Georgia murder case; AI, DEI, lies, made-up case citations, non-existent quotations and much more.
This is an especially egregious case of prosecutorial misconduct since it arose from a murder case where the defendant was convicted at trial and sentenced to life in prison.
The questioning of the lawyer representing the Clayton County DA's office by the Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court is mind-numbing.
He states that there were five fabricated case citations, five more which did not support claims made by the prosecution and three non-existent quotations which were submitted to the court.
The lawyer before him admits to having employed AI despite a prohibition on using AI in the DA's office which was confirmed by the DA herself. Despite the prohibition against using AI, the lawyer implies that she would use it again but with increased caution.
Thankfully, there are many videos discussing this case. This one seems to cover many of the important issues fairly succinctly.
April 09, 2026, 04:37 PM
ScreamingCockatoo
This man will get out on appeal. Clayton county is filled with lazy corrupt politicians. It's a shithole.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.
April 09, 2026, 05:38 PM
tatortodd
That prosecutor should be unemployed and disbarred.
Which AI did the prosecuting attorney use? The YouTuber said ChatGPT, but the neither the prosecutor nor her boss said which one.
Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity
DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.
April 09, 2026, 05:47 PM
Pipe Smoker
quote:
Originally posted by tatortodd: That prosecutor should be unemployed and disbarred. [Me: And prosecuted.] Which AI did the prosecuting attorney use? The YouTuber said ChatGPT, but the neither the prosecutor nor her boss said which one. [Me: Doesn’t matter. None should’ve been used.]
Serious about crackers.
April 09, 2026, 05:51 PM
FiveFiveSixFan
quote:
Originally posted by tatortodd: That prosecutor should be unemployed and disbarred.
Which AI did the prosecuting attorney use? The YouTuber said ChatGPT, but the neither the prosecutor nor her boss said which one.
I read one article which stated that no specific AI had been identified publicly as the one used in this case. I'm sure it will come out at some point.
April 09, 2026, 05:53 PM
ibanda
quote:
.....Despite the prohibition against using AI, the lawyer implies that she would use it again but with increased caution...
AI Hallucinates. I hope she gets suspended or disbarred.
"The left can't applaud me because their hands are in other people's pockets." - Javier Milei
April 09, 2026, 06:40 PM
egregore
It doesn't think for itself. It lacks common sense. (To be fair, so do a lot of people.) All it is, is a giant database in conjunction with a really fast search engine.
"The Almighty, He put some livin' things on this earth so a man can eat." - Festus Haggen, Gunsmoke
April 09, 2026, 06:43 PM
.38supersig
They are starting to use Ain't Intelligent where I work.
It is not turning out the way they had hoped.
April 09, 2026, 06:49 PM
berto
Should be a get out of jail card for the defendant and a career ender for the prosecutor who should face monetary sanctions and prison time.
April 09, 2026, 07:16 PM
RogueJSK
I'm familiar with a local case that went to trial last year in which a local attorney was accused of having engaged in a barratry scheme.
Lawyer represented himself in the case, and filed some motions and responses that he generated using ChatGPT which cited hallucinated cases and findings.
Needless to say, that did not go well for him when the judge discovered why his filings were nonsensical.
He also lost the case, and in combination with his misuse of AI, these factors have resulted in him facing being disbarred.
April 09, 2026, 07:27 PM
sigfreund
Fabricated case citations?
If I ask AI “the Supreme Court case that established new rules for death penalty sentences,” I can expect to get a response like “Gregg v. Georgia” along with a specific citation. That citation in turn can be easily checked to confirm it’s correct using various sources, including old-fashioned law books (the paper kind). How could anyone expect fabricated citations to not be checked and determined to be bogus? Do judges just think, “Well, a lawyer (a member of my tribe) claimed that this was a legitimate citation and that it said what she said it said, so there’s no reason to doubt it”‽
Is that how trials work?
► 6.0/94.0
“I can’t give you brains, but I can give you a diploma.” — The Wizard of Oz
April 09, 2026, 07:50 PM
Rey HRH
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund: Fabricated case citations?
If I ask AI “the Supreme Court case that established new rules for death penalty sentences,” I can expect to get a response like “Gregg v. Georgia” along with a specific citation. That citation in turn can be easily checked to confirm it’s correct using various sources, including old-fashioned law books (the paper kind). How could anyone expect fabricated citations to not be checked and determined to be bogus? Do judges just think, “Well, a lawyer (a member of my tribe) claimed that this was a legitimate citation and that it said what she said it said, so there’s no reason to doubt it”‽
Is that how trials work?
I would think lawyers, especially government lawyers, have access to digitized searchable cases. A simple copy/copy from AI into that database would have pulled up the particular case. And perhaps the case even comes with an abstract or summary.
I think she's up for the next Democrat president's nomination to the Supreme Court.
"It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life – daily and hourly. Our answer must consist not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual." Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning, 1946.
April 09, 2026, 07:52 PM
airsoft guy
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund: Fabricated case citations?
If I ask AI “the Supreme Court case that established new rules for death penalty sentences,” I can expect to get a response like “Gregg v. Georgia” along with a specific citation. That citation in turn can be easily checked to confirm it’s correct using various sources, including old-fashioned law books (the paper kind). How could anyone expect fabricated citations to not be checked and determined to be bogus? Do judges just think, “Well, a lawyer (a member of my tribe) claimed that this was a legitimate citation and that it said what she said it said, so there’s no reason to doubt it”‽
Is that how trials work?
I think it's less "who's going to actually check it?", and more "AI can't lie, whatever it farts out has to be the truth!" People think they're dealing with the computers from Star Trek, or C3PO, and not just a big database with a "personality" template on top of it.
In any case, more and more I think of this quote from Dune: "Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."
quote:
Originally posted by Will938: If you don't become a screen writer for comedy movies, then you're an asshole.
