USA v. Burke

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

El 15 de mayo de 2025, M.D. Florida (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en la herramienta de IA Westlaw's AI tools, GPT4.5 Deep Research (Pro) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Attributed a quote to Ruiz that does not exist and used it for an unsupported proposition.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Claimed Ruiz supports the rule that statutes cannot require defendants to prove exculpatory facts, which the case does not support.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Falsely quoted Gray as saying it is impermissible to require a defendant to prove a negative essential to innocence.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited Green for the proposition that the government must disprove statutory exceptions, which the case does not support.
• Tergiversación de doctrina. Relied on a House Judiciary Report that concerns the Flammable Fabrics Act Amendments, not the relevant legislation.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Falsely quoted Tsurkan as stating the Wiretap Act's primary objective is protecting telephone conversations from interception.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Miscited Tsurkan; provided a reporter citation that corresponds to a different case and not the quoted material.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Attributed to Hasson a constitutional avoidance quote not stated there.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Attributed to Doe v. Miami-Dade County a quote about constitutional avoidance being strongest when protecting fundamental rights, which is not stated there.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Falsely quoted McQueen as stating the government must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Claimed McQueen supports that indictment ambiguities or omissions violating preparation or double-jeopardy interests violate the Sixth and Fifth Amendments, which McQueen does not support.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Falsely quoted Veal as forbidding courts from ignoring statutory definitions in favor of dictionary meanings.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Falsely quoted Wisconsin Right to Life with a definition of as-applied challenges not found in the opinion.
• Citas falsas de doctrina. Attributed to a 1968 Senate Report a definition of 'wire communication' not present in the report.
• Citas falsas de doctrina. Attributed to Senator McClellan a statement on telephone privacy not supported by the cited Congressional Record entry.
• Citas falsas de doctrina. Attributed to a 1986 Senate Report a statement about public broadcasts not found there.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Attributed to Harrell a quoted holding about as-applied unconstitutionality not actually quoted in the case.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Attributed to Harrell a long proposition about privacy versus public speech and press exemptions not actually stated there.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Attributed to Bobo a quoted holding on constructive amendments and vague charges not contained in the opinion.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Misattributed a district court’s quote to the Ninth Circuit in Konop regarding the 'readily accessible' exception.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted Innovatio but omitted half of the sentence actually appearing in that case.

Desenlace

Motion dismissed, and plaintiff ordered to refile it without fake citations.. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/438/USA_v._Burke_M.D._Florida_USA_May_15_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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