Jesse Andre v. Warden, FCI Danbury

Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.

El 25 de noviembre de 2025, D. Connecticut (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en una IA generativa no identificada y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Court found 'Harriot v. Jamison' (cited to support BOP-policy arguments) does not exist.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted language attributed to Levine v. Apker does not appear in that opinion and the case does not support the asserted proposition.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Sierra quotation cited in the Motion was fabricated and does not exist in the Sierra opinion.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Woodley v. Warden was cited as supporting a 'detainer-only bar' proposition the court found the case does not establish.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Perttu v. Richards was mischaracterized in substance and procedural posture relative to the petitioner's arguments.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Federal procedural rules (e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) and Habeas Rule 7) were mischaracterized as authorizing a petitioner to unilaterally expand the record after judgment.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Rivers v. Guerrero and Mayle v. Felix were cited for relation-back/record-expansion propositions the Court found they do not support.

Desenlace

Admonishment; Motion stricken with prejudice. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1095/Andre_v._Warden_USA_25_November_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.