Kjoller v. Superior Court: California's high court steps in on a prosecutor's AI-fabricated brief

The problem

A prosecutor in the Nevada County (California) District Attorney’s Office used generative AI to help prepare a criminal filing, and the resulting brief contained fabricated or erroneous case citations (source). In the matter of defendant Kyle Kjoller, the petition for review documented six cases cited in a brief filed for his bail hearing that his lawyers flagged as hallucinations, annotating them in a chart with “Case does not exist” and “Reporter citation does not exist. Does not accurately describe” (source).

What was built

No vendor product is at issue and the specific AI tool was not identified on the record (source). Nevada County DA Jesse Wilson publicly acknowledged, in a statement to The Sacramento Bee, that “A prosecutor recently used artificial intelligence in preparing a filing, which resulted in an inaccurate citation” and that “Once the error was discovered, the filing was immediately withdrawn” (source). Wilson maintained that the citation errors in the Kjoller and Taylor McGrath filings did not involve artificial intelligence, so the AI attribution in Kjoller’s own matter remains an allegation in the petition, not a court finding (source).

The outcome

The Court of Appeal (Third Appellate District) had summarily denied the defendant’s motion to issue an order to show cause re: sanctions (source). On 2026-01-14 the California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case — docketed S293723, Court of Appeal No. C104445 — with directions to issue the requested OSC, the conference-results order recording “KJOLLER v. S.C. (PEOPLE) S293723 C104445 Petition for Review G&T CA 3” with an order to show cause (source). Horvitz & Levy’s appellate recap confirmed that “The Supreme Court’s order requires the Third District to now issue the requested OSC” (source), and the California Appellate Law Podcast independently reported that “the California Supreme Court stepped in, granted review, and transferred the case back with directions to issue an order to show cause” (source). As reported, this is the first AI-hallucination sanctions matter to reach California’s high court, and no monetary sanction has been imposed — the OSC, and any sanction, is now for the Third District to decide (source).

A note on sources

The load-bearing fact — the Supreme Court’s grant-and-transfer directing the OSC — rests on a Tier 1 primary: the court’s own conference-results PDF of 2026-01-14, byte-tied by SHA-1. The weakest load-bearing sources are the DA’s acknowledgment and the six-citation chart, which come from GovTech’s reporting of statements to The Sacramento Bee (Tier 2 independent press), not from a court finding: the court has adjudicated no AI attribution, and every “AI” claim tied to the Kjoller citations is an allegation until the Third District rules.

How this was verified

Method: Court-origin verification. The California Supreme Court conference-results order (2026-01-14) was fetched and byte-tied (SHA-1 6b6c4eebc08955472b62cace5337e44cd211cae3, 227,284 bytes) as the Tier 1 primary for the grant-and-transfer and directed OSC. The procedural outcome was independently corroborated by two mutually independent Tier 2 secondaries (Horvitz & Levy’s “At the Lectern” recap and the California Appellate Law Podcast). The DA’s on-record AI acknowledgment and the petition’s six-citation chart were verified against GovTech’s reporting (Tier 2). All prose quotes were grep-confirmed against local captures. Date: 2026-08-06. No monetary sanction exists on this record; any dollar figure attached to this matter would be fabrication.

Related case files

• Scott v. Illinois HRC — a state appellate court sanctioned $15,000 over ChatGPT-fabricated citations
• Miller v. Regions Bank — an attorney drew a six-month suspension and public reprimand over hallucinated ChatGPT citations
• McCarthy v. DEA — a federal appellate first-impression public reprimand for AI-fabricated citations
• Mavy v. Commissioner of Social Security — pro hac vice revoked and a WSBA referral after 12 of 19 citations were AI-fabricated

Sources

1. California Supreme Court · Conference results, January 14, 2026 (S293723, C104445) · 2026-01-14 · https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/documents/conference%20results%20-%20011426.pdf — Tier 1 (primary, court-origin, byte-tied)
2. Horvitz & Levy LLP (At the Lectern) · “Supreme Court orders sanctions hearing about DA’s alleged AI briefing — Conference recap, Part I” · 2026-01 · https://www.horvitzlevy.com/supreme-court-orders-sanctions-hearing-about-das-alleged-ai-briefing-conference-recap-part-i/ — Tier 2 (independent appellate-practice press)
3. California Appellate Law Podcast · “CA Trans Law Stay in SCOTUS and AI Sanctions in SCOCA” · 2026-03-10 · https://www.calpodcast.com/1093703/episodes/18826319-ca-trans-law-stay-in-scotus-and-ai-sanctions-in-scoca — Tier 2 (independent appellate-attorney commentary)
4. GovTech · “California Prosecutor Says AI Caused Errors in Criminal Case” · 2025-11 · https://www.govtech.com/artificial-intelligence/california-prosecutor-says-ai-caused-errors-in-criminal-case — Tier 2 (independent press, reporting statements to The Sacramento Bee)