United States v. Farris

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

El 3 de abril de 2026, CA 6th Cir. (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en la herramienta de IA Westlaw CoCounsel y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de doctrina. AI-generated quoted commentary attributed to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.1 did not appear in the cited commentary; the court could not locate similar language in any authority.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Brief attributed a quotation to United States v. Washington ('simply facilitating the offense without exercising decision-making authority is insufficient') that does not appear in that opinion; the court noted Washington in fact upheld the enhancement.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Brief attributed a quotation to United States v. Anthony ('[t]here was no evidence [the defendant] directed or supervised anyone else') that does not appear in the opinion; the court explained Anthony's vacatur was narrow and the defendant had conceded supervisory role.

Desenlace

Counsel disqualified with no compensation for time served; Briefs locked; Bar Referral; Notice of Opinion. Sanción profesional: Yes.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1903/USA_v._Farris_USA_3_April_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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