Rapper from Fugees Argues AI’s Role in Legal Defense Warrants Retrial

In a high-stakes conspiracy trial encompassing both the political and entertainment spheres, the spotlight has now turned to technology, with claims that the defense attorney’s use of a generative artificial intelligence program adversely impacted the case of rapper Prakazrel “Pras” Michel from the Fugees.

According to a new motion filed this week by his fresh legal team, Michel contends that his former attorney’s employment of the so-called “experimental” AI system was among numerous mistakes committed by an “incompetent, ill-prepared, and ineffective” lawyer, leading to his conviction earlier in the year. The company responsible for the AI software countered by stating that the technology serves as a tool for drafting closing arguments and heralds transformative shifts in the legal sector.

Generative AI technologies, capable of producing authentic text, images, and videos, are generating ethical debates over misinformation, intellectual property rights, and even prompting calls for legislative oversight. Tools like ChatGPT have already created notable impacts across various sectors such as journalism and education. The Michel case may offer an early glimpse into future dilemmas as this technology continues to evolve rapidly.

The trial involving the Grammy-winning rapper was publicized as the inaugural federal case to employ generative AI, according to a press release from the startup that developed the system. David Kenner, the defense attorney renowned for representing other high-profile rappers like Suge Knight and Snoop Dogg, described the AI as a “landmark innovation for intricate legal battles.”

However, during his final statement to the jury, Kenner seemingly confused crucial case details and wrongly attributed the lyric, “Every single day, every time I pray, I will be missing you,” to the Fugees, when in fact it originates from a song by rapper Diddy, formerly known as Puff Daddy, stated court documents from Michel’s current attorney, Peter Zeidenberg.

Kenner remained unresponsive to attempts to reach him for comments. EyeLevel.AI, the company behind the AI program, refuted claims of it being “experimental,” affirming that the technology was trained solely on case-relevant facts, including court transcripts. Neil Katz, the COO and co-founder, emphasized that the AI is designed to assist, rather than supplant, human attorneys, denying any financial incentives tied to Kenner’s use of the program.

The case is poised to garner close attention as legal firms increasingly adopt such technologies, observed Sharon Nelson, president of Sensei Enterprises, a digital forensics and cybersecurity firm. She noted that a growing number of firms have begun using AI, with projections suggesting more than half of all lawyers will adopt it within the next year. “The pace of adoption has exceeded expectations,” Nelson added. “Those who ignore this technology do so at their own peril.”

Michel was convicted in April on all ten charges levied against him, which included conspiracy and acting as an unauthorized agent for a foreign government. He potentially faces up to 20 years in prison for the most serious offenses and is currently free pending sentencing, which remains to be scheduled.

Zeidenberg, Michel’s new attorney, expressed that both the AI and Kenner failed Michel. “The closing argument was not only inadequate but also damaging, causing prejudice against the defense,” he noted. Additional reasons cited for a retrial include the jury’s potential bias due to references to the “crime fraud exception” and “co-conspirators.”

The charges against Michel involve the alleged redirection of funds from a fugitive Malaysian financier to Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, followed by attempts to interfere in a Justice Department investigation and sway an extradition case favoring China during the Trump administration.

A decision on the motion for a new trial has not yet been announced.

As the legal field slowly adopts generative AI, there are myriad complications to consider, warned John Villasenor, a professor of engineering and public policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. He pointed out that generative AI can sometimes produce misleading statements that may initially appear accurate. “Attorneys employing AI should exercise extreme caution in verifying the information they plan to use,” he said. The American Bar Association has yet to issue guidelines concerning AI use in legal practice, although a new task force is studying the matter.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Generative AI in legal defense

More about Generative AI in legal defense

• Ethical Considerations in AI and Law
• Introduction to Generative AI
• The Rise of AI in the Legal Profession
• Overview of Prakazrel “Pras” Michel’s Career
• History of the Fugees
• Current State of AI Regulation in the U.S.
• The Role of AI in Modern Journalism
• The American Bar Association’s Stance on AI in Law