New Mexico Supreme Court Fines Lawyer $5,000 Over Fabricated Testimony in AI-Assisted Brief

The court found fictional witnesses and fabricated police testimony in a murder appeal, underscoring that a generated summary cannot substitute for checking the record.

By 2 min read
New Mexico Supreme Court Fines Lawyer $5,000 Over Fabricated Testimony in AI-Assisted Brief
New Mexico Supreme Court Fines Lawyer $5,000 Over Fabricated Testimony in AI-Assisted Brief

Listen to this story

The audio brief

About 1:24
0:001:24
Read transcript
The New Mexico Supreme Court has fined lawyer Stephen Aarons five thousand dollars and held him in contempt after finding fabricated police testimony and entirely fictional witnesses in a murder-appeal brief prepared with ChatGPT assistance. The court is also referring Aarons to a disciplinary board for investigation. The case involves Oscar Renee Sandoval, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. His appeal is still pending, separately from the sanction against his lawyer. Aarons told the court that he gave ChatGPT a computer-generated transcript and other case materials, asking for what he described as a “bulletproof summary.” But the resulting brief included claims with no support in the record. The filing reportedly said the shooter wore dark pants and a white shirt, and it attributed statements to witnesses who did not exist. That makes this more than a bad citation or an imprecise paraphrase. The court found that Aarons failed to verify the filing before submitting it in a criminal case. Aarons said he did not understand how extensively AI could invent facts, called the episode an honest mistake, and expressed remorse. The practical lesson is narrow but important: giving a chatbot source material does not ensure that its output stays faithful to that material. The next unresolved step is the disciplinary investigation, while Sandoval’s life-sentence appeal continues on its own track.

Story brief

3 key points

A New Mexico Supreme Court contempt ruling underscores that AI-assisted legal drafting remains subject to ordinary professional verification duties. Attorney Stephen Aarons submitted a murder-appeal brief containing invented witnesses and unsupported police testimony after asking ChatGPT to summarize case materials. The court imposed a $5,000 fine and referred him for disciplinary review; Oscar Renee Sandoval’s...

  1. 01

    The fabricated material included claims about a shooter’s clothing, not merely an inaccurate citation or paraphrase.

  2. 02

    Aarons said he supplied ChatGPT with a computer-generated transcript and other case materials seeking a “bulletproof summary.”

  3. 03

    The court found Aarons failed to verify the filing before submitting it in a criminal case.

The New Mexico Supreme Court has fined attorney Stephen Aarons $5,000 and held him in contempt after finding fabricated police testimony and fictional witnesses in a murder-appeal brief prepared with ChatGPT assistance. The court will also refer him for a disciplinary investigation.

The sanction concerns the appeal of Oscar Renee Sandoval, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. That appeal remains pending. The court said Aarons’s primary brief contained false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses, putting invented material into a filing in a criminal case.

How a generated summary entered the appeal

Aarons told the court that he fed ChatGPT a computer-generated transcript and other case materials. He said he expected what he called a “bulletproof summary” while preparing the appeal. But the court found the submitted brief included material that had no basis in the record.

The distinction is straightforward but consequential: supplying source material to a chatbot does not ensure that its prose remains tied to that material. Aarons was held in contempt for failing to verify the filing’s accuracy before it reached the court.

Not a citation error

The court said the filing appeared to include fictional statements that the shooter wore dark pants and a white shirt. Alongside the finding of fabricated witnesses, that detail makes this more than a dispute over an imprecise legal citation or paraphrase.

Aarons’s explanation

Aarons said he had not understood the degree to which AI could hallucinate facts. He characterized the episode as an honest mistake and said he was remorseful, while hoping the disciplinary board would take that explanation into account.

The unresolved professional question now moves to the disciplinary process. For Sandoval’s case, the immediate reality is separate: his life-sentence appeal is still active, even though the lawyer who submitted its primary brief has been sanctioned over its accuracy.

Story updates

Latest developments

01
Reporting#

ChatGPT-using lawyer punished for citing fake testimony from made-up witnesses

The New Mexico Supreme Court held defense lawyer Stephen Aarons in direct contempt after he filed a ChatGPT-generated appellate brief containing fabricated witness testimony and inaccurate descriptions of legal precedents. The court fined him $5,000, barred him from appearing before the court pending disciplinary proceedings, struck the briefs, and ordered a new lawyer for his client.

X / Ars Technica

Sources

  1. theguardian.comNew Mexico lawyer fined for using AI-generated brief containing fabricated police testimony

Loading discussion...