Payne v. State

Hannah Payne was convicted of murder and other crimes in Clayton County and sentenced to life plus 13 years. When she asked for a new trial, the assistant district attorney handling the case, Deborah Leslie, filed briefs using artificial intelligence software, and the citations were never checked. Those briefs, an order largely written by Leslie that the trial judge signed, and even the state's brief before the Supreme Court of Georgia all contained citations to cases that either did not exist or did not say what they were claimed to say. After oral argument, the Supreme Court of Georgia ordered the state to explain what happened. Leslie admitted using AI software without verifying the results. The court found this a serious breach of its rules requiring accuracy in filings. It admonished Leslie's office, suspended her privilege to practice before the court for six months with conditions, and sent the case back to the trial court for a new order on the motion for new trial, one that no lawyer may draft and that must contain no fake citations.

The court held that submitting briefs and orders containing fabricated or misattributed case citations, generated by unverified AI software, violates Supreme Court Rule 7's accuracy requirement and warrants sanctions, and that an order built on such citations cannot stand and must be vacated and redone by the trial court itself, not by counsel.

The ruling puts Georgia prosecutors, defense lawyers, and trial judges on notice that unverified AI-generated legal citations can trigger discipline and unravel court orders. It also delays resolution of Payne's underlying murder conviction while the trial court redoes its ruling on her new trial motion.

Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction

1. The court found that the state's briefs opposing the new trial motion, the trial court's order (largely drafted by the assistant district attorney), and the state's appellate brief all contained numerous case citations that were either fabricated or did not support the points they were cited for.
2. Under Supreme Court Rule 7, which requires lawyers to check their filings for truthfulness and accuracy, using AI-generated citations without independently verifying them is a rule violation even though the court has no blanket rule against using AI.
3. Because the assistant district attorney did not verify the citations before filing them repeatedly, the court exercised its inherent authority to control proceedings and its Rule 7 sanctioning power to admonish her and her office and suspend her practice privileges before the court for six months, conditioned on completing extra ethics and AI-related legal education.
4. Because the trial court's order denying the new trial motion relied on the same tainted citations, the court concluded that order could not stand and had to be vacated, with instructions that the trial court prepare a new order itself rather than have either party's counsel draft it.

• AI-generated fake case citations
• attorney discipline
• motion for new trial
• Clayton County District Attorney
• murder conviction appeal