What was hallucinated

Misrepresented: Case Law | First-instance judgment attributed a passage to 'SP414-2023, rad. 61005' about congruence; the appellate court found the cited content does not correspond to that decision. || Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | First-instance opinion referenced doctrinal work 'Derecho Procesal Penal Colombiano' by Fernando Velásquez Velásquez, which the appellate court found to be nonexistent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Decision cited multiple non-existent Corte Suprema decisions (said to support exclusion of CD loss); those citations do not exist in the repository. || Misrepresented: Case Law | The judgment quoted and paraphrased Constitutional Court decision C-591 de 2005 in a way the appellate court held was not supported by the original text.

Sanction teardown · Tribunal Superior de Bogotá, Colombia · 2025-12-02

Fiscalía General de la Nación v. Luis Alberto Contreras Fandinoe

What happened

In Tribunal Superior de Bogotá, Colombia, 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:

Misrepresented (Case Law)

First-instance judgment attributed a passage to 'SP414-2023, rad. 61005' about congruence; the appellate court found the cited content does not correspond to that decision.
Fabricated (Doctrinal Work)

First-instance opinion referenced doctrinal work 'Derecho Procesal Penal Colombiano' by Fernando Velásquez Velásquez, which the appellate court found to be nonexistent.
Fabricated (Case Law)

Decision cited multiple non-existent Corte Suprema decisions (said to support exclusion of CD loss); those citations do not exist in the repository.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

The judgment quoted and paraphrased Constitutional Court decision C-591 de 2005 in a way the appellate court held was not supported by the original text.

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

Judgment quashed and remanded; copies sent to disciplinary commission.

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/1161/Colombia_14.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