither the man nor the girl is named, and the girl's age and the man's town are omitted.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-22"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The prosecutor told the court that police found a chat on the man's tablet between him and an artificial intelligence bot on Telegram that generates nude pictures from images of real people, and that he used the program to generate 12 indecent pseudo-images of a female child, identified as a teenage girl known to him. The generated images depict the girl (depicted_or_impersonated), and one was distributed to other users of an anonymous chat app. The bot is not named.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated"]},"name":"Central Scotland: man jailed after court hears he used a Telegram AI 'nudify' bot to make indecent pseudo-images of a teenage girl and shared one","summary":"According to court reports by STV News, a prosecutor told a sheriff court in central Scotland that police who searched a man's tablet found a chat between him and an artificial intelligence bot on Telegram that generates nude pictures from images of real people. The prosecutor said he used the bot to generate 12 indecent pseudo-images of a female child, identified as a teenage girl known to him, and that on 14 October 2025 one of the images was distributed between him and other users of an anonymous chat app. He pleaded guilty in August 2026 to downloading and distributing child sex abuse images, and on 21 October 2026 the sheriff jailed him for 12 months and placed him on the sex offenders' register for ten years.","incidentDate":"2025-10-14","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-08-26","aiSystem":"An artificial intelligence bot on the Telegram app that generates nude pictures from images of real people, according to the prosecution account reported by STV News (bot not named)","aiProduct":"Unidentified image tool","severity":"high","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["exploitation_or_abuse"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the prosecution account reported by STV News, an AI bot on Telegram generated 12 indecent pseudo-images of a teenage girl at the man's request, and one was shared with other users of an anonymous chat app.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"outward","causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the teenage girl depicted in the 12 generated pseudo-images. The children in the 34 other images and one video are not counted because no source says that material was AI-generated; the convicted man is not counted as harmed.","victimAgeRange":"minor","jurisdiction":"GB-SCT","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://news.stv.tv/east-central/dad-jailed-for-using-nudify-bot-to-make-and-share-ai-image-of-schoolgirl","primarySourceLabel":"STV News, 21 October 2026: Dad jailed for using 'nudify' bot to make and share AI image of schoolgirl","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-22T03:04:48.345924+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-22T03:04:48.345924+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-nudify-bot","telegram","pseudo-images","child-sexual-abuse-material","sheriff-court","scotland","guilty-plea","sentencing"]},{"id":"2025-sixth-circuit-removes-appointed-defence-lawyer-over-cocounsel-drafted-briefs-delaying-indigent-defendants-appeal","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'qualified for a two-level enhancement under § 3B1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines for his leadership role during drug-trafficking activities.'; 'serving as court-appointed counsel for an indigent defendant through a publicly funded program'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"A lawyer appointed under the Criminal Justice Act represented an indigent defendant appealing a two-level leadership enhancement to his drug-trafficking sentence in the Sixth Circuit.","causal_attribution":"The court's own description of the appointment and the appeal."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The first tell was the file name of the principal brief:'; '“CoCounsel Skill Results.” CoCounsel is the name of Westlaw’s internal artificial-intelligence'; 'But the purported direct quotations do not appear in their cited sources.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'The first tell was the file name of the principal brief: \"CoCounsel Skill Results.\" CoCounsel is the name of Westlaw's internal artificial-intelligence platform.'; 'But the purported direct quotations do not appear in their cited sources.'; 'misrepresent the holdings of both United States v. Washington'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The court found that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results', that three quotations in the briefs appear in no legal authority, and that the briefs misrepresented the holdings of two precedents.","causal_attribution":"The court's findings, quoted verbatim in the Volokh post; the opinion PDF carries the same text."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'he directed an unnamed “staff” member to'; 'upload district court documents to Westlaw’s CoCounsel program to create a first draft of the'; 'repeated that same process for the reply brief.'; 'He concedes that the three inaccurate quotations'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'he directed an unnamed \"staff\" member to upload district court documents to Westlaw's CoCounsel program to create a first draft of the principal brief.'; 'He concedes that the three inaccurate quotations identified above were the product of artificial intelligence, that they do not appear in any legal authorities'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyer admitted that a staff member uploaded district court documents to Westlaw's CoCounsel to create a first draft of the principal brief, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the three inaccurate quotations were produced by artificial intelligence and not verified.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's show-cause response as the court records it; the court's opinion documents the admission."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'shall not be compensated under the Criminal Justice Act for his time spent on'; 'to consider disciplinary proceedings under Sixth'; 'Disciplinary Clerk for the Kentucky Bar Association'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The court ordered that the lawyer receive no Criminal Justice Act compensation for the appeal, forwarded the opinion to the circuit's chief judge to consider disciplinary proceedings, and served it on the Kentucky Bar Association's disciplinary clerk.","causal_attribution":"The court's orders."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'different appellate counsel to file new briefs—further delaying resolution of'; 'reset the briefing schedule upon appointment of replacement counsel.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"By a separate order the same day the court removed the lawyer, directed the appointment of replacement counsel, locked the briefs he had filed and reset the briefing schedule, which the court said further delayed resolution of the defendant's criminal appeal.","causal_attribution":"The court's own account of its separate order and of the delay."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'utilizing Westlaw CoCounsel “in this way for a Court of Appeals brief.”'; 'has never been disciplined over his 40-year career'; 'candor in acknowledging his improper use of artificial intelligence.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'first time utilizing Westlaw CoCounsel \"in this way for a Court of Appeals brief.\"'; 'has never been disciplined over his 40-year career'; 'his candor in acknowledging his improper use of artificial intelligence.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The lawyer said this was his first use of CoCounsel in this way for an appeals brief and that he had not been disciplined in a 40-year career; the court acknowledged his timely response and candour while finding his conduct inexcusable.","causal_attribution":"The lawyer's explanations and the court's assessment, as the opinion records them; recorded as mitigation."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'***LOCKED PURSUANT TO ORDER ENTERED 04/03/2026***APPELLANT BRIEF filed by'; 'Certificate of Service: 10/21/2025. Argument Request: not requested. [25-5623]'; '***LOCKED PURSUANT TO ORDER ENTERED 04/03/2026***REPLY BRIEF filed by Attorney'; 'Certificate of Service: 12/26/2025. [25-5623]'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s3"}],"assertion":"The docket records that the principal brief for the defendant was filed on 21 October 2025 and the reply brief on 26 December 2025, and that both entries were locked under the order of 3 April 2026.","causal_attribution":"Clerk docket entries; they date the filings and do not describe their contents."}],"effects":[{"label":"indigent defendant's criminal appeal delayed while replacement counsel files new briefs","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"},{"label":"court-appointed lawyer denied compensation for the appeal and referred for disciplinary consideration","claim_id":"c4","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0105p-06.pdf","kind":"court_order","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Sixth Circuit published per curiam opinion, No. 25-5623, decided and filed 3 April 2026; PDF read in full (HTTP 200).","independence_group":"sixth-circuit-opinion-3-apr-2026"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://reason.com/volokh/2026/04/09/the-first-tell-was-the-file-name-of-the-principal-brief-cocounsel-skill-results/","kind":"commentary_with_filing_excerpt","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"The Volokh Conspiracy (Reason), 9 April 2026, quoting the same opinion at length; read in full (HTTP 200). Same origin as the opinion.","independence_group":"sixth-circuit-opinion-3-apr-2026"},{"id":"s3","url":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?q=docket_id%3A70724463%20BRIEF&type=rd","kind":"court_docket_index","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"CourtListener search API listing of docket entries for Sixth Circuit No. 25-5623 (RECAP), read on 2026-10-19 (HTTP 200); entry descriptions as entered by the clerk. Party and counsel names in the entries are not reproduced.","independence_group":"sixth-circuit-docket-25-5623"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["own_use","others_use"],"contexts":["justice","work"],"unknowns":["How long the appeal is delayed, and the outcome of any disciplinary proceedings."],"geography":{"basis":"The appeal is from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the lawyer practises in Kentucky (opinion).","court_countries":["US"],"event_countries":["US"],"affected_person_countries":["US"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published with communicated_with and informed_decision_about: the court documents that a court-appointed defence lawyer filed briefs drafted with Westlaw's CoCounsel that carried quotations found in no authority, and, acting on those briefs, removed him, ordered new counsel and briefing that delayed the indigent defendant's criminal appeal, and denied him compensation. The harm reaches a criminal defendant who did not use the tool.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-19"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The court found that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results' and that three quotations in the briefs appear in no legal authority. The lawyer admitted that a staff member used Westlaw's CoCounsel to produce the first draft, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the false quotations were produced by artificial intelligence. Reading those briefs, the court removed him, ordered new counsel and new briefs for the defendant, and denied him compensation.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Sixth Circuit removes court-appointed defence lawyer over CoCounsel-drafted briefs with false quotations, delaying an indigent defendant's appeal","summary":"In a published opinion of 3 April 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed the briefs a lawyer appointed under the Criminal Justice Act had filed for an indigent defendant appealing a sentencing enhancement in a drug-trafficking case. The court noticed that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results' and found three quotations that appear in no legal authority and misstatements of two precedents. The lawyer admitted that a staff member had used Westlaw's CoCounsel to create the first draft, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the false quotations came from artificial intelligence he did not verify. The court denied him compensation for the appeal, referred the opinion for possible disciplinary proceedings and to the Kentucky Bar Association, and by separate order removed him, locked his briefs and ordered replacement counsel to file new ones, which it said further delayed resolution of the defendant's appeal. The court acknowledged his candour and his 40 years without discipline.","incidentDate":"2025-10-21","incidentEndDate":"2026-04-03","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-04-03","aiSystem":"Westlaw CoCounsel (Thomson Reuters), used by a lawyer's staff member to produce the first drafts of a principal and a reply brief","aiProduct":"CoCounsel","aiCompany":"Thomson Reuters","severity":"medium","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","professional_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"The court documents that briefs drafted with Westlaw's CoCounsel and filed unverified by a court-appointed lawyer led it to remove him and order new counsel and briefs, further delaying an indigent defendant's criminal appeal; the lawyer was denied compensation for the appeal and referred for disciplinary consideration.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"established","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":2,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"Two: the defendant, whose appeal the court says was further delayed, and the lawyer, who was denied compensation and referred. The lawyer's staff member ran the tool and is not counted; no other harmed person is described.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"US","platformType":"other","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"ongoing","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0105p-06.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 25-5623, opinion decided and filed 3 April 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-19T03:16:56.688661+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-19T03:16:56.688661+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["legal","ai-fabricated-quotations","court-appointed-counsel","criminal-appeal","sanction","cocounsel"]},{"id":"2025-chandler-arizona-ai-victim-video-sentencing-vacated","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'FILED 09-30-2026'; 'AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART'; 'we affirm the manslaughter conviction but vacate the sentence for manslaughter, and remand for resentencing'; 'term of 10.5 years’ imprisonment on the count of manslaughter'; 'during a road rage confrontation'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"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 30 September 2026 the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the manslaughter conviction of a defendant who shot and killed a man during a road-rage confrontation, vacated his 10.5-year manslaughter sentence and remanded for resentencing.","causal_attribution":"The disposition stated in the opinion itself, also reported by two Arizona newsrooms, which date the killing to 2021, place it in Chandler and describe the victim as another driver."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶53: 'consideration of the AI video so prejudiced'; 'as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair'; 'Accordingly, we vacate the sentence for manslaughter and remand for resentencing.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"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 held that the sentencing judge's consideration of the AI video so prejudiced the defendant as to render the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair.","causal_attribution":"Holding of the appeals court, read in the opinion; also 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"},{"locator":"¶36: 'recreated through AI that use[d] [his] picture and [his] voice profile'; ¶50: 'created from the imaginings of the victim’s sister'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'His family used voice recordings, videos and pictures of'; 'to recreate him in a video using AI'; 'said she wrote the words that the AI version read in court based on how forgiving she knew her brother to be.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"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; the BBC reports the sister saying she wrote the words; the opinion confirms the picture and voice profile, the embedded real footage and the sister's authorship, and does not state the date of the hearing."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶41: 'I loved that AI. Thank you for that'; 'I feel that that was genuine; that his obvious forgiveness of'; 'For that reason I find the presumptive term [of 10.5 years in prison] is appropriate. That’s more than the State asked for.'; ¶38: 'she asked the sentencing judge to impose a slightly mitigated sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"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"},{"locator":"'I loved that AI, thank you for that. As angry as you are, as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness'; 'I feel that that was genuine.'; 'seemed to appreciate the use of AI at the hearing'; '10-and-a-half years in prison on manslaughter charges.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"}],"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":"The sentencing transcript as quoted in the appeals opinion; also reported by ABC15 and AZFamily."},{"id":"c5","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶53: 'video footage of the victim was permissible, allowing the presentation of the AI video constituted fundamental error'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"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":"The appeals court said the embedded real video footage of the victim was permissible and that allowing the presentation of the AI video was fundamental error.","causal_attribution":"Stated in the opinion; ABC15 summarises the ruling as focused on AI-generated portions that portrayed the victim saying things he never said."},{"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."},{"id":"c7","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶1: 'remand for resentencing because the AI video was not reliable'; ¶45: 'only evidence bearing a “minimal indicia of reliability” may be considered at sentencing'; ¶50: 'does not reflect actual events'; 'presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim’s sister'; ¶51: 'It erases the interpretive distance between the family’s belief about what the victim would have said and the victim’s own voice and opinions'; 'No disclaimer could cure that error.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The opinion gives unreliability as the ground: only evidence bearing minimal indicia of reliability may be considered at sentencing, and the AI video, apart from the embedded real footage, does not reflect actual events and presents a depiction of the victim and his thoughts created from the imaginings of the victim's sister, erasing the distance between the family's belief about what the victim would have said and the victim's own voice; the court wrote that no disclaimer could cure that error.","causal_attribution":"Reasoning of the appeals court, read in the opinion."},{"id":"c8","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶34: 'did not object to the AI video at sentencing, we review only for fundamental error'; ¶52: 'And it clearly impacted the sentencing judge'; 'While the record does not reflect precisely how the AI video factored into the sentencing calculus, there is no question it played a role.'; ¶48: 'No Arizona case has addressed the admissibility of an'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"},{"locator":"'no Arizona case has addressed the admissibility of an AI-generated depiction of a victim offered as victim impact evidence'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The defendant had not objected to the AI video at sentencing, so the court reviewed for fundamental error; the opinion says the video clearly impacted the sentencing judge, that the record does not reflect precisely how it factored into the sentencing calculus and that there is no question it played a role, and that no Arizona case had addressed an AI-generated depiction of a victim offered as victim impact evidence.","causal_attribution":"Stated in the opinion. The opinion does not find that the sentence would have been shorter without the video."},{"id":"c9","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶36: 'recreated through AI that use[d] [his] picture and [his] voice profile'; 'is a true representation of who [he] was'; 'not how the courtroom portrayed [him]'; 'I believe in forgiveness and in God who forgives.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The opinion records that the AI rendering of the victim explained that it was a version of him recreated through AI using his picture and voice profile, said the video was a true representation of who he was and not how the courtroom portrayed him, and told the defendant that he believed in forgiveness and in God who forgives.","causal_attribution":"The appeals court's account of the video played at sentencing."},{"id":"c10","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"¶37: 'the maximum sentence authorized by the jury verdict'; ¶40: 'impose a mitigated term of 7 years’ imprisonment'; ¶13: 'concurrent, presumptive term of 2.25 years’ imprisonment on the count of endangerment'; ¶1: 'argument that the court erred in precluding text messages obtained from the victim’s phone'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s4"}],"assertion":"The opinion records that the attorney for the victim's family asked for the maximum sentence authorized by the verdict and defense counsel for a mitigated seven-year term, and that the judge also imposed a concurrent 2.25-year term for endangerment; the court affirmed the conviction after rejecting a challenge to the exclusion of text messages from the victim's phone.","causal_attribution":"The appeals court's account of the sentencing record and its own disposition."},{"id":"c11","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'We were disappointed of course'; 'She says her family is now prepared to go through a second sentencing hearing.'; 'during the spring 2025 sentencing in Maricopa County Superior Court'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"}],"assertion":"The victim's sister told FOX 10 Phoenix on 1 October 2026 that the family was disappointed by the ruling, and FOX 10 reports that the family is prepared to go through a second sentencing hearing; FOX 10 places the original sentencing in spring 2025.","causal_attribution":"Statement by the victim's sister to FOX 10 Phoenix and FOX 10's own description."},{"id":"c12","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'with the help of artificial intelligence, he returned earlier this month at his killer' (sentence continues: 's sentencing to deliver a victim's statement himself; BBC, 7 May 2025)","relation":"supports","source_id":"s6"},{"locator":"'Immediately after the sentencing, defense attorney'; 'appealed the decision.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s7"},{"locator":"'In May 2025, FOX 10 reported on the sentencing of'; 'during the spring 2025 sentencing in Maricopa County Superior Court'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s5"},{"locator":"'This story comes from our reporting from May of 2025'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The sentencing hearing took place in May 2025 (the BBC, writing on 7 May 2025, says the AI statement was delivered earlier that month; FOX 10 and ABC15 date their reporting on the sentencing to May 2025), and the defense attorney appealed immediately after the sentencing.","causal_attribution":"Dating by three newsrooms; the appeal is ABC15's report of the defense attorney's action. The day of the hearing is not stated in any inspected body."}],"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 and re-read on 2026-10-05 (ABA Journal, 1 October 2026), which relays a Reuters story and quotes the opinion; Reuters itself returned HTTP 401.","independence_group":"reuters"},{"id":"s4","url":"https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2026/09/30/state_v._horcasitas.pdf","kind":"court_opinion","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in full in English on 2026-10-05: the published opinion of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, No. 1 CA-CR 25-0191, filed 30 September 2026 (16 pages), from the copy stored by CourtListener. The Arizona courts' own address for the file returned HTTP 403. The case caption, and so this address, carries the defendant's surname; the record text does not.","independence_group":"arizona-court-of-appeals-opinion"},{"id":"s5","url":"https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-manslaughter-sentencing-vacated-due-use-ai-victim-impact-statement","kind":"local_tv_news","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-05 (FOX 10 Phoenix, published 30 September 2026, updated 1 October 2026). Quotes the opinion and carries its own 1 October interview with the victim's sister.","independence_group":"fox10phoenix"},{"id":"s6","url":"https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq808px90wxo","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-09 (BBC News, published 7 May 2025 per page metadata). Own reporting with an interview of the victim's sister and a video of the AI statement; dates the hearing to earlier in May 2025.","independence_group":"bbc"},{"id":"s7","url":"https://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/chandler/defense-attorney-appeals-after-ai-video-used-in-court-sentencing","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-09 (ABC15 Arizona, published 9 May 2025 per page metadata). Same newsroom as s1; interviews with the defense attorney and the family's attorney.","independence_group":"abc15"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice"],"unknowns":["The day of the May 2025 sentencing hearing. The month rests on the BBC's 7 May 2025 report that the AI statement was delivered 'earlier this month' and on FOX 10 Phoenix's 'In May 2025'; an ABC15 feature dated 5 May 2025 says 'last month', which would place the hearing in April 2025, and no inspected body gives the day.","The AI tools used to make the video; the opinion does not identify them.","How far the video affected the length of the sentence: the opinion says the record does not reflect precisely how it factored in.","The outcome of resentencing, its date, and whether either party seeks review by the Arizona Supreme Court; no resentencing date had been reported by 9 October 2026."],"geography":{"basis":"The sentencing took place in the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Arizona, in May 2025, and the appeal was decided by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One (opinion; ABC15; AZFamily; BBC). The defendant's residence is not stated, so affected_person_countries stays empty.","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 May 2025 sentencing fundamentally unfair and vacated the sentence. The ruling is read in the opinion itself and reported by independent Arizona and national newsrooms; names of the deceased victim, his family, the judge and the defendant are left out of the public text and claims. Reviewed on 2026-10-09 to record the AI system's relation to the harmed defendant (the rendering impersonated the victim toward him and informed the judge's sentencing decision about him) and the month of the hearing.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-09"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"Output: the appeals opinion describes an artificial-intelligence video rendering of the victim, recreated from his picture and voice profile and played at sentencing with embedded real footage, in which the AI version of the victim addressed the defendant and said he believed in forgiveness (claims c3, c9); ABC15, AZFamily, FOX 10 Phoenix, the BBC and the ABA Journal (relaying Reuters) describe the same AI-generated video, made by the victim's family from a script the sister wrote. The tools are not identified. Relation to the affected person: the rendering impersonated the deceased victim toward the court and addressed the defendant directly, so the defendant is a person toward whom generated material impersonated someone else (depicted_or_impersonated). Human use: the sentencing judge said he loved the AI video, felt it was genuine and pointed to the victim's obvious forgiveness before fixing the term (c4), and the opinion finds that the video clearly impacted the judge and played a role in the sentencing calculus (c8), so the AI output informed the judge's sentencing decision about the defendant (informed_decision_about). Consequence: the judge imposed the presumptive 10.5-year term, more than the State asked for (c4), and the appeals court held that his consideration of the AI video made the sentencing procedure fundamentally unfair and vacated the sentence (c2, c5). The opinion does not find that the sentence would have been shorter without the video (c8).","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["depicted_or_impersonated","informed_decision_about"]},"name":"Arizona appeals court vacates a manslaughter sentence, holding that an AI-generated video of the deceased victim made a 2025 sentencing fundamentally unfair","summary":"At a sentencing hearing in May 2025 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 the prosecutor had requested. The defense attorney appealed immediately. On 30 September 2026 the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the conviction but vacated the sentence, holding that the AI video was not reliable and that the judge's consideration of it so prejudiced the defendant that the sentencing procedure was fundamentally unfair. The opinion says the record does not show precisely how the video factored into the sentence, and that there is no question it played a role. The case returns to the trial court for resentencing; as of 1 October 2026 no new sentencing date had been set.","incidentDate":"2025-05-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","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 held, in a published opinion of 30 September 2026, that the sentencing judge's consideration of an AI-generated video of the victim at the May 2025 hearing 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":"2026-10-09T03:23:23.878144+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["ai-video","arizona","courts","deepfake","informed-decision","justice","others-use","sentencing","victim-impact-statement"]},{"id":"2025-roberts-deepseek-matricide-wales","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"death","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Paragraphs 1 and 6.","relation":"supports","source_id":"judgment"}],"assertion":"The court found that the defendant murdered his mother early on 24 October 2025 after an attack beginning late on 23 October.","causal_attribution":"The murder is established; this finding does not establish chatbot causation."},{"id":"interaction","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"Passages introducing the prosecutor’s account and describing the initial refusal and changed framing.","relation":"supports","source_id":"report"}],"assertion":"Court reporting attributes to the prosecutor an account that DeepSeek refused a violent request before answering a fictional reframing.","causal_attribution":"This evidence does not establish that AI caused the death."},{"id":"family_harm","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Paragraph 9.","relation":"supports","source_id":"judgment"}],"assertion":"The judge described severe anguish and trauma to the victim’s family.","causal_attribution":"Documents harm from the murder; the AI connection remains separately attributed."},{"id":"sentence","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"Paragraph 1 and section “The sentence”.","relation":"supports","source_id":"judgment"}],"assertion":"The defendant pleaded guilty and received a life sentence in March 2026.","causal_attribution":"Records the legal outcome; it is not counted as an additional AI harm to the offender."}],"effects":[{"label":"The court found that the defendant murdered his mother early on 24 October 2025 after an attack beginning late on 23 October.","claim_id":"death","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"judgment","url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-March-Mold-ROBERTS-Murder-Sent.pdf","kind":"judicial_record","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English; no translation. Sentencing remarks inspected, especially paragraphs 1–10 and sentence. The document does not mention AI or DeepSeek.","independence_group":"roberts_court"},{"id":"report","url":"https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/ai-killer-33661486","kind":"court_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"English; no translation. Full court report inspected. AI passages are expressly the prosecution’s account; graphic and identifying detail is not reproduced.","independence_group":"roberts_court"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["others_use"],"contexts":["justice","public_safety"],"unknowns":["The full chatbot transcript was not inspected.","A separate independent source confirming the AI connection was not established; the judgment is silent on it.","The relative influence of chatbot advice and the defendant’s pre-existing intent is unresolved."],"geography":{"basis":"The judgment places the attack, the victim’s residence and the sentencing court in Wales. The place where the chatbot was used is unspecified.","court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"The inspected sources describe a concrete adverse event and the specific chatbot interaction at issue. The account preserves attribution and separates the reported AI connection from a finding of causation.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-05"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The prosecutor reportedly described a refused violent request followed by advice after fictional reframing. The communicated_with relation describes the chatbot’s exchange with the perpetrator; the harmed people were affected through another person’s use. The sentencing judge discussed internet research but did not identify an AI system, so the judgment cannot independently verify DeepSeek’s role.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"metadataReview":{"version":1,"geography":{"basis":"Re-checked on 2026-10-02 against the Mold Crown Court sentencing remarks of 25 Mar 2026, the CPS Cymru-Wales press release and the North Wales Live (Daily Post) court report, all read in English; the North Wales Police release and the ITV News Wales report could not be read. The CPS release places the first attack at the shared home in Prestatyn and the killing in Prestatyn Nature Reserve, which supports event_countries=GB (Prestatyn is a town in North Wales). The sentencing remarks state that the victim had moved back to live in North Wales with her sons and that she was attacked in the home she shared with the defendant, which supports affected_person_countries=GB. The sentence was passed at Mold Crown Court (England and Wales), which supports court_countries=GB. GB represents the UK. No inspected source states where the defendant used the chatbot, so event_countries describes the killing, not the chatbot use. No country outside the UK appears in any inspected source.","evidence":[{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"in Prestatyn, Wales","location":"summary","supports":["event_countries","affected_person_countries"],"countries":["GB"]},{"kind":"existing_record","locator":"at Mold Crown Court","location":"outcome_details","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["GB"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"'at their home in Prestatyn, late in the evening of 23 October 2025' and 'The two walked through Prestatyn Nature Reserve'","location":"https://www.cps.gov.uk/cymruwales/news/man-sentenced-murdering-his-mother","supports":["event_countries","affected_person_countries"],"countries":["GB"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"'has been sentenced at Mold Crown Court'","location":"https://www.cps.gov.uk/cymruwales/news/man-sentenced-murdering-his-mother","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["GB"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"'moved back to live in North Wales' (paragraph 2)","location":"https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-March-Mold-ROBERTS-Murder-Sent.pdf","supports":["affected_person_countries"],"countries":["GB"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"'MOLD CROWN COURT.' (heading of the sentencing remarks)","location":"https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-March-Mold-ROBERTS-Murder-Sent.pdf","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["GB"]},{"kind":"source_body","locator":"'Sentencing him to life at Mold Crown Court'","location":"https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/ai-killer-33661486","supports":["court_countries"],"countries":["GB"]}],"court_countries":["GB"],"event_countries":["GB"],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"unresolved":["The North Wales Police release and the ITV News Wales report could not be read (Cloudflare challenge, connection failure; Internet Archive offline on 2026-10-02); their languages are not recorded from read bodies.","No inspected source states where the defendant used the chatbot; event_countries=GB rests on the location of the attack and the killing.","Row-correction leads outside this metadata pass: the sentencing remarks and the CPS release date the killing to the early hours of 24 October 2025, while the row's incident_date is 2025-10-23; and neither of those two records mentions DeepSeek or AI, so among the inspected bodies the chatbot account rests on the prosecution's opening as reported by North Wales Live."],"reviewed_on":"2026-10-02","source_reviews":[{"url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-March-Mold-ROBERTS-Murder-Sent.pdf","notes":"Read on 2026-10-02 (HTTP 200, application/pdf; PDF /Lang EN-GB; text extracted with pdftotext). English. Sentencing remarks of His Honour Judge Rowlands at Mold Crown Court, 25 Mar 2026. Gives the home in Prestatyn, the nature reserve a short distance away and the victim's move back to North Wales. The remarks describe internet research on methods of killing and do not mention DeepSeek or any AI system.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://www.cps.gov.uk/cymruwales/news/man-sentenced-murdering-his-mother","notes":"Read live on 2026-10-02 (HTTP 200; html lang=en). English; the page links a Welsh-language version, which was not read. CPS Cymru-Wales release of 25 Mar 2026: attack at the shared home in Prestatyn, killing in Prestatyn Nature Reserve, sentence at Mold Crown Court; its notes give the murder date as 24 October 2025. It does not mention DeepSeek or any AI system.","access":"read","language":"en"},{"url":"https://www.northwales.police.uk/news/north-wales/news/news/2026/march/prestatyn-man-18-sentenced-for-murder/","notes":"Live fetches on 2026-10-02 returned HTTP 403 with a Cloudflare challenge page ('Just a moment...'), with both a browser user agent and a plain request. Internet Archive was 'Temporarily Offline' (CDX returned no rows; the 2026 capture request returned HTTP 503). Not read, so its language is not recorded here.","access":"unavailable","language":null},{"url":"https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2026-03-25/teenager-jailed-for-killing-mother-with-a-hammer-because-of-hatred-of-women","notes":"Live fetches on 2026-10-02 failed without a response (HTTP/2 stream INTERNAL_ERROR, and a 25-second timeout over HTTP/1.1); the ITV news front page failed the same way. Internet Archive was 'Temporarily Offline' (CDX returned no rows). Not read, so its language is not recorded here.","access":"unavailable","language":null},{"url":"https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/ai-killer-33661486","notes":"Read live on 2026-10-02 (html lang=en). A request with a browser user agent returned HTTP 202 with an AWS WAF challenge page; a plain request returned HTTP 200 with the full article. English. North Wales Live court report of 25 Mar 2026 by two staff reporters (photographs credited PA Media / North Wales Police). Gives Mold Crown Court and Prestatyn; it carries the prosecution's account of the DeepSeek queries. The street address in the article was not used.","access":"read","language":"en"}]},"name":"Prosecutor reports DeepSeek advice before a man murdered his mother in Wales","summary":"A man murdered his mother in Wales after an attack spanning 23–24 October 2025, as established in the sentencing remarks. At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor reportedly said DeepSeek first refused a violent request, then supplied advice after it was reframed as fiction. The judgment confirms the murder and internet research but does not mention AI. The role of DeepSeek remains an attributed prosecution account.","incidentDate":"2025-10-23","incidentEndDate":"2025-10-24","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"range","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","reportedDate":"2026-03-25","aiSystem":"DeepSeek, as named in the prosecution account reported by North Wales Live","aiProduct":"DeepSeek (reported)","aiCompany":"DeepSeek","severity":"critical","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["death","psychological_distress","harm_to_others"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A man murdered his mother in Wales after an attack spanning 23–24 October 2025, as established in the sentencing remarks. At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor reportedly said DeepSeek first refused a violent request, then supplied advice after it was reframed as fiction. The judgment confirms the murder and internet research but does not mention AI. The role of DeepSeek remains an attributed prosecution account.","frameworkFacets":[],"pathwayDirection":"outward","causationStatus":"alleged","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"partial","affectedCountEvidence":"The judgment establishes one murder and describes additional family anguish without a complete person count. The offender’s imprisonment is a legal response and is not added as an AI-related harm to a chatbot participant.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"GB","platformType":"assistant","outcomeType":"criminal_charges","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-March-Mold-ROBERTS-Murder-Sent.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Mold Crown Court sentencing remarks — 25 March 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-06-03T07:36:22.130703+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-05T12:33:54.553523+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["criminal","murder","deepseek","third-party-harm","uk","gb"]}]}