A U.S. Army veteran was tragically killed in a road rage incident nearly four years ago. Despite this, he was able to forgive the man who fatally shot him, all thanks to artificial intelligence.

Christopher Pelkey, aged 37, was shot and killed by Gabriel Paul Horcasitas while he was returning home from a church softball game in Chandler, Arizona on November 13, 2021, as reported by an online fundraiser.

After being found guilty of Pelkey’s manslaughter, Horcasitas awaited sentencing. During this time, the court listened to an AI-generated version of Pelkey speaking.

The heartbreaking AI video was created by Pelkey’s sister Stacey Wales, who felt that the shooter needed to hear what the Army veteran would have told him.

‘To Gabriel Horcasitas, the man who shot me: It’s a shame we encountered each other that day in those circumstances,’ the AI said, according to Fox 10.  

‘In another life, we probably could have been friends,’ it continued, noting: ‘I believe in forgiveness and in [a] God who forgives. I always have and I still do.’

The four-and-a-half minute long video went on to include real video clips taken while Pelkey was still alive and showed a real photo he once took with an ‘old age’ filter, ABC 15 reports. 

‘This is the best I can ever give you of what I would have looked like if I got the chance to grow old,’ the AI version of the Army vet said. ‘Remember, getting old is a gift that not everyone has, so embrace it and stop worrying about those wrinkles.’ 

He concluded by saying, ‘Well, I’m gonna go fishing now. Love you all. See you on the other side.’

The video moved Judge Todd Lang so thoroughly that he decided to sentence Horcasitas to 10 and half years in jail – one year more than the state prosecutors were asking for.

‘I love that AI,’ he said after the video played in his courtroom. ‘Thank you for that.

‘I felt like that was genuine; that his obvious forgiveness of Mr. Horcasitas reflects the character I heard about today.’

He added that the video ‘says something about the family, because you told me how angry you were and you demanded the maximum sentence.

‘And even though that’s what you wanted, you allowed Chris to speak from his heart as you saw it,’ the judge told Wales, noting: ‘I didn’t hear him ask for the maximum sentence.’ 

The AI-generated video provided another benefit as well – giving Pelkey’s family some closure.

‘There was something about seeing Chris and the man that I knew and the belief that I thought in my head that Chris would have forgiven this guy,’ said his older brother, John, who – like the rest of the family – was unaware his sister was making the video.

‘To see his face and to hear his voice say it, just waves of healing washed over my soul,’ John continued. ‘Because that was the man I knew.’

Wales’ teenage son also thanked her in the aftermath, saying he ‘needed to hear from Uncle Chris one last time.’

But creating the AI video was no small feat –  and was not something Wales had originally planned to do.

Instead, she told NPR how she had kept a list for two years of everything she would like to say to the man who killed her brother, but could not think of what to write once it actually came time to write her victim impact statement.

At that point, she reached out to as many people from Pelkey’s life as possible to provide the judge with a full picture of the man she knew – from his elementary school teacher, to his high school prom date and the soldiers he served with on three tours to the Middle East.

In the end, Wales said she had nearly 50 victim impact statements – but still felt like something was missing.

‘He doesn’t get a say,’ she realized of her brother. ‘He doesn’t get a chance to speak.’ 

Wales then decided to sit down at her computer and write ‘what he would have said,’ and when she was done she realized, ‘That was pretty good. I’d like to hear that if I was the judge,’ she told AZ Family, noting that even though she had not yet forgiven Horchasitas, her brother would have.

Then, Wales turned to her husband, Tim, and their friend Scott Yentzer, who together have been working on AI for years, to get Pelkey to say these words himself.

The problem, they soon realized, was that there was not a single program that was designed to make a video like this.

They also needed a long, clear audio clip of Pelkey’s voice and a photo of him looking straight at the camera – neither of which Wales had. 

So the trio instead used multiple AI programs to create the four and a half minute long video, using his funeral photo.

Still, NPR reports, they had to digitally remove the sunglasses from atop Pelkey’s hat and trimmed his beard.

Recreating his laugh was also difficult, Wales said, because most clips of Pelkey laughing were filled with background noise. 

 When the project was finally finished, Wales reached out to victim’s rights attorney Jessica Gattuso to tell her about the video.

At first, Gattuso said she was hesitant to play the video in court because nothing like that has ever been done before.

But after seeing the video, the lawyer said she felt compelled that it should be viewed at the hearing.

‘I knew it would have an impact on everyone, including the shooter, because it was a message of forgiveness,’ she explained.

And that’s just who Pelkey was, his sister said, telling how everyone who knew her brother ‘agreed this capture was a true representation of the spirit and soul of how Chris would have thought about his own sentencing as a murder victim.

‘He was the best of us,’ Wales said of her brother. ‘What he believes was clear. What he believes was pure. And what he loved was for everyone.

‘And that’s the reason why this worked, is because his blanket of love.’ 

Still, legal experts say the use of artificial intelligence in judicial hearings may be a slippery slope.

In fact, the Arizona State Supreme Court has convened a committee ‘to examine AI use and make recommendations for how best to use it.’

In this case, Arizona State law professor Gary Marchant – who serves on the committee – said he thinks the use of the emerging technology is fine.

‘If you look at the facts of this case, I would say the value of it overweighed the prejudicial effect, but if you look at other cases, you could imagine where they would be very prejudicial,’ he explained.

‘The judicial system is moving to address this as proactively as possible,’ he continued. ‘The problem, of course, is there are so many different possibilities here – some of which are more acceptable than others.

‘How you draw the line is going to be very difficult, but certainly the courts seem to be moving forward to try to deal with this,’ he said.