KENOSHA — The cases against two Illinois men, totaling nearly three dozen charges, were dismissed during a motion hearing Feb. 6. At the same hearing, a judge sanctioned Kenosha County District Attorney Solis for failing to disclose AI usage.
According to online court records, the defense moved for dismissal of the men's charges citing “defective bind-over at the preliminary hearing.”
A defective bind-over refers to a lack of probable cause that a crime was committed, which was established at the preliminary hearing.
The defendants, 32-year-old Cornelius Garrett and 26-year-old Christian Garrett, were each charged with more than 10 felony counts of burglary of the cargo portion of a truck/trailer as a party to a crime and more than 10 misdemeanor counts of criminal damage to property.
The charges were dismissed without prejudice, meaning that they can be refiled.
During Friday’s hearing, Solis filed a response to the motion to dismiss. Judge David Hughes sanctioned Solis, striking the response because of a failure to disclose the use of artificial intelligence.
According to online court records, the response was filed “using hallucinated and false citations.” AI hallucinations describes when artificial intelligence creates inaccurate outputs.
In an email to the Kenosha News, Solis said the charge dismissals on Feb. 6 were not a direct response to AI usage.
“Separately, the court addressed a citation error in a filing where AI assisted tools were used without explicit disclosure; the issue was identified and acknowledged,” he said in the email. “The court’s dismissal decisions, however, were based on the court’s independent review of the preliminary hearing records, not on AI.”
According to Kenosha County Circuit Court Rules, any paperwork filed with AI must be accompanied by a disclosure of AI use including the specific tools used, how it was used and any biases or limitations of the AI system used.
Michael Cicchini, defense attorney for Cornelius Garrett, agreed that the judge's decision to dismiss the charges was not connected to the AI usage. He noted that the preliminary hearing was handled by the previous prosecutor, not Solis.
"The state's use of (AI) did not impact the judge's ruling on the probable cause motion," Cicchini said in an email. "The judge's decision was very clear and was based on settled case law regarding the probable cause standard."
Solis acknowledged the error in his his email and what is being done to prevent future occurrences.
“Our office takes accuracy, candor, and disclosure obligations seriously,” Solis said. “We have reviewed and reinforced our internal practices to ensure clarity and reliability in future filings, including verification of citations.”
