[AlexTWithBeard]

I don't see the problem here.

> Defendant (as dictated by AI): The Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. Smith in 1978...

> Judge: There was no case Johnson v. Smith in 1978. Case closed, here's your fine.

Next time please be more careful picking the lawyer.

[torstenvl]

Well, the problem is that the defendant has a right to competent representation, and ineffective assistance of counsel fails to fulfill that right.

(Your hypothetical includes a fine, so it isn't clear whether the offense in your hypothetical is one with, shall we say, enhanced sixth amendment protections under Gideon and progeny, or even one involving a criminal offense rather than a simple civil infraction, but...) in many cases lack of a competent attorney is considered structural error, meaning automatic reversal.

In practice, that means that judges (who are trying to prevent their decisions from being overturned) will gently correct defense counsel and guide them toward competence, something that frustrated me when I was a prosecutor but which the system relies upon.

[gptgpp]

Seems like the solution is clear then. If the judge gently corrects defense counsel and guides them towards competence, they can just do the same with AI. Then the company can use that data to improve it! Eventually it will be perfect with all the free labor from those judges.

>Judge: that case does not exist. Ask it about this case instead

>AI: I apologize for the mistake, that case is more applicable. blah blah blah. Hallucinates an incorrect conclusion and cites another hallucinated case to support it.

Judge: The actual conclusion to the case was this, and that other case also does not exist.

Isn't that the same thing? Seems fine to me, I know the legal system is already pretty overwhelmed but eventually it might get so good everyone could be adequately represented by a public defender.

Speaking of, I remember reading most poor people can only see the free lawyer they've been assigned for a couple minutes and they barely review the case? I don't understand how that is okay, as long as technically they're competent even if the lack of time makes them pretty ineffective...

[barbazoo]

Do judges know about all prior cases or do they check when they hear one referenced? It feels like this could easily slip through, no?

[torstenvl]

"Counsel, I'm unfamiliar with the case you've cited. Have you brought a copy for the court? No? How about a bench brief? Very well. I am going to excuse the panel for lunch and place the court in recess. Members of the jury, please return at 1:00. Counsel, please arrive with bench briefs including printouts of major cases at 12:30. Court stands in recess." bang

"All rise!"

[dinkumthinkum]

That’s not how the legal system works. You aren’t slipping anything through. Either the judge knows the case, they don’t know all the cases, or the judge will research or clerks will research and you will be sanctioned if you try to do so thing unethical.

[AlexTWithBeard]

IANAL, but I'd think in this case this is prosecutor's job.

Also, the original post is about the traffic ticket. I'm pretty sure if the judge hears a reference to something he had never heard before, he'll be like "huh? wtf?"