“Write a blog post for a criminal defense attorney's website about why having ChatGPT draft a plea agreement is a terrible idea.”

https://chat.openai.com/share/86c08cf1-82c1-4f61-a53a-c745f37a7177

Introduction

In the age of advanced technology, it's tempting to rely on AI-driven tools for various tasks, from generating content to automating processes. However, when it comes to the legal realm, certain matters demand the expertise and nuanced understanding that only a skilled criminal defense attorney can provide. One such critical aspect is the drafting of plea agreements, which are essential documents in the criminal justice system. In this blog post, we'll discuss why entrusting ChatGPT or any other AI system to draft a plea agreement is a terrible idea and why you should always rely on a seasoned attorney for this vital task.

1. Legal Complexity and Nuances

Plea agreements involve intricate legal language, statutory interpretations, and case precedents. These documents require a deep understanding of criminal law, potential sentencing outcomes, and the specifics of your case. While AI models like ChatGPT can generate text, they lack the comprehension of legal intricacies and the ability to tailor language to your unique circumstances. A minor mistake or oversight could have a significant impact on the outcome of your case, making it crucial to have an experienced attorney who can navigate the complexities with precision.

2. Customization and Personalization

Every criminal case is unique, influenced by a multitude of factors such as the evidence, the defendant's background, the prosecutor's stance, and more. A plea agreement must be tailored to address these individual aspects to secure the best possible outcome for you. While ChatGPT can generate content, it lacks the capacity to understand your personal situation, emotions, and concerns. A proficient criminal defense attorney not only comprehends the legal landscape but also recognizes the importance of personalization to create an agreement that aligns with your specific needs and goals.

3. Negotiation Strategy

Plea agreements often involve negotiations between the defense attorney and the prosecutor. These negotiations require strategic thinking, knowledge of legal precedents, and an understanding of the local legal system. An experienced attorney can engage in negotiations effectively, leveraging their expertise to advocate for the most favorable terms. ChatGPT, on the other hand, cannot adapt its negotiation strategy based on real-time feedback, anticipate the prosecutor's responses, or employ the art of persuasion that a seasoned attorney can provide.

4. Unintended Consequences

AI-generated content is based on patterns in the data it has been trained on. However, it cannot predict the potential unintended consequences that might arise from the wording of a plea agreement. A single phrase or clause could inadvertently lead to undesirable outcomes or impact your rights. Legal professionals possess the insight to foresee and mitigate these risks, ensuring that your plea agreement safeguards your interests while adhering to the law.

5. Ethical Considerations and Accountability

Legal matters are subject to a complex web of ethical guidelines and professional responsibilities. Attorneys are bound by a strict code of conduct to act in your best interests, maintain confidentiality, and uphold the principles of justice. While ChatGPT lacks the moral compass and ethical judgment of a human attorney, a legal professional is accountable for their actions and decisions, ensuring that your rights are protected throughout the process.

Conclusion

While AI technology like ChatGPT has made remarkable strides in various fields, entrusting it with the drafting of a plea agreement is a risky proposition. The intricacies of criminal law, the need for customization, negotiation strategies, unintended consequences, and ethical considerations demand the expertise of a skilled criminal defense attorney. Your future and your rights are too important to leave to chance. When it comes to plea agreements, always choose the guidance of a seasoned legal professional who can navigate the complexities of the legal system and advocate for your best interests.

Just don’t do this.

It looks like this question I answered on Avvo today really spoke to me, given the length (and quality IMHO) of my answer. As such, and because I haven’t made a post on this blog in so long, I’m reposting it here. Here’s the question, followed by my amazing answer.

“Can I use screenshots printed out in a custody hearing? my kids mother has a few choice words that I feel can help me in my hearing as far as leaving decisions to my kids and my presence not being a priority of hers ? Can I use these screenshots in court and how do I do so?”

Probably. The exact procedure will vary by jurisdiction, and maybe even by courtroom. But I have a few bulletpoints of general advice.

* How do you prove that these screenshots are what you say they are? If the person is available and willing to state in court that the screenshots accurately depict what you say they do, then that's great. Otherwise, is the person who made the screenshots willing and able to state in court how they made the screenshots and how they know that the "few choice words" were uttered by your "kids mother"?

* How will you submit the screenshots? If this is an in-person hearing, I would print out a copy for you, a copy for the court, a copy for every other party in the courtroom, a copy for any witness(es) you have to question about them, and a few extras just in case. If this is one of those Zoom hearings that are all the rage these days, you may be able to submit the photo file digitally. Either way, the court may want exhibits like this submitted beforehand, or may have other requirements. I would recommend contacting the court clerk ahead of time to check about their rules and procedures. As much fun as it may sound to be able to whip out surprise evidence mid-hearing, I wouldn't recommend trying it if you are representing yourself. (Having finished typing that last sentence, I recognize that others may disagree.)

* Plan to be able to explain in court exactly what you are trying to present. Are these phone screenshots of a conversation between two people? Make sure you can effectively explain what the app is and why this might look different from the only app that the judge uses on their phone (assuming they even text at all). If it's Facebook or Twitter or LinkedIn or one of those type of services, be prepared to explain what that is and how it works.

* If there is a way to make the content of the screenshot more self-explaining, do that. If this is a text conversation, does the screenshot depict the phone numbers involved or the contact names? Contact names may be easier to understand, but then how will you establish that you didn't just send those messages from a different number and then assign that number to your "kids mother"? If it's a Facebook post or something else that can be accessed from a web browser, perhaps you want to take a screenshot of the web version with the website URL in the screenshot, especially if it's a publicly available post and the URL includes a username that your "kids mother" will admit belongs to her profile.

* Perhaps most importantly, plan to be able to explain in court the exact relevance of what you are trying to present. You indicate that you believe that your "kids mother"'s "few choice words" "can help [you] in [your] hearing as far as leaving decisions to [your] kids and [your] presence not being a priority of hers." It is critical, though, that you be able to explain in court how this evidence is relevant. Does it prove that she is lying to the court about something? Then it's probably relevant. Does it establish something directly relevant to the custody of your child? Great. Does it make her look like a bad person, or someone who spends her free time in embarrassing ways? Ehhhhhhhh.

That you're thinking about all of this beforehand and asking about it on this site is a good sign. I would be remiss, though, to not mention that for something as important as this appears to be to you, retaining an attorney to represent you would be a great idea if you can do it. Good luck!

I strongly suspect that practicing criminal defense law makes it impossible for me to read certain news articles with a perspective that could be labelled anything close to "normal." Consider the following fear-mongering:

Soon after Raleigh, North Carolina, police arrested registered sex offender Thomas Paul Keeler II in March last year, they discovered he was an avid user of Kik Messenger, the Canadian communications app billed as the West's alternative to WeChat. He was a member of more than 200 Kik groups with names like "kidsnbabies," all dedicated to trading child abuse material, including images and videos of minors aged between three and 12 "engaged in sexual acts with adults," according to a search warrant obtained by Forbes. In total, Keeler, who is awaiting sentencing after filing a currently-sealed plea agreement, shared and received such content with as many as 300 different individuals over less than a year, the government claimed.

This astonishing level of illegal content might appear unique, but in recent years this kind of activity has become rampant across Kik. A joint Forbes and Point Report investigation has uncovered evidence of a vast number of child exploitation cases involving the use of Kik, where some of the most appalling material is being shared and young girls and boys are being targeted for grooming. Posing as 14-year-old girls, we also discovered just how quickly predators were on the prowl and how third-party apps for sharing profiles appeared to be facilitating access to minors. And we found that Kik hasn't even been deleting the profiles of individuals charged and convicted of child abuse offenses.

I'm not sure who bills Kik "as the West's alternative to WeChat," especially since "WeChat" is the name for the official "western" version of Weibo. Anyway, I suppose the knee-jerk reaction to any article focused on a single app or platform, like this one is, will invariably be "DELETE THIS APP FROM UR PRECIOUS CHILD'S IPHONE NOW!!!!!," much easier advice than the more nuanced concept of paying closer attention to the variety of apps and communications platforms that one's child uses to communicate. Unfortunately, reporter Thomas Fox-Brewster waits until the article's final paragraphs to spread the suspicion around:

Experts say predators are now diversifying, using Kik as just one platform to carry out their crimes. Increasingly, streaming apps such as Facebook Live, Live.me, Twitter's Periscope and newer tools like Musical.ly and Oovoo are being used to contact children for potential grooming. One search warrant detailing a case from Ohio where police said they found one suspect was using a range of those applications and Kik in hunting for underage girls.

"Offenders are using multiple apps simultaneously in the course of their offences, including to speak with the same victim. For example, from Kik, to Facebook, to Skype," added U.S. attorney [Zach] Myers.

It's not just Kik that has plenty of work to do to ensure young web users are safe from abusers.

My reaction to this Forbes article as a criminal defense attorney is colored by my experience with this topic from the other side of the problem. On the rare occasion that I find myself reading about Kik, it tends to be in the police reports of clients accused of soliciting minors. Nothing good happens after [insert time here], and nothing good comes from chatting with strangers on Kik. Though perhaps bad for business, I do appreciate this article suggesting the same:

There's also evidence American investigators are treating Kik like a honeypot. The Canadian company provides a full guide for cops on how to use the app, while feds are running a significant array of fake profiles, even encouraging suspects to communicate with them over Kik rather than other platforms.

In November 2016, District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department detective Timothy Palchak, acting in an undercover capacity on an unnamed classified ads site, interacted with a user who expressed an interest in incest, looking for a "mother with no limits," according to a criminal complaint. Soon after getting in touch with the suspect, Palchak wrote in internet speak: "Whats your kik dont like discussing on email."

In an earlier case, a separate investigator failed in an attempt to get the target to move over to Kik. A suspect responded to another of Palchak's advertisements in August 2016, to which the officer wrote: "Sweet 30 dad here with daughter. Do you have kik? easier to talk." The suspect replied: "How old is she? I actually don’t. Honestly probably not the safest place to chat. I know a guy its talking to who said it wasn't."

Cops are going to incredible lengths in order to pursue offenders too. Police said in one warrant that in response to a request for an image from a suspect, who believed they were talking to an underage girl, the undercover agent provided a real photo of an unnamed officer assuming the identity of a 14-year-old.

I have three reactions. First, "Whats your kik dont like discussing on email." is not "internet speak." Second, it's cute that Mr. Fox-Brewster considers it "going to incredible lengths" to "provide[] a real photo of an unnamed officer assuming the identity of a 14-year-old." Third, maybe it's not Kik that has a "Huge Child Exploitation Problem," as the article's title indicates. Maybe it's the real world that has the problem, and Kik is merely the newest ghetto to which the problem has been chased.