AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesMyers v. State
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Myers v. State

SC Connecticut · Jul 18, 2025

CT / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationscriminaltrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court identified a fabricated case citation ('R.G. v. State') in a pro se petition for a new trial, characterizing it as a likely AI hallucination. While the court dismissed the petition on jurisdictional grounds, it explicitly flagged the presence of unverified, AI-generated citations within the official record.

Why the court cared
The court reasoned that the petition was untimely under General Statutes § 52-582 and that equitable tolling was unavailable. Regarding the citation, the court stated it was unable to find the case and concluded it was likely an AI hallucination.
Why it matters now
This case illustrates judicial identification of AI-generated hallucinations in pro se filings. It highlights the court's role in flagging unverified citations while maintaining the integrity of the official record, even when the underlying motion is dismissed on other grounds.

Why this matter is tracked

In a petition for a new trial, the petitioner, Ricardo Myers, cited 'R.G. v. State, 180 Conn. App. 387, 393 (2018)' to support an argument for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. The Superior Court of Connecticut, in its Memorandum of Decision, noted that it was unable to locate the cited case under the provided name or citation. The court explicitly identified the citation as a likely 'hallucination' of an AI program. The court granted the State's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the petition's untimeliness and granted Attorney Spinella's motion to strike the claims against him. The court preserved the unverified citations in the official record but noted they were not attributable to the court.

Operational lesson

This case illustrates judicial identification of AI-generated hallucinations in pro se filings. It highlights the court's role in flagging unverified citations while maintaining the integrity of the official record, even when the underlying motion is dismissed on other grounds.

Record details

ConnecticutSingle-state evidence scope
Explore CTOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtSC Connecticut
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateJul 18, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court granted the State's motion to dismiss and Attorney Spinella's motion to strike.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court referenced AI tools as the likely source of unverified citations.

Procedural posture

Memorandum of Decision granting the State's motion to dismiss and Attorney Spinella's motion to strike.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Petition cited "R.G. v. State, 180 Conn. App. 387, 393 (2018)", which the court could not locate and described as likely an AI-generated hallucination.
  2. Fabricated: Other | Editor’s note and the opinion reference multiple unverified citations in filings that were likely generated by AI tools and preserved in the official record.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Myers v. State?
The court identified a fabricated case citation ('R.G. v. State') in a pro se petition for a new trial, characterizing it as a likely AI hallucination. While the court dismissed the petition on jurisdictional grounds, it explicitly flagged the presence of unverified, AI-generated citations within the official record.
Why does Myers v. State matter for legal AI risk?
This case illustrates judicial identification of AI-generated hallucinations in pro se filings. It highlights the court's role in flagging unverified citations while maintaining the integrity of the official record, even when the underlying motion is dismissed on other grounds.
What does the public record establish about Myers v. State?
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 Myers v. State 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.

Kyne v. EhimaSC Connecticut · May 8, 2026same court · fake citations + trialPlaintiff v. DefendantSC Connecticut · Mar 27, 2026same court · fake citations + trialTOV Realty, LLC v. Suarez; Kosel Equity, LLC v. MacGregorSC Connecticut · Jul 31, 2026same court · fake citations + trialMohamed Hussain et al. v. Mansoor Quraishi et al.SC Connecticut · Mar 31, 2026same court · fake citations + trialKosel Equity v. McGregorSC Connecticut · Feb 19, 2026same court · fake citations + trialJacobs v. Payward, Inc.D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + trial