> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.implicator.ai/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # New Mexico Court Fines Lawyer $5,000 Over ChatGPT’s Fake Murder-Case Witnesses - URL: https://www.implicator.ai/new-mexico-lawyer-chatgpt-fake-witnesses/ - Published: 2026-09-12T19:13:53.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-12T19:13:53.000Z - Description: A New Mexico lawyer used ChatGPT to prepare a murder appeal that included four invented witnesses. A $5,000 sanction followed, along with a disciplinary referral and new counsel for his client. The written order sets out what happens next for the lawyer and the pending appeal. - Author: Marcus Schuler - Tags: AI News, #home-companion The New Mexico Supreme Court held Santa Fe defense lawyer Stephen Aarons in direct contempt and fined him $5,000 in a September 9 order over a murder-appeal brief containing witnesses fabricated by ChatGPT. The filing attributed false testimony to four nonexistent people and to real witnesses, the court said in its [order](https://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/supreme-court/2026/s-1-sc-40845.html?ref=implicator.ai). The court [struck all earlier briefs](https://static.ksl.com/article/51622813/chatgpt-invented-fake-police-testimony-in-murder-appeal-new-mexico-high-court-says?ref=implicator.ai), appointed a public defender and ordered the appeal briefed again. The sanction changes who will represent Oscar Renee Sandoval in his pending appeal but does not disturb his murder conviction. What Changed - New Mexico’s Supreme Court ordered Stephen Aarons to pay $5,000 over false testimony in a ChatGPT-assisted murder appeal. - The brief included four fabricated witnesses and false statements attributed to real witnesses. - Aarons is barred from appearing before that court pending disciplinary investigation and proceedings. - Sandoval’s appeal remains pending, with a public defender assigned and new briefing ordered. AI-generated summary, reviewed by an editor. [More on our AI guidelines](https://www.implicator.ai/about/). ## False testimony in the appeal The court identified four wholly fabricated witnesses: Officer Michelle Amarillo, Officer Sanchez, Manal Al-Jibury and Teresa Marquez. The brief also assigned false testimony to Danny Stanton, Linda Stanton and Mariah Chavez about alleged threats and the shooter’s clothing and appearance. All of those claims appeared in Sandoval’s appellate brief. The filing also misrepresented legal authority in State v. Lopez and State v. Manus. Aarons acknowledged using ChatGPT to prepare the brief and admitted that he did not verify its factual claims or legal authorities before signing and filing it. At an August 21 hearing, he said he expected the tool to produce a “bulletproof summary.” The order says Aarons also failed to tell Sandoval that the filing contained factual and legal misrepresentations. He did not inform his client about the court’s show-cause proceeding or provide him with copies of the related pleadings. FREE AI BRIEFING · WEEKDAYS Follow how courts handle AI-generated work. Get the AI stories shaping the day, with concise context from San Francisco. The briefing takes about five minutes and arrives at 4:45 a.m. Pacific, 7:45 a.m. Eastern. Email address Keep me informed Check your inbox for the confirmation link. Free. No hype. Unsubscribe anytime. ## A sanction with defined limits The justices barred Aarons from appearing before the New Mexico Supreme Court pending the outcome of the Disciplinary Board’s investigation and any proceedings it may bring. The court will decide whether to take further action after that process. Aarons must pay the $5,000 sanction to the State Bar of New Mexico Client Protection Fund within 30 days of the September 9 order and notify the court in writing when he has paid it. The court found that Aarons had shown a lack of remorse and concern for his client. Aarons later [expressed remorse](https://static.ksl.com/article/51622813/chatgpt-invented-fake-police-testimony-in-murder-appeal-new-mexico-high-court-says?ref=implicator.ai). “I am remorseful but hopeful that the disciplinary board takes into account it was an honest mistake,” he said. He said he had used ChatGPT to summarize trial proceedings after agreeing to handle Sandoval’s appeal last year and had not understood how readily it could invent facts. ## Lawyers’ duties when using AI The State Bar ethics advisory committee’s [nonbinding 2024 opinion](https://www.sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/PubRes/BB/2024/BB%5F2024-11-27.pdf?ref=implicator.ai) says New Mexico lawyers may use generative AI responsibly. It says they must independently verify the accuracy and sufficiency of research, citations and analysis produced by an AI tool, correct its mistakes and comply with court requirements. Know someone who'd find this useful? [✉️ Email it to a friend in one click](mailto:?subject=A%20newsletter%20I%20think%20you%27d%20like&body=This%20is%20one%20of%20maybe%20three%20newsletters%20I%20actually%20read.%20The%20rest%20just%20pile%20up%2C%20unread%2C%20judging%20me.%0A%0AAnd%20yes%2C%20this%20email%20mostly%20wrote%20itself%2C%20which%20is%20a%20little%20on%20the%20nose%20for%20an%20AI%20newsletter.%20Doesn%27t%20make%20it%20wrong.%20implicator.ai%20is%20good.%0A%0ASubscribe%20free%3A%20https%3A%2F%2Fwww.implicator.ai%2Fsubscribe%2F%3Futm%5Fsource%3Dnewsletter%26utm%5Fmedium%3Dforward%26utm%5Fcampaign%3Demail%5Fforward), or they can [subscribe free here](https://www.implicator.ai/subscribe/?utm%5Fsource=newsletter&utm%5Fmedium=forward&utm%5Fcampaign=forward%5Fto%5Fcolleague). The opinion also says lawyers should decide case by case whether their duty to communicate with a client requires discussing AI use. Such a discussion may be required when AI plays a significant role in producing final work for the client, the client asks about its use or confidential client data must be disclosed to the tool. The state Supreme Court established a permanent Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts in August 2025\. Two judges serving on it [told lawmakers](https://www.kanw.org/new-mexico-news/2026-08-26/new-mexico-judges-working-on-statewide-guidelines-for-artificial-intelligence-use-in-court?ref=implicator.ai) in August 2026 that separate guidance was being prepared for lawyers, court staff and people representing themselves. ## Sandoval’s appeal starts over Sandoval pleaded not guilty to murdering the mother of his children before he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison last year. His appeal remains pending. The appeal was assigned to public defender Kim Chavez Cook on September 2\. The September 9 order appointed the Law Office of the Public Defender to represent Sandoval and directed it to assign counsel. Once new counsel enters an appearance, the court plans to issue a new briefing order and intends to hear the appeal during its 2026-27 term. Frequently Asked Questions Why did the court sanction Stephen Aarons? His appellate brief included four fabricated witnesses, false testimony attributed to real witnesses and misrepresented legal authorities. Aarons admitted using ChatGPT and failing to verify the filing before signing it. Was Aarons disbarred? The order bars him from appearing before the New Mexico Supreme Court pending the disciplinary investigation and any proceedings. Final professional discipline remains undecided. What happens to Oscar Renee Sandoval’s appeal? The court struck the previous briefs and appointed the public defender’s office. The appeal remains pending. New briefing will follow counsel’s appearance, with the court intending to hear the case during its 2026-27 term. What did Aarons say about the error? He said he was remorseful and hoped the disciplinary board would consider it an honest mistake. The court had found a lack of remorse and concern for his client during the proceeding. Does New Mexico prohibit lawyers from using AI? A 2024 advisory ethics opinion says lawyers may use generative AI responsibly. Lawyers must independently verify AI-generated research, citations and analysis, and assess when clients need to be informed. AI-generated summary, reviewed by an editor. [More on our AI guidelines](https://www.implicator.ai/about/). ## Related stories [AI Note Takers Face Privilege WarningsCorporate lawyers are warning companies to keep AI note takers out of legal and board calls after ethics guidance and early court rulings exposed privilege, discovery and vendor-data risks. The new policy choice is whether meeting bots stay on by default or leave when counsel joins.Implicator.ai![](https://www.implicator.ai/content/images/2026/05/2026-05-10-21.46.46-legal_transcript@2x.webp)](https://www.implicator.ai/ai-note-takers-face-privilege-warnings-after-new-york-bar-opinion/) [AI Deadbots Send Killer to Prison, Marketers Eye Ad RevenueAI deadbots just helped send a killer to prison—and marketers see the same technology as premium ad real estate. Courts embrace victim avatars while $80B industry eyes commercial grief monetization. U.S. law can't keep pace.Implicator.ai![](https://www.implicator.ai/content/images/2025/08/2025-08-27-05.02.25-deadbots@2x.webp)](https://www.implicator.ai/deadbots-move-from-grief-to-commerce-as-courts-and-brands-test-the-limits/)