Not at all, because it would have been her making claims about what she believes her brother would have said, and not a simulacrum of her brother speaking her words with his voice.
You can say that all you want, but when your brain is presented with a video of a person, using that person’s voice, you’re going to take what’s being said as being from that person in the video.
True, many people would have that problem, which is why the context in which the video was shown was acceptable; it was after the verdict had been given.
Not at all, because it would have been her making claims about what she believes her brother would have said, and not a simulacrum of her brother speaking her words with his voice.
But that’s what she did. She was upfront about the fact that it was an AI video reciting a script that she’d written.
You can say that all you want, but when your brain is presented with a video of a person, using that person’s voice, you’re going to take what’s being said as being from that person in the video.
True, many people would have that problem, which is why the context in which the video was shown was acceptable; it was after the verdict had been given.
Such a thing should not impact sentencing, either. The judge allowed it, the judge was swayed by it, it impacted sentencing. This is wrong.