Fugees’ Pras Michel Files Motion For Retrial, Says Attorney Used AI In “Damaging” Closing Argument

Previously, in 2022, Pras Michel had gotten a new trial date for his alleged conspiracy and alleged money laundering case. The date originally was set for November of that year. However, the date changed to March 27 of this year. On Monday, October 16, Fugees’ rapper Pras Michel filed a motion for retrial and stated that his attorney allegedly used an AI program to write an allegedly “damaging” closing argument. Pras’s motion for retrial referred to AI program EyeLevel, allegedly specifying that CaseFile Connect technology was allegedly used in the trial against Pras Michel.

According to Pitchfork, the lawsuit against Pras deemed the rapper guilty of alleged conspiracy to allegedly defraud the government of the United States and allegedly making campaign contributions. Pras allegedly made three campaign contributions. One of his alleged contributions allegedly conceals material facts, while the other two alleged contributions focus on allegedly making an alleged false entry in an alleged record with the alleged connection to the alleged conspiracy to allegedly defraud the United States government.

Furthermore, Pras was accused of allegedly sending money to Low Taek Jho (Jho Low) for political campaigns. The rapper has also allegedly made false statements that connect to his alleged conspiracy of allegedly defrauding the U.S. government.

Pras has since filed a motion for his retrial. Discussion about EyeLevel.AI and the attorney’s alleged use of the AI program was announced. Kenner, who is his present attorney, has since made his argument about his stance on the motion of retrial. The attorney was reported also to discuss much about the alleged use of AI technology in defending his case.

Pras’ new legal team has also discussed Kenner’s statement discussing the latter’s arguments about the motion of retrial: “[Kenner’s statement had] an admission of guilt and [Kenner] failed to make the strongest and most obvious argument and that there was no evidence that Michel or anyone else acted at the ‘direction or control’ of the Chinese government. The closing argument was deficient, unhelpful, and a missed opportunity that prejudiced the defense.”