Just to be clear, they were fully transparent about it:

“Hello, just to be clear for everyone seeing this, I am a version of Chris Pelkey recreated through AI that uses my picture and my voice profile,” the stilted avatar says. “I was able to be digitally regenerated to share with you today. Here is insight into who I actually was in real life.”

However, I think the following is somewhat misleading:

The video goes back to the AI avatar. “I would like to make my own impact statement,” the avatar says.

It's the victim's sister's impact statement, not his, regardless of how genuine her intent to speak in his voice.

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. It seems that the motivation was genuine compassion from the victim's family, and a desire to honestly represent victim to the best of their ability. Here's what the judge had to say:

“I loved that AI, and thank you for that. As angry as you are, and as justifiably angry as the family is, I heard the forgiveness, and I know Mr. Horcasitas could appreciate it, but so did I,” Lang said immediately before sentencing Horcasitas. “I love the beauty in what Christopher, and I call him Christopher—I always call people by their last names, it’s a formality of the court—but I feel like calling him Christopher as we’ve gotten to know him today. I feel that that was genuine, because obviously the forgiveness of Mr. Horcasitas reflects the character I heard about today. But it also 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. I didn’t hear him asking for the maximum sentence.”

I am concerned that it could set a precedent for misuse, though. The whole thing seems like very grey to me. I'd suggest everyone read the whole article before passing judgement.

There were videos shown during the trial that Stacey said were deeply difficult to sit through. “Videos of Chris literally being blown away with a bullet through his chest, going in the street, falling backward. We saw these items over and over and over,” she said. “And we were instructed: don’t you gasp and don’t you cry and do not make a scene, because that can cause a mistrial.”

“Our goal was to make the judge cry. Our goal was to bring Chris to life and to humanize him,” she said.

If gasping at video of real events is grounds for a mistrial, then so is fabricated statements intended to emotionally manipulate the court. It's ludicrous that this was allowed and honestly is grounds to disbar the judge. If he allows AI nonsense like this, then his courtroom can not be relied upon for fair trials.

Victim statements to the court are always emotionally manipulative. It's akin to playing a video of home movies of the deceased, and obviously the judge understands that it is a fictitious creation.

No, this is exactly why it shouldn't be allowed. This isn't akin to playing a video of home movies because this is a fake video of the victim. This is complete fiction and people thinking it's the same thing is what makes it wrong.

This is just weird uninformed nonsense.

The reason that outbursts, like gasping or crying, can cause a mistrial is because they can unfairly influence a jury and so the rules of evidence do not allow them. This isn't part of trial, the jury has already reached a verdict.

Victim impact statements are not evidence and are not governed by the rules of evidence.

It’s ludicrous that this was allowed and honestly is grounds to disbar the judge. If he allows AI nonsense like this, then his courtroom can not be relied upon for fair trials.

More nonsense.

If you were correct, and there were actual legal grounds to object to these statements then the defense attorney could have objected to them.

Here's an actual attorney. From the article:

Jessica Gattuso, the victim’s right attorney that worked with Pelkey’s family, told 404 Media that Arizona’s laws made the AI testimony possible. “We have a victim’s bill of rights,” she said. “[Victims] have the discretion to pick what format they’d like to give the statement. So I didn’t see any issues with the AI and there was no objection. I don’t believe anyone thought there was an issue with it.”

I was able to be digitally regenerated

I would like to make my own impact statement

you allowed Chris to speak from his heart as you saw it. I didn’t hear him asking for the maximum sentence.

These, especially the second, cross the line imo. The judge acknowledges it's AI but is acting like it isn't, and same for the sister especially.

It is like a home movie in that it is an attempt to humanize the victim. There is no evidence in a home movie, no relevant facts, just an idea of the person that's gone. You're right that one is a memory of something that happened while the other is a fabrication of something that might have happened, but they are both equally (ir)relevant and emotionally manipulative. Many jurisdictions do prohibit victim statements beyond a written or verbal testimony. Some countries and states require you to use a form and won't admit statements that do not adhere to the form.

Also remember that this is for the judge, not a jury.