2026-05-05 17:27 UTC / 路透社
作者：迈克·斯卡塞拉
2026年5月5日 世界协调时17:27，2小时前更新
节点运行失败
2023年6月23日拍摄的示意图中，人工智能（AI）字样被放置在电脑主板上。路透社/达多·鲁维奇/示意图/档案照片 购买授权许可
华盛顿5月5日路透电 — 佐治亚州最高法院周二对该州一名检察官作出惩戒处分，认定她滥用人工智能工具，导致一份谋杀案裁决文书中出现虚假且具有误导性的案件援引。
该州最高法院判处克莱顿县助理地区检察官黛博拉·莱斯利六个月内不得在大法官面前出庭，并责令她完成关于职业道德、诉状撰写以及正确使用人工智能的额外法律培训课程。
通过《每日案卷》新闻简报，将最新法律新闻直接发送至您的收件箱，开启您的晨间资讯。点击此处订阅。
广告 · 滚动以继续阅读
法院查明，一份下级法院2025年驳回谋杀被告重审申请的裁定书中，出现了“大量虚构或错误归因的案件援引”。
“援引不存在的案件，或援引的案件无法支撑其所主张的论点，这违反了本法院的规则，也远远达不到佐治亚州律师应有的执业操守标准，”大法官本杰明·兰德写道。
部分律师未对AI结果进行核查
全美各州和联邦法院已对多名律师作出惩戒处分，原因是他们在进行法律研究和起草文件时使用生成式AI工具，但未对结果进行核查。此案是较为罕见的检察官使用AI出错的案例之一，且因律师的AI错误被写入法院判决书而格外受关注。
莱斯利和克莱顿县地区检察官办公室未立即置评。莱斯利在早前的一份法庭文件中为未对AI生成的案件援引进行独立核查道歉。
此次惩戒源于汉娜·佩恩的上诉案。佩恩因谋杀和非法监禁肯尼思·赫林被判处终身监禁外加13年刑期。
莱斯利在一份拟议裁定书中使用AI生成了虚假的案件援引，敦促审判法官驳回重审申请。佐治亚州最高法院表示，该法官在驳回佩恩的申请时，采纳了这份拟议裁定书中的大部分内容，包括编造的援引条款。
州最高法院周二敦促审判法官在审核拟议裁定书时“认识到，人工智能软件尽管兼具潜在风险和益处，但仍可能被使用”。
大法官们撤销了此前的裁决，将案件发回初审法官，指示其在不包含虚假援引的前提下重新出具裁定。
“汉娜·佩恩有充分的上诉理由。令人遗憾的是，州方的失职行为如今延误了她的上诉请求得到审理的机会，”她的律师安德鲁·弗莱施曼在一份声明中说道。
迈克·斯卡塞拉报道；大卫·巴里奥、罗德·尼克尔编辑
我们的准则：汤姆森路透社信任原则。
AI errors in US murder case lead to discipline for Georgia prosecutor
2026-05-05 17:27 UTC / Reuters
By Mike Scarcella
May 5, 2026 5:27 PM UTC Updated 2 hours ago
节点运行失败
AI (Artificial Intelligence) letters are placed on computer motherboard in this illustration taken, June 23, 2023. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights
WASHINGTON, May 5 (Reuters) – The Georgia Supreme Court on Tuesday disciplined a prosecutor in the U.S. state, finding her misuse of artificial intelligence tools led to fake and misleading case citations appearing in a murder case ruling.
The state’s high court barred Deborah Leslie, a Clayton County assistant district attorney, from appearing before the justices for six months and ordered her to complete additional legal education on ethics, brief writing and proper AI use.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The court found that “numerous fictitious or misattributed case citations” appeared in a lower court’s 2025 order denying a murder defendant’s bid for a new trial.
“Citing cases that do not exist or do not support the proposition for which they are cited is a violation of this Court’s rules and falls far beneath the conduct we expect from Georgia lawyers,” Justice Benjamin Land wrote.
SOME ATTORNEYS FAIL TO VET AI RESULTS
State and federal courts across the country have disciplined attorneys for using generative AI tools for legal research and drafting without vetting the results. The Georgia case is among the rarer instances involving a prosecutor’s use of AI, and stands out because the lawyers’ AI errors were repeated in a court opinion.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Leslie and the Clayton County District Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Leslie apologized in an earlier court filing for failing to independently verify the AI-generated citations.
The sanction came in the appeal of Hannah Payne, who was sentenced to life in prison plus 13 years for the murder and false imprisonment of Kenneth Herring.
Leslie’s AI-generated false citations appeared in a proposed order she prepared, urging the trial judge to deny a request for a new trial. The judge adopted much of the proposed order, including fabricated citations, in denying Payne’s request, the Georgia Supreme Court said.
The state justices on Tuesday urged trial judges to review proposed orders “with the understanding that artificial intelligence software, with all of its potential risks and benefits, may have been used.”
The justices vacated the earlier ruling and sent the case back to the trial judge, directing that a new order be issued without fictitious citations.
“Hannah Payne has strong issues for appeal. It is a shame that the State’s misconduct is now delaying her opportunity to have those issues be decided,” her lawyer, Andrew Fleischman, said in a statement.
Reporting by Mike Scarcella; Editing by David Bario, Rod Nickel
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
发表回复