State v. Coleman

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

El 20 de marzo de 2026, Ohio CA (11th) (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en la herramienta de IA ChatGPT y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de pruebas o escritos. Application to reopen attributed an inflammatory prosecutor quotation cited to the trial transcript p.559; court found p.559 was the court reporter's signature page and no such quotation existed — the quote was generated by ChatGPT and incorporated into the filing without verification.
• Fabricación de pruebas o escritos. Application cited additional quotations on pages 2 and 4 of appellant's brief (including an alleged 'duty to retreat' reference) that could not be located in the record; court determined these were wholesale inventions produced by ChatGPT and that they impugned the prosecutor, judge, and prior counsel.

Desenlace

Monetary Sanction; Bar Referral; Counsel disqualified in this case; Order to notify the judgment in other cases; CLE; Letter of apology. Sanción económica: 2000 USD. Sanción profesional: Yes.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1774/2026-Ohio-965.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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