What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | The defense relied on a nonexistent Sala Tercera decision to support the claim that the testimony of the third party should have been credited. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The quotation attributed to this Sala Tercera decision did not correspond to the decision cited by counsel. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The defense reproduced a quotation that did not correspond to the cited Sala Tercera decision concerning assessment of credibility and reasonable doubt. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The quotation relied on to challenge the rejection of defense evidence did not correspond to the cited Constitutional Chamber decision. || Fabricated: Case Law | The defense cited a nonexistent Constitutional Chamber decision in support of its argument concerning the duty to give reasons for rejecting evidence. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The quotation attributed to this Sala Tercera decision did not relate to the cited decision. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The defense transcribed an extract attributed to this Sala Tercera decision, but the court found that the decision did not concern the issue of reasonable doubt in favor of the accused as represented. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The defense transcribed an extract attributed to this Constitutional Chamber decision, but the court found that it did not correspond to a decision resolving the cited reasonable-doubt issue. || Fabricated: Case Law | The defense cited a nonexistent Sala Tercera decision in support of the alleged lack of reasoning concerning the confiscated money. || Fabricated: Case Law | The fourth appeal ground contained extensive unattributed passages presented as Sala Tercera jurisprudence without identifiable case references or contextual support; the court rejected the argument as deficient and unverifiable.

Sanction teardown · CA Cartago, Costa Rica · 2025-12-05

Resolución Nº 00592-2025, Expediente 24-000239-0456-PE

What happened

In CA Cartago, Costa Rica, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

Fabricated (Case Law)

The defense relied on a nonexistent Sala Tercera decision to support the claim that the testimony of the third party should have been credited.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

The quotation attributed to this Sala Tercera decision did not correspond to the decision cited by counsel.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

The defense reproduced a quotation that did not correspond to the cited Sala Tercera decision concerning assessment of credibility and reasonable doubt.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

The quotation relied on to challenge the rejection of defense evidence did not correspond to the cited Constitutional Chamber decision.
Fabricated (Case Law)

The defense cited a nonexistent Constitutional Chamber decision in support of its argument concerning the duty to give reasons for rejecting evidence.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

The quotation attributed to this Sala Tercera decision did not relate to the cited decision.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

The defense transcribed an extract attributed to this Sala Tercera decision, but the court found that the decision did not concern the issue of reasonable doubt in favor of the accused as represented.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

The defense transcribed an extract attributed to this Constitutional Chamber decision, but the court found that it did not correspond to a decision resolving the cited reasonable-doubt issue.
Fabricated (Case Law)

The defense cited a nonexistent Sala Tercera decision in support of the alleged lack of reasoning concerning the confiscated money.
Fabricated (Case Law)

The fourth appeal ground contained extensive unattributed passages presented as Sala Tercera jurisprudence without identifiable case references or contextual support; the court rejected the argument as deficient and unverifiable.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Warning

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3275/Tribunal_de_Apelaci%C3%B3n_de_Sentencia_Penal_de_Cartago_00592-2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checker Back to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49 Sanctions-motion template