O. Gene Bicknell v. Richard M. Silanskas Jr., et al.

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

El 12 de enero de 2026, N.D. Oklahoma (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a non-existent case to support narrowing subpoenas; Court could locate no such case.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Provided a citation purportedly from D. Neb. that does not exist (mis-cited/fictional).
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited an apparently fictitious Central District of California case rejecting requests for entire email accounts; Court could not locate it.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Authority exists but was cited as supporting rejection of expansive subpoenas involving email; Court found the case actually granted a motion to compel and does not support the claimed proposition.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a Northern District of Oklahoma decision that the Court could not locate; the referenced material instead pointed to unrelated Washington state health regulations.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited an existing S.D.N.Y. case for the proposition that a court may hear a motion to quash outside the district of compliance; Court found the case addresses amendment of a complaint, not venue for motions to quash.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted a passage attributed to the case that does not appear in the opinion; quotation was used to argue citation errors are not sanctionable but the case does not contain that language.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited an S.D.N.Y. decision that exists and involves subpoenas but does not support the specific proposition that this court may resolve a subpoena objection outside the district of compliance.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Provided a citation that referred to an FDA safety report rather than a District of South Carolina case; Court could locate no such D.S.C. decision.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Attributed a specific quotation about sanctions to the Supreme Court case, but the Court found the quotation does not appear in that opinion.

Desenlace

Warning. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1303/Bicknell_v._Silanskas_USA_12_January_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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