Lawyer Fined $5,000 After ChatGPT Fabricates Police Testimony in Murder Appeal

ChatGPT Creates Fabricated Witnesses in Murder Appeal

The New Mexico Supreme Court has fined defense attorney Stephen Aarons $5,000 and held him in contempt after he submitted an appellate brief containing fake police testimony and fabricated witnesses generated by ChatGPT1

1

. The ruling represents one of the most serious cases of AI hallucinations in legal proceedings to date, as the bogus ChatGPT-generated testimony went beyond simple citation errors to include entirely fictional witness statements in a criminal murder appeal3

3

.

The appellate brief, filed on behalf of Oscar Renee Sandoval—who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for murdering the mother of his children—contained what the court described as "false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses"2

2

. Among the AI-generated legal documents were fictional statements claiming the shooter wore dark pants and a white shirt, details that never appeared in the actual trial proceedings1

1

.

Lawyer Held in Contempt Despite Claims of Ignorance

Stephen Aarons, a Santa Fe-based private attorney, admitted to using OpenAI's ChatGPT to summarize trial proceedings when he agreed to handle Sandoval's appeal. He claimed he fed a computer-generated transcript and other case materials to the AI tool, expecting it would generate "a bulletproof summary"1

1

. However, Aarons stated he did not understand the degree to which AI could hallucinate facts.

The New Mexico Supreme Court justices expressed disbelief at Aarons' claimed ignorance during an August 21 hearing. Justice C. Shannon Bacon pointedly asked, "Counsel, do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what's going on in the world? Because the problem with lawyers relying on AI hallucinations is an above-the-fold story every single day"1

1

. The court found that Aarons "demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client"2

2

.

Growing Pattern of AI Sanctions in Legal Practice

This case marks the latest in a growing number of instances where judges have disciplined lawyers for submitting court documents generated by AI tools without adequate verification. Dozens of lawyers have been sanctioned for filing briefs where AI fabricated case citations or misquoted the law1

1

. However, Aarons' submission appears to have crossed a more serious threshold by including fake police testimony in a criminal appeal, raising questions about the ethical dangers of relying on AI-generated content in high-stakes legal matters.

The New Mexico Supreme Court announced it will refer Aarons to an attorney disciplinary board for further investigation beyond the immediate $5,000 fine and contempt finding3

3

. In his statement to Reuters, Aarons expressed remorse and hope that the disciplinary board would consider it "an honest mistake," calling it "a lesson learned for all professionals who rely upon this powerful but sometimes unstable technology"1

1

.

What This Means for Legal Professionals Using AI

The severity of sanctions in this case sends a clear message about professional responsibility when using AI tools. Legal professionals must verify every detail in AI-generated legal documents before submission, as courts hold attorneys fully accountable for the accuracy of their filings regardless of the technology used to create them. The murder appeal involving Oscar Renee Sandoval remains pending and was reassigned on September 2 to public defender Kim Chavez Cook1

1

.

As AI tools like ChatGPT become more prevalent in legal practice, this case illustrates the critical need for lawyers to understand the limitations of these systems and implement rigorous fact-checking procedures. The fabricated witnesses and fake testimony in this appellate brief demonstrate that AI hallucinations can extend far beyond simple errors, potentially compromising defendants' rights and undermining the integrity of the justice system. OpenAI did not respond to requests for comment on the case1

1

.