Source: Metropolitan News-Enterprise

California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, found no abuse of discretion in admitting a forensic psychologist’s testimony challenged over her ChatGPT use. The unpublished opinion, written by Justice Truc T. Do, addressed Crystal Gillespie’s petition for writ relief. Gillespie faced a grand theft charge after being found in a U-Haul containing $1,673 in recently stolen merchandise from a San Diego-area Marshalls store. Gillespie sought pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code §1001.36. Psychologist Lauren Vickerman attributed Gillespie’s involvement to substance abuse and mental illnesses, while prosecution psychologist Nicole Friedman disputed their significance. San Diego Superior Court Judge Melinda Lasater denied diversion after crediting Friedman’s testimony and accepting that AI had not affected Friedman’s conclusions.

The appellate court deferred to the trial judge’s finding that Friedman used ChatGPT to structure her thinking while independently assessing the evidence. The opinion distinguished that account from using AI to produce an expert opinion, which the court said would require a foundation establishing methodological reliability, including general scientific acceptance. Nevertheless, Do acknowledged that Friedman had asked ChatGPT legal questions and sought an explanation of the causal connection central to the dispute. Do also identified an inaccurate statement in Friedman’s report denying documentation of specified serious psychiatric symptoms or episodes. The opinion recognized that these circumstances could support doubts about Friedman’s claimed independence, but found substantial evidence supporting the trial judge’s credibility determination. In Gillespie v. Superior Court, D088222, the appellate court also found sufficient evidence supporting the determination, under the clear-and-convincing standard, that Gillespie’s mental disorders were not significant motivating, causal or contributing factors in the charged offense.