State v. Boles juror ChatGPT research (Paulding County, Ga.)

What happened

In State v. Boles, Lacy Jolee Boles was set for trial in Paulding County, Georgia, in June 2026 on charges of malice murder, felony murder and aggravated assault in the December 22, 2019 death of her husband, Daniel Akers. She maintains that he died by suicide. According to Court TV, the court clerk informed Judge Dean Bucci that a prospective juror had asked ChatGPT about the case. Jurors are instructed not to do independent research or to discuss the case with anyone.

A Court TV correspondent reported separately that the discovery came after 2 full days of jury selection and that the juror had told other prospective jurors about the research. The content of the query and of ChatGPT's response has not been reported.

What the court did

Judge Bucci released the remaining jury pool in State v. Boles and postponed the trial, which Court TV reported was reset for November. Court TV's article states that the judge held the prospective juror in contempt. A Court TV correspondent's contemporaneous post stated instead that the juror would be summoned for a contempt hearing. Neither source reports a penalty.

Where it stands

No written order in State v. Boles was located, and this entry rests on Court TV reporting. Whether a contempt finding was entered, and on what terms, has not been confirmed. The November trial date had not yet arrived when this entry was checked. Commentary published in June 2026 observed that no civil verdict had yet been reported overturned for juror AI use; this matter concerns a criminal trial stopped before it began.

Readers should treat the details with care until an order or transcript is available. The single article and the correspondent's post agree on the core facts: a prospective juror consulted ChatGPT, the court learned of it through the clerk, and the trial did not go forward that week. They differ on the procedural step taken against the juror.

The obligation it engaged

A juror is not a professional, and the Expert Record Standard does not govern jurors. The matter belongs in this record because it shows how easily a general-purpose system reaches into a proceeding. The prohibition on outside research exists so that a verdict rests only on evidence both sides have seen and could test. A chatbot's answer about a pending case is information from an unknown source that neither party can examine, which is the concern behind independent authority, Clause 3.

For professionals, the parallel is direct. A lawyer or expert who consults a system about a pending matter brings the same kind of untested material into the work, and may also disclose case information to a third party, which engages custody and confidentiality, Clause 6.

The court's response was procedural and prompt. It did not attempt to measure what the juror had learned or whether others were affected; it released the pool and started again.

Sources

• Court TV · June 17, 2026
  Murder trial postponed after juror asks ChatGPT about the case
• The National Law Review · June 29, 2026
  A New Threat to a Fair Trial: Artificial Intelligence and Juror Deliberations

What could not be confirmed

Sources differ on whether the juror was held in contempt (Court TV article) or summoned to a contempt hearing (Court TV correspondent's post on X, seen only as a search excerpt). The juror's identity, the query, any penalty and the exact November trial date are not confirmed. The court is identified as the Paulding County Superior Court on the basis that felony trials in Georgia are heard in superior court; Court TV refers only to Judge Bucci's courtroom in Paulding County.