Thomas Dexter Jakes v. Duane Youngblood

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

El 6 de octubre de 2025, W.D. Pennsylvania (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Citas falsas de pruebas o escritos. Fabricated quotation attributed to the Court's April 25, 2025 Memorandum Opinion; Court found no such language in its opinion.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Fabricated quote attributed to Franklin Prescriptions, Inc. v. N.Y. Times Co.; Court found the quoted language does not exist in that opinion as cited.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Fabricated statement attributed to Franklin Prescriptions requiring pleading 'the exact words spoken or published'; Court found no such direct quotation in the cited authority.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Fabricated quotation purporting to be from Blackwell v. Eskin (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007); Court found the quoted language does not exist as presented.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Fabricated attribution claiming the Court 'noted that when the underlying tort collapses, there can be no cause of action for conspiracy' citing Hill v. Cosby; Court found the phrasing was not in the cited source.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Fabricated quotation attributed to Romano v. Young (E.D. Pa. 2011) claiming a specific holding about conspiracy pleadings; Court found the specific quoted language absent from that decision.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Fabricated quotation attributed to Duffy v. Lawyers Title Ins. Co. about group pleading in conspiracy claims; Court determined the quoted passage was not in the cited opinion as presented.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Multiple fabricated or partly fabricated quotations in the reply brief (e.g., Kurowski, Livingston, Moses, St. Amant) that the Court found do not exist in the cited authorities as quoted.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Reply brief quotation claiming Pennsylvania courts 'have shown a willingness to interpret relatively mild statements as being capable of a defamatory meaning' attributed to Livingston v. Murray; Court found the quoted wording was fabricated.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Misrepresentation: citing cases for propositions they do not support; Court noted multiple instances where Blackbum used cases for propositions the cases do not represent.

Desenlace

Monetary Sanction; Pro Hac Vice status revoked. Sanción económica: 5000 USD. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de https://reason.com/volokh/2025/06/26/whoever-or-whatever-drafted-the-briefs-signed-and-filed-by-blackburn/?nab=1; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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