Commonwealth v. Butler
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
SC Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | In the amended brief, counsel attributed to Walls a proposition concerning merger, reconsideration, and the reasonableness of sentences for multiple transactions. The court found that Walls did not address those matters. Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and fabricated quotes and records Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Warning in SC Pennsylvania. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | In the amended brief, counsel attributed to Walls a proposition concerning merger, reconsideration, and the reasonableness of sentences for multiple transactions. The court found that Walls did not address those matters. Outcome: Warning.
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Warning in SC Pennsylvania. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Warning
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
10 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | In the amended brief, counsel attributed to Walls a proposition concerning merger, reconsideration, and the reasonableness of sentences for multiple transactions. The court found that Walls did not address those matters.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel claimed to provide a direct quotation from Commonwealth v. Kelley, but the cited case does not exist. The citation actually corresponds to C & K Coal Co. v. W.C.A.B. (Crissman), which is an unrelated Commonwealth Court case.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel purported to directly quote Commonwealth v. Walls, but the quoted language does not appear in the case. The court also found that Walls concerned the standard of review for sentences outside the guidelines, not Butler’s asserted sentencing theory.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel purported to directly quote Commonwealth v. Mouzon, but the quoted language does not appear in the cited case.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel purported to directly quote Commonwealth v. Dodge, but the quoted language does not appear in the cited case.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel purported to directly quote Commonwealth v. Edwards, but the quoted language does not appear in the cited case.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel purported to directly quote Commonwealth v. McNabb, but the quoted language does not appear in the cited case.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Counsel purported to directly quote Commonwealth v. Houtz, but the quoted language does not appear in the cited case.
Show 2 additional discrepancies
- Misrepresented: Case Law | In the amended brief, counsel cited Walls and Caldwell for the proposition that consecutive sentences for closely related conduct create a substantial question. The court found that Walls did not discuss substantial questions and Caldwell did not support that specific proposition.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | In the amended brief, counsel cited Pettersen for the proposition that related conduct should support concurrent sentencing. The court explained that Pettersen addressed merger of aggravated-assault offenses, not concurrent sentences or common-scheme mitigation, and therefore did not support counsel’s claim.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Commonwealth v. Butler?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | In the amended brief, counsel attributed to Walls a proposition concerning merger, reconsideration, and the reasonableness of sentences for multiple transactions. The court found that Walls did not address those matters. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Commonwealth v. Butler matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Warning in SC Pennsylvania. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Commonwealth v. Butler?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Commonwealth v. Butler summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.