AI writing tools slipped fake case citations into a California DA's court filings
A California appeals court appointed a judge to investigate AI-driven errors in four Nevada County felony cases, and whether the district attorney should face sanctions.
What happened: Last fall, prosecutors in Nevada County, a small Sierra Nevada foothill county, used generative AI to draft or edit court filings in ways that inserted made-up facts and citations into four felony cases. One involved a habeas corpus petition seeking a man's release from jail. District Attorney Jesse Wilson's office acknowledged the errors, but a California appeals court has now appointed a judge to dig deeper into how far the mistakes spread and whether Wilson should be sanctioned. The review follows a sworn declaration by Madison Maxwell, the former deputy DA who wrote several flawed filings, who says her supervisor blocked her from immediately alerting the court and defendants once the mistakes surfaced.
Why it matters: Prosecutors are held to a stricter ethical standard than other lawyers because their filings can keep people locked up. When AI invents a citation and a prosecutor uses it to argue for continued detention, a defendant's liberty rests on something that never existed. Legal experts call this among the first documented cases nationwide of a government prosecutor's office presenting AI-fabricated material to a court. It lands amid a fast-growing tally: researcher Damien Charlotin counts over 130 court filings nationwide with AI-invented material, including a recent State Farm insurance case, and California courts have already fined 19 attorneys or self-represented litigants over similar errors.
Who's disputing what: Maxwell says Assistant DA Lydia Stuart pushed staff to use AI but set no policy or training, leaving junior lawyers with little oversight. She also says she didn't know AI could invent case citations, and points to brain fog from unmanaged diabetes plus a staff exodus that piled extra cases onto her. She admits she can't say for certain which errors were hers versus AI's. Wilson's office says an 18-month audit found no pattern beyond the four known cases, though it's unclear if that audit was made public. Civil rights and public defender groups, plus over 20 AI experts, say only an independent probe can reveal the real scope.
What happens next: The newly appointed judge will examine how the errors affected case outcomes and whether Wilson should face sanctions — fines or a referral to the State Bar. The inquiry follows a January California Supreme Court order reversing a lower ruling that would have shielded the DA's office. Meanwhile, courts themselves are leaning into the same technology: pilot AI programs are running in Los Angeles and Riverside counties, and federal judges have already had AI errors slip into rulings — raising the question of who checks the checkers.