"Do you watch the news? Do you listen to the radio? Do you read anything about what's going on in the world?” one of the judges asked the lawyer, who submitted false testimony and witnesses after using ChatGPT.
They are advocating/representing, not testifying. A defense attorney does not make statements of fact, they call witnesses and experts for that. They introduce reasonable doubt.
They call witnesses and experts to present facts and other testomony which is why they are under oath.
They call witnesses and experts to present facts and other testomony which is why they are under oath.
So, how can “fake witnesses” exist? Last I heard, witnesses were required to appear on the witness stand, take the oath, and present their evidence.
The US Supreme Court has upheld the Confrontation Clause of the constitution in recent cases, too. The prosecuted have the right to face their accusers.
They are still able to be held accoubtable for breaking ethincs, and in my opinion they should be disbarred for presenting AI hallucinations and any other evidence they haven’t spent any time verifying.
They are advocating/representing, not testifying. A defense attorney does not make statements of fact, they call witnesses and experts for that. They introduce reasonable doubt.
They call witnesses and experts to present facts and other testomony which is why they are under oath.
So, how can “fake witnesses” exist? Last I heard, witnesses were required to appear on the witness stand, take the oath, and present their evidence.
The US Supreme Court has upheld the Confrontation Clause of the constitution in recent cases, too. The prosecuted have the right to face their accusers.
Fair enough, but I don’t like it. I guess I’ll settle for contempt of court.
They are still able to be held accoubtable for breaking ethincs, and in my opinion they should be disbarred for presenting AI hallucinations and any other evidence they haven’t spent any time verifying.