A wave of confusion swept through a Georgia courtroom on Wednesday when errors attributed to AI-generated legal documents threatened to derail an appeal by a woman convicted of murder. The case involves Hannah Payne, who was found guilty in December 2023 for the death of Kenneth Herring, a 62-year-old man, during a botched citizen’s arrest.

Payne, then 25, faced a string of serious charges: two counts of felony murder, three counts of possessing a weapon during a crime, and individual counts of malice murder, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment. As a result, she received a life sentence with the possibility of parole only after serving 43 years.

Unwilling to accept her fate, Payne swiftly moved to appeal both her conviction and the subsequent sentence, alleging that her initial legal representation failed her. Despite her efforts, a motion for a new trial was denied in late summer of 2025, pushing the appeal up to the Georgia Supreme Court this week.

During the proceedings, Chief Justice Nels S.D. Peterson brought to light significant discrepancies in the legal documents from the lower court. His concerns highlighted that several case citations were not only nonexistent but also failed to substantiate the points they were intended to support. Furthermore, he noted that three supposed quotations were nowhere to be found.

During oral arguments, one of the justices noted that certain components of legal filings from the lower court did not appear to have legal justification.

“In reviewing the trial court’s order denying the motion for new trial, there are at least five citations to cases that don’t exist, and there’s at least five more citations to cases that do not support the proposition for which they’re cited, including three quotations that don’t exist,” Chief Justice Nels S.D. Peterson said.

An attorney for the state denied knowledge of the fabricated citations.

“I did prepare an order, that order was revised,” Deborah Leslie, representing the Clayton County District Attorney’s Office, said.

This answer received a quick riposte.

“Those nonexistent cases were cited in your initial brief opposing the motion for new trial,” the justice told the prosecutor.

To which Leslie replied: “Your Honor, I’m not aware of that, but I would be glad to research and provide the court with a supplement.”

Court TV obtained copies of the initial 37-page proposed order prepared by the state — as well as the eventual 33-page order denying Payne a new trial issued by Clayton County Superior Court Judge Jewel C. Scott.

A review of both orders by Law&Crime shows the exact same number of citations were used in each document.

During oral arguments, an attorney representing Payne apologized for not catching the multiple apparent errors in the orders.

“I’m sorry I didn’t catch it,” appellate lawyer Andrew Fleischman said. “I sometimes don’t read all the cases cited in my opponent’s brief, and this was an instance where I didn’t do that. I regret that I did not bring this to the court’s attention. I am sorry about it.”

The heart of the appeal is the notion that Payne’s trial attorney offered constitutionally deficient counsel because he did not try to assert either a defense of others or citizen’s arrest basis in service of her broader self-defense claim.

In the aftermath of a collision involving multiple vehicles, Payne confronted Herring. And while taking the stand in her own defense, she admittedly never drew her weapon before the day in question. But Payne insisted she never meant for her brandished handgun to even fire a bullet during the resulting altercation. Rather, she said, the deceased man shot himself during the ensuing struggle for her weapon.

“The defense that he chose is basically inapplicable,” Fleischman said of the way Payne’s trial counsel framed the self-defense argument.

The state, for its part, claims the two unused defenses were not supported by the evidence and therefore the lack of instruction was proper.

But while drama was high over the fake quotations issue, the justices on the highest appeals court in the Peach State gave no indication the kerfuffle would necessarily inure to Payne’s benefit.

As proceedings drew to a close, the court said it would take all the arguments into consideration. The state supreme court offered no indication when a decision would be issued.