Kjoller v. Superior Court of Nevada County (People real party in interest)
California Supreme Court (directing Third District Court of Appeal) · Cal. · California bar guidance
Verified April 26, 2026
- Citation
- Kjoller v. Superior Court of Nevada County, No. S293723 (Cal. Jan. 14, 2026) (directing OSC in Court of Appeal No. C104445)
- Decided
- January 14, 2026
Summary
Petitioner Kyle Kjoller, held without bail on gun-possession charges in Nevada County, sought habeas relief in the Third District Court of Appeal. The Nevada County District Attorney's response brief cited eight authorities: three were entirely fabricated, three real cases were misrepresented to stand for propositions they did not support, and a cited constitutional provision was irrelevant to the argument advanced. After the Court of Appeal initially denied a motion for sanctions, the California Supreme Court granted review and on January 14, 2026 directed the Third District to issue an order to show cause why monetary and reputational sanctions should not be imposed against the District Attorney's office. The District Attorney, Jesse Wilson, has publicly attributed errors in one of four flagged briefs to generative AI.
- AI tool:
- not named on the record
What sanction did the court impose?
California Supreme Court (No. S293723) ordered the Third District Court of Appeal (No. C104445) to issue an order to show cause regarding sanctions. Sanctions proceedings remain pending; no monetary amount has been imposed as of last verification.
Why does Kjoller v. Superior Court of Nevada County (People real party in interest) matter for law firms using AI?
Two features make Kjoller unusual in the AI-citation corpus: the sanctioned filer is a prosecutor’s office, and a habeas petitioner’s pretrial detention was directly at stake. The Nevada County DA’s response brief in the Third District cited eight authorities, of which three were fabricated, three were misrepresented to stand for propositions they did not support, and one constitutional provision was off-point. After the Court of Appeal initially denied sanctions, the California Supreme Court granted review and ordered the panel to issue an OSC on monetary and reputational consequences. The matter remains open; no final sanctions order has issued. Two takeaways carry: appellate courts escalate when a trial-level AI-citation problem is met with deflection rather than prompt correction, and the reputational tail reaches the office, not just the individual signer.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Amicus-Letter-in-support-of-PFR-Kjoller-Filed-11.21.25.pdf
- ABA (secondary source)
- Identity of the specific deputy DA who signed the brief is not confirmed in available primary sources.
- AI tool used was not named on the record; DA's office has acknowledged generative AI involvement in one of four flagged briefs.