Back to Latest
News
Mar 22, 2026
Georgia Supreme Court Flags Nonexistent Citations in Trial Order That Mirrors Prosecutor’s Proposed Filing
In oral arguments before the Georgia Supreme Court in a murder-conviction appeal, the court observed that a lower-court order denying a new trial for the defendant Payne contained multiple citations to cases that do not exist and several other citations that do not support the propositions for which they were cited. The order closely resembled a 37-page proposed order submitted by the state, prompting the justices to question where the erroneous citations originated.
By Eugene Volokh
895 views
The Georgia Supreme Court drew attention during oral argument to what it described as numerous erroneous and apparently nonexistent legal citations contained in a trial-court order denying a new trial in a murder conviction appeal. Chief Justice Nels S.D. Peterson told the attorney who argued for the state that the order contains “at least five citations to cases that don't exist, and there's at least five more citations to cases that do not support the proposition for which they're cited, including three quotations that don't exist.”
The exchange occurred while the court was considering an appeal brought by Payne, whose conviction and the denial of a new-trial motion were under review. The problematic trial-court order runs 33 pages, and the state had submitted a 37-page proposed order to the trial court. Members of the Supreme Court noted similarities between the two documents and questioned whether the errors in the trial-court order had their origin in the state's proposed filing.
The lawyer who argued for the state, identified in court as Leslie, sought to distance herself from responsibility for the problematic citations. Leslie told the court that the order she had initially submitted had been revised and that she bore no responsibility for the errant citations that appeared in the final order. Chief Justice Peterson responded directly to that claim: "Those nonexistent cases were cited in your initial brief opposing the motion for a new trial." The exchange suggests the court suspects the state's original submissions included the faulty authorities, which were then reflected in the judge's written decision denying the new trial.
The Supreme Court's observation that the order includes references to non-existent cases and misattributed quotations highlights a growing concern in legal practice: the potential for inaccurate legal authorities to appear in filings and judicial opinions. The headline for the reporting on this episode described some of the citations as "AI-hallucinated," an attribution that implies the faulty citations may resemble errors commonly produced by artificial-intelligence systems that fabricate sources or misstate authority. The court, in its remarks, did not specify the origin of the inaccuracies beyond pointing to the state's submissions and the judge's order.
Both the 33-page order denying a new trial and the state's 37-page proposed order are available for public inspection, enabling observers to compare the texts and assess the scope of overlap between them. Coverage of the Supreme Court's oral argument and its criticisms was reported on CourtTV, which drew attention to the consistency of the two documents and to the specific, cited shortcomings in the trial-court order.
The episode prompted outside observers to note the significance of accurate citation and verification practices in litigation. Professor Adam Scales was credited for pointing to the CourtTV coverage and the documents themselves, prompting broader scrutiny by media and legal-watchers. The presence of erroneous citations in a judicial order—especially when those citations are to cases that plainly do not exist—raises questions about how courts verify authorities relied upon in written opinions and about the responsibilities of parties and judges to ensure the accuracy of cited law.
For the defendant Payne, the immediate practical consequence is that the appellate court will consider whether the trial court's denial of a new trial was properly grounded in law when some of the cited authorities appear invalid. More broadly, the incident underscores concerns in the legal community about the process by which trial-court rulings are drafted and the sources used by litigants and judges. The Georgia Supreme Court's scrutiny of the order could lead to further inquiry or corrective action, depending on how the justices ultimately rule on Payne's appeal and what they conclude about the provenance of the erroneous citations.
The exchange occurred while the court was considering an appeal brought by Payne, whose conviction and the denial of a new-trial motion were under review. The problematic trial-court order runs 33 pages, and the state had submitted a 37-page proposed order to the trial court. Members of the Supreme Court noted similarities between the two documents and questioned whether the errors in the trial-court order had their origin in the state's proposed filing.
The lawyer who argued for the state, identified in court as Leslie, sought to distance herself from responsibility for the problematic citations. Leslie told the court that the order she had initially submitted had been revised and that she bore no responsibility for the errant citations that appeared in the final order. Chief Justice Peterson responded directly to that claim: "Those nonexistent cases were cited in your initial brief opposing the motion for a new trial." The exchange suggests the court suspects the state's original submissions included the faulty authorities, which were then reflected in the judge's written decision denying the new trial.
The Supreme Court's observation that the order includes references to non-existent cases and misattributed quotations highlights a growing concern in legal practice: the potential for inaccurate legal authorities to appear in filings and judicial opinions. The headline for the reporting on this episode described some of the citations as "AI-hallucinated," an attribution that implies the faulty citations may resemble errors commonly produced by artificial-intelligence systems that fabricate sources or misstate authority. The court, in its remarks, did not specify the origin of the inaccuracies beyond pointing to the state's submissions and the judge's order.
Both the 33-page order denying a new trial and the state's 37-page proposed order are available for public inspection, enabling observers to compare the texts and assess the scope of overlap between them. Coverage of the Supreme Court's oral argument and its criticisms was reported on CourtTV, which drew attention to the consistency of the two documents and to the specific, cited shortcomings in the trial-court order.
The episode prompted outside observers to note the significance of accurate citation and verification practices in litigation. Professor Adam Scales was credited for pointing to the CourtTV coverage and the documents themselves, prompting broader scrutiny by media and legal-watchers. The presence of erroneous citations in a judicial order—especially when those citations are to cases that plainly do not exist—raises questions about how courts verify authorities relied upon in written opinions and about the responsibilities of parties and judges to ensure the accuracy of cited law.
For the defendant Payne, the immediate practical consequence is that the appellate court will consider whether the trial court's denial of a new trial was properly grounded in law when some of the cited authorities appear invalid. More broadly, the incident underscores concerns in the legal community about the process by which trial-court rulings are drafted and the sources used by litigants and judges. The Georgia Supreme Court's scrutiny of the order could lead to further inquiry or corrective action, depending on how the justices ultimately rule on Payne's appeal and what they conclude about the provenance of the erroneous citations.