Which source supports this Sentencia 000126/2025 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.

HomeCasesSentencia 000126/2025

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 85/100. 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

Sentencia 000126/2025

TSJ Gran Canaria · Dec 31, 2025

Spain Editorial impact: low fake citations fabricated quotes misrepresented authority criminal None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The TSJ Gran Canaria identified that counsel for the appellant submitted a filing containing multiple fabricated case law citations and a non-existent doctrinal report. The court attributed these errors to the lawyer's negligent reliance on content generated by an AI tool, explicitly noting that the cited passages did not exist in the referenced Supreme Court judgments.

Why the court cared: False Quotes: Case Law | Cita atribuida a la STS 494/2020 (08-10-2020) con pasajes sobre la idoneidad de explicar la tardanza en la denuncia por trauma; la Sala comprobó que la STS 494/2020 trata del tráfico de drogas y no contiene esos pasajes. || False Quotes: Case Law | Pasaje entrecomillado atribuido a la STS 104/2019 (26-02-2019) que la Sala no halló en las bases de datos; se trata de una cita textual apócrifa atribuida al Tribunal Supremo. || Fabricated: Case Law | Listado de numerosas sentencias del Tribunal Supremo (STS 282/2019; STS 387/2022; STS 845/2016; STS 65/2023; STS 798/2022; STS 381/2019; STS 787/2021) que, según la Sala, son invocadas en el recurso con afirmaciones o pasajes que no se constatan en las bases de datos consultadas. || Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Mención de un 'Informe del Consejo General del Poder Judicial (CGPJ) sobre la credibilidad del testimonio infantil, 2019' que la Sala declara inexistente en las bases consultadas. || Misrepresented: Other | El tribunal identifica como práctica reiterada la inclusión de citas y extractos no verificables en el escrito de la acusación particular y lo atribuye a la confianza del letrado en lo que 'el algoritmo le propuso', calificando la conducta de negligente.
Why it matters now: Spanish panels now name counsel for negligent reliance on 'what the algorithm suggested'; verify every STS quotation.

Why this matter is tracked

In an appeal against an acquittal for sexual assault, the TSJ Gran Canaria identified that the appellant's counsel included numerous fabricated legal citations and doctrinal references in their filing. The court specifically noted that the appellant attributed passages to STS 494/2020 and STS 104/2019 that do not exist in those rulings, and cited a non-existent 2019 CGPJ report. The court characterized this as a recurring practice of relying on unverified content suggested by an AI algorithm, labeling the counsel's conduct as negligent. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding the lower court's acquittal well-reasoned and the appellant's arguments, supported by the fabricated citations, insufficient to overturn the judgment.

Operational lesson

Spanish panels now name counsel for negligent reliance on 'what the algorithm suggested'; verify every STS quotation.

Record details

CourtTSJ Gran Canaria

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateDec 31, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeThe appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the defendant was upheld.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court attributed the errors to the lawyer's reliance on what the algorithm suggested.

Procedural posture

Appeal of an acquittal judgment (Sentencia 000126/2025) issued by the Audiencia Provincial de Santa Cruz de Tenerife.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

False Quotes: Case Law | Cita atribuida a la STS 494/2020 (08-10-2020) con pasajes sobre la idoneidad de explicar la tardanza en la denuncia por trauma; la Sala comprobó que la STS 494/2020 trata del tráfico de drogas y no contiene esos pasajes.
False Quotes: Case Law | Pasaje entrecomillado atribuido a la STS 104/2019 (26-02-2019) que la Sala no halló en las bases de datos; se trata de una cita textual apócrifa atribuida al Tribunal Supremo.
Fabricated: Case Law | Listado de numerosas sentencias del Tribunal Supremo (STS 282/2019; STS 387/2022; STS 845/2016; STS 65/2023; STS 798/2022; STS 381/2019; STS 787/2021) que, según la Sala, son invocadas en el recurso con afirmaciones o pasajes que no se constatan en las bases de datos consultadas.
Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Mención de un 'Informe del Consejo General del Poder Judicial (CGPJ) sobre la credibilidad del testimonio infantil, 2019' que la Sala declara inexistente en las bases consultadas.
Misrepresented: Other | El tribunal identifica como práctica reiterada la inclusión de citas y extractos no verificables en el escrito de la acusación particular y lo atribuye a la confianza del letrado en lo que 'el algoritmo le propuso', calificando la conducta de negligente.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Sentencia 000126/2025?: The TSJ Gran Canaria identified that counsel for the appellant submitted a filing containing multiple fabricated case law citations and a non-existent doctrinal report. The court attributed these errors to the lawyer's negligent reliance on content generated by an AI tool, explicitly noting that the cited passages did not exist in the referenced Supreme Court judgments.
Why does Sentencia 000126/2025 matter for legal AI risk?: Spanish panels now name counsel for negligent reliance on 'what the algorithm suggested'; verify every STS quotation.
What does the public record establish about Sentencia 000126/2025?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Sentencia 000126/2025 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.

United States v. Michael Shane DeBaere (2)W.D. Virginia · Jan 23, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Fiscalía General de la Nación v. Luis Alberto Contreras FandinoeTribunal Superior de Bogotá · Dec 2, 2025fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Elías Axel Roberto Rafael s/ Abuso sexual con acceso carnalCSJ de Tucumán · Nov 28, 2025fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)USA v. BrewerM.D. Florida · Sep 11, 2025fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Vilmar Martins dos Santos v. State of ParanaParana State · Apr 11, 2025fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Caso No. 0000140/2025-00TSJ Gran Canaria (Spain) · Feb 10, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open TSJ Gran Canaria profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology