WOODLAND, Calif. — A routine progress hearing in Yolo County Superior Court took an unexpected turn Thursday when Judge Catherine Hohenwarter questioned what appeared to be artificial intelligence-generated language in a progress report submitted on behalf of an accused, raising concerns about the use of AI in documents filed with the court.
The judge said documents filed with the court must be carefully reviewed and made clear that AI-generated language has no place in reports relied upon during court proceedings.
The accused appeared in Department 9 for a scheduled progress hearing regarding his participation in CommuniCare, a treatment program connected to his criminal cases. The hearing was not focused on determining guilt or innocence but on reviewing his participation in the program and confirming that he had completed required steps before his next court date.
Deputy Public Defender Victoria Morales O’Connor told the court that the accused had been actively participating in the program for the past several months. She explained that while he had already been engaged in treatment, his official orientation had only recently been completed because he had not specifically requested one earlier in the process.
She also informed the court that she had been communicating with multiple members of the CommuniCare staff and had provided the prosecution with a recent progress report documenting his participation.
Deputy District Attorney Candice Guthmiller told the court she had received the report only shortly before the hearing. While she did not object to the accused continuing in the program, she noted that the report did not include formal proof that his orientation had been completed.
As she reviewed the document, she also noticed language that appeared unrelated to the accused’s progress and instead resembled text copied from an AI writing assistant.
Guthmiller pointed to a sentence in the report that read, “Here’s a polished professional version,” language that appeared to be part of an AI editing prompt rather than information describing the accused’s treatment. She told the court that the wording raised concerns because documents submitted to the court should accurately reflect a participant’s progress without including AI-generated drafting language.
Morales O’Connor immediately acknowledged the issue. She told the court she was willing to submit a corrected progress report without the AI-generated language and explained that she would continue working with CommuniCare staff to provide any additional documentation needed. She also offered to obtain formal proof of the accused’s orientation if requested.
Judge Hohenwarter emphasized that the concern was not directed at the accused himself, but at the quality of documents being submitted to the court. She stated that reports relied upon during judicial proceedings must be carefully prepared and reviewed before filing.
Addressing defense counsel, the judge said she should notify CommuniCare that AI-generated language is not acceptable in documents submitted to the court.
“I know that shouldn’t be on you,” the judge told defense counsel before reiterating that the issue needed to be addressed with the treatment provider responsible for preparing the report.
Rather than imposing any sanctions or delaying the accused’s participation in the diversion program, the court chose to continue the matter. Judge Hohenwarter scheduled a follow-up hearing for Nov. 2 to allow time for updated documentation confirming his orientation and continued participation in CommuniCare.
The judge further explained that if the required documentation is submitted before the next hearing, the matter may be removed from the court’s calendar, eliminating the need for the accused to return solely for that status review.
Although the hearing lasted only a few minutes, it highlighted an issue becoming increasingly common as AI tools become more widely used in professional settings. Rather than focusing on the technology itself, the discussion centered on the importance of ensuring that reports submitted to the court remain accurate, complete and carefully reviewed before they are used in judicial decision-making.
The hearing concluded with the court setting the matter for Nov. 2 while allowing the accused to continue participating in the CommuniCare program.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
