Sanction teardown · TJPR, 1ª Câmara Criminal, Brazil · 2026-06-09

Apelação Criminal nº 0000711-64.2024.8.16.0156 — Franciely da Silva Luz

What happened

In TJPR, 1ª Câmara Criminal, Brazil, 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)
  Advocate attributed a non-existent appellate decision ApCrim 0003535-86.2019.8.16.0013 to Desembargador Paulo Roberto Vasconcelos; court found citation fabricated.
• Fabricated (Case Law)
  Advocate attributed a non-existent appellate decision ApCrim 0001586-93.2019.8.16.0045 to Desembargador José Carlos Dalacqua; court found citation fabricated.
• Fabricated (Case Law)
  Advocate attributed a non-existent appellate decision ApCrim 0013747-31.2018.8.16.0030 to Desembargador Luís Carlos Xavier; court found citation fabricated.
• Fabricated (Case Law)
  Advocate cited HC 487.221/RS attributed to Ministro Nefi Cordeiro which the court identified as a fabricated jurisprudence.

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

Court admonished the defense lawyer for using AI-created jurisprudence and determined to send copies of the decision and case to the Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (OAB) for possible action; warned that use of AI-created jurisprudence may lead to non-consideration of the resource.

Additional detail

The court found that the jurisprudences cited in the appellant's brief were created by artificial intelligence and included non-existent decisions attributed to named judges and ministers. The relator characterized the submission of fabricated judgments as bad faith, admonished the defense counsel, and ordered transmission of the case to the OAB for potential disciplinary measures; the court warned such AI-generated jurisprudence may result in non-consideration of the appeal.

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/2885/0000711-64.2024.8.16.0156.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).