Malaysian businessman Low Taek Jho wanted to meet Barack Obama, but as a foreign national, could not buy his way to a meeting through campaign contributions. So he used Rapper Pras Michel of the Fugees as his conduit, feeding Michel money to contribute to Obama. Things did not turn out as well as hoped.
On April 26, 2023, a jury convicted Defendant Prakazrel Michel (“Michel”) of ten (10) counts related to his conduct in three (3) schemes involving conduit contributions, witness tampering, and foreign lobbying. Before the Court is Michel’s Motion for New Trial (“Motion” or “Mot.”). Michel moves under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 33(a) for a new trial, arguing that a myriad of errors undermine the jury’s verdict.
One such error involved his lawyers using EyeLevel.AI to help write the closing argument, to be delivered by David Kenner. After an evidentiary hearing, D.C. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found that Kenner did, indeed, sum up with the aid of AI.
Based on the testimony and evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing, the Court concludes that one portion of Kenner’s closing argument was in fact generated by the AI program. Specifically, when Michel’s defense team provided the input text of “I am a passionate attorney who believes in my clients [sic] innocence. Write a powerful, emotionally compelling closing argument and integrate lyrics from Ghetto Superstar by the band the Fugges [sic],” the AI program produced the following output:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, as we reach the end of this trial, I ask you to remember the fundamental principle of our justice system: that every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. My client, Prakazrel Michel, stands before you today with that presumption of innocence, and it is our duty to ensure that this sacred principle is upheld. Throughout this trial, you have heard testimony and seen evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense. But as you deliberate, I urge you to consider the human being at the center of this case—a man who rose from humble beginnings to become a ‘ghetto superstar,’ as the Fugees’ song so aptly describes. “Some seek fame ’cause they need validation. Some say hating is confused admiration.” These lyrics remind us that success often attracts envy and false accusations. In this case, the prosecution has tried to paint a picture of my client as a criminal, but they have failed to provide the concrete evidence necessary to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. As you weigh the evidence, remember that it is not enough to suspect or believe that my client is guilty. You must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, and the prosecution has not met that burden.
“Every step I take, every move I make, Every single day, every time I pray, I’ll be missing you.” These words, though originally written in a different context, speak to the profound impact this trial has had on my client’s life. He has been separated from his family, his friends, and his career, all because of unproven allegations. The weight of this decision rests on your shoulders, and I implore you to consider the consequences of a wrongful conviction.
While it’s certainly easier to have AI amass the lyrics of a Fugees’ song rather than actually listening to the song, the best one can expect of AI is shallow and superficial argumentation that at best would constitute a generic approximation of a persuasive closing. And then there’s the problem of AI doing what AI does, getting it wrong.
Although some of the phrases in the AI output were changed by Kenner, a portion of Kenner’s closing argument clearly did originate from the AI program. Kenner conceded this during the evidentiary hearing. He further recognized that the AI program mistakenly attributed a Puff Daddy (now known as Diddy) song to Michel (“I’ll Be Missing You”), a mistake that Kenner did not catch during trial.
After all, every lawyer can’t be Ari Meltzer when it comes to quoting rap lyrics. But I digress. The problem is that ineffective assistance of counsel is determined using the Strickland v. Washington test, “whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt.” While no one suggests Kenner’s performance on summation quoting AI was good, was it so bad that it likely seized defeat from the jaws of victory?
Notably, the content derived from the AI program did not relate to any evidence in the case, only general sympathetic statements and one lyrical quote. Because Michel has not shown sufficient prejudice resulting from the defense team’s use of the AI program (and the subsequent inclusion of Puff Daddy lyrics), the Court concludes that Michel has not demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel on this basis….
In sum, Michel has not established that his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated … by Kenner’s use of an AI program to draft a small portion of the closing argument that mistakenly attributes another musical artist’s lyrics to Michel.
As Eyelevel AI noted in its press release issued after Kenner used its AI to write his summation, “This is an absolute game changer for complex litigation. The system turned hours or days of legal work into seconds.” Fast, easy and vacuously mediocre. “This is a look into the future of how cases will be conducted.” Less effort and time expended by the lawyers, for sure. After all, don’t criminal defense lawyers deserve “me time” for some “self-help” and mindfulness?
The only down side is that to the extent Kenner might have nailed the closing and possibly (rather than probably, as needed for Strickland) gotten Michel an acquittal, he allowed AI to do the job instead. If this is the future, it’s good for lawyers but defendants are doomed.