The Brief “Contained False Testimony from Wholly Fabricated Witnesses”

From the New Mexico Supreme Court last week in State v. Sandoval, via Ars Technica (Jon Brodkin):

WHEREAS, Respondent acknowledged to the Court in his written response and oral argument that he used the generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool ChatGPT in the preparation of the brief in chief he filed with the Court;

WHEREAS, Respondent admitted to the Court that the brief in chief contained false testimony from wholly fabricated witnesses—Officer Michelle Amarillo, Officer Sanchez, Manal Al-Jibury, and Teresa Marquez; false testimony from Danny Stanton that he received threats, which he took seriously, from Defendant-Appellant; false testimony from Linda Stanton about the threats her husband received; false testimony from Mariah Chavez and Teresa Marquez (fabricated witness) regarding the shooter’s clothing and appearance; and misrepresented legal authority in State v. Lopez, 2005-NMSC-018, 138 N.M. 9, 116 P.3d 80 and State v. Manus, 1979-NMSC-035, 93 N.M. 95, 597 P. 2d 280;

WHEREAS, Respondent admitted to the Court that he did not verify the factual claims and legal authority in his AI-generated brief before signing it and filing it with the Court, and that he did not inform his client of this failure or that the brief in chief contained multiple factual and legal misrepresentations;

{WHEREAS, this matter came on for consideration by the Court upon its own motion to show cause, whereupon the Court issued an order to show cause to Respondent, Defendant-Appellant’s attorney Stephen D. Aarons, directing him to show cause in person before the Court on August 21, 2026, why he should not be held in contempt and referred to the Disciplinary Board for the factual and legal misrepresentations he made to the Court in his brief in chief, and response thereto;}

WHEREAS, Respondent also admitted to the Court that he did not inform his client of the order to show cause proceedings or provide his client with copies of the order to show cause pleadings;

WHEREAS, the Court having considered the response and oral argument presented, concludes that Respondent demonstrated a lack of remorse and a lack of concern for his client; …

Chief Justice Julie J. Vargas, Justice Michael E. Vigil, Justice C. Shannon Bacon, Justice David K. Thomson, and Justice Briana H. Zamora concurring;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Respondent, STEPHEN D. AARONS, is found in DIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter, with respect to Respondent, is hereby referred to the Disciplinary Board for further consideration;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent is barred from appearing before this Court, pending the outcome of the investigation and proceedings, if any, before the Disciplinary Board;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, following the Disciplinary Board investigation and proceedings, if any, the Court will make further determinations regarding Respondent in accordance with the Rules Governing Discipline;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Law Office of the Public Defender is hereby appointed to represent Defendant-Appellant in this appeal and shall assign counsel to this matter who shall enter an appearance on behalf of Defendant-Appellant forthwith;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all briefing filed in this matter is hereby STRICKEN;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, following the entry of appearance of new defense counsel, a new briefing order shall be issued and the case will proceed with the intention that it will be heard during the Court’s 2026-2027 term;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that as a sanction for direct contempt, Stephen D. Aarons shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, pay a sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to the State Bar of New Mexico Client Protection Fund and shall notify the Court in writing when such payment is made ….

Read the Ars Technica story for more.