Kjoller v. Superior Court (Nevada County DA)

What happened

In late 2025, defense lawyers in Nevada County, California identified citations in prosecution filings that they could not locate. One of the defendants, Kyle Kjoller, was represented by the public defender and Civil Rights Corps. His lawyers documented six authorities in a prosecution brief that they said did not exist and asked the courts to investigate and impose sanctions.

District Attorney Jesse Wilson issued a statement reported by The Union and the Sacramento Bee in November 2025: "A prosecutor recently used artificial intelligence in preparing a filing, which resulted in an inaccurate citation." He said the filing "was immediately withdrawn" and that "All of the attorneys in the office were reminded to verify all legal citations independently."

By August 2026, according to CalMatters, Wilson and Assistant District Attorney Lydia Stuart had acknowledged that four felony cases were affected by mistakes that bear the markings of AI use. The office said an audit found no pattern of error outside those cases. CalMatters reported that a former prosecutor who resigned in May 2026 had handled 3 of the 4 cases, including a habeas corpus matter.

What the court did

The Court of Appeal initially denied Kjoller's petition. Kjoller sought review in the California Supreme Court (Kjoller v. Superior Court, S293723). On January 14, 2026, as summarized the next day by Horvitz & Levy, the Supreme Court granted review and returned the case to the Third District Court of Appeal with directions to issue the requested order to show cause regarding sanctions. The order allowed the Court of Appeal to appoint a referee to hear evidence and make findings.

The petition alleged that the district attorney's response to Kjoller's habeas petition, which challenged the denial of bail, contained fabricated authority and misrepresented the record. The district attorney's office contested the characterization, stating: "There are errored citations; however, the errored citations belong to real cases."

CalMatters reported in August 2026 that the Court of Appeal had appointed a judge to investigate the scope of the errors and whether sanctions against the district attorney are warranted.

Where it stands

No sanction had been imposed as of September 11, 2026. The investigation was pending. The name of the appointed judge and any hearing date were not confirmed in the sources reviewed.

The obligation it engaged

The conduct engaged Clause 3 of the Expert Record Standard (independent authority). A citation that enters a filing on a system's authority, without being pulled and read, is the failure the clause is written to prevent. The office's own instruction to verify every citation independently restates the clause.

The prosecutorial setting adds weight to Clause 8 (disclosure) and Clause 7 (contemporaneous record). The office's audit had to reconstruct after the fact which filings involved AI. A log kept as the work was done would have answered that question at once. When a defendant's liberty turns on a bail or habeas ruling, the court and the defense need to know how an authority reached the page.

Sources

• CalMatters · August 20, 2026
  AI led to mistakes in Nevada County criminal cases. Should the DA be sanctioned?
• Horvitz & Levy LLP · January 14, 2026
  Supreme Court orders sanctions hearing about DA's alleged AI briefing
• The Union (Sacramento Bee) · November 26, 2025
  AI caused errors in a criminal case, Northern California prosecutor says

What could not be confirmed

The Supreme Court's January 14, 2026 order was not opened directly; its terms come from a law firm summary. The appointed judge's name, the hearing date and which filings the office attributes to AI rather than human error were not confirmed. The order date is taken from the Horvitz & Levy post of January 15, 2026, which describes action at the previous day's conference.