Myers v. State
SC Connecticut · Jul 18, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC Connecticut
- Record ID
- myers-v-state-2025-07-18
- Observed outcome
- The court granted the State's motion to dismiss and Attorney Spinella's motion to strike.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Fake Citations
- Criminal
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Memorandum of Decision granting the State's motion to dismiss and Attorney Spinella's motion to strike.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court referenced AI tools as the likely source of unverified citations.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all case law citations, regardless of the source of the research.
- Review pro se filings for potential AI-generated content that may obscure jurisdictional or procedural defects.
- Maintain internal logs of identified AI hallucinations to assist in future training and risk assessment.