In today’s opinion by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (D.D.C.) in U.S. v. Michel, Michel was convicted of crimes related to “conduit contributions, witness tampering, and foreign lobbying,” and sought a new trial on various grounds. One of his claims involved his trial lawyer David Kenner’s use of a “proprietary prototype AI program” to draft his closing argument. Michel argued that this AI-generated closing argument contained frivolous arguments, misunderstood required elements, mixed up schemes, and overlooked critical weaknesses in the Government’s case, resulting in a deficient and prejudicial closing argument. The Court first addressed the portion of the closing argument generated by the AI program before moving on to other issues raised by Michel in Kenner’s closing argument.
During an evidentiary hearing, Alon Israely, a member of Michel’s trial team, confirmed that they used an AI program created by EyeLevel.AI (“EyeLevel”) as a preparation tool during the trial. Israely described the AI program as a “helper tool” to ensure that the defense team did not miss anything while preparing for closing arguments. Kenner also testified that a portion of his closing argument was generated by the AI program.
Based on the testimony and evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing, the Court concluded that one portion of Kenner’s closing argument was indeed generated by the AI program. The AI program produced a closing argument based on input text provided by Michel’s defense team, incorporating lyrics from the Fugees’ song “Ghetto Superstar.” The AI-generated argument focused on the presumption of innocence, the lack of concrete evidence, and the impact of the trial on Michel’s life, urging the jury to return a verdict of not guilty.
During the actual closing argument to the jury, Kenner referenced the Fugees’ song and reiterated similar themes presented in the AI-generated argument. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, the high burden of proof on the prosecution, and urged the jury to consider the lack of concrete evidence and inconsistencies in the case.
The court rejected the claim that the AI program used in the closing argument resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel for Michel. The AI program attributed a Puff Daddy song to Michel, which was a mistake that Kenner did not catch during trial. However, Michel failed to demonstrate how this mistake prejudiced the outcome of the trial. The content from the AI program was not related to any evidence in the case, and therefore did not impact the trial significantly.
Additionally, the court dismissed the conflict of interest claim related to the AI program. It was revealed that Kenner and Israely did not have a financial interest in the AI program, and there was no evidence to suggest that their use of the program was motivated by financial gain. The court concluded that there was no actual conflict of interest that affected Kenner’s representation of Michel.
For more information on the alleged flaws in the closing argument and the court’s opinion, refer to the provided link.
Source link
