The Hannah Payne appeal is on hold. In May 2026, the Georgia Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s order denying her motion for a new trial and sent the case back to Clayton County, not because it had decided her ineffective-counsel claims, but because the order and the prosecution’s briefs were riddled with fabricated legal citations generated by artificial intelligence. Payne remains in prison serving a life sentence for the 2019 shooting death of Kenneth Herring, and the merits of her appeal have yet to be reached.1FindLaw. Hannah Renee Payne v. The State, No. S26A0459
What Payne Is Actually Appealing
Payne was convicted in December 2023 of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and three weapons counts after chasing down and shooting Herring, a 62-year-old motorist who had left the scene of a minor traffic collision in Clayton County. Judge Jewell C. Scott sentenced her to life in prison with the possibility of parole plus eight and five consecutive years, and District Attorney Tasha Mosley said Payne would not be parole-eligible for at least 43 years.2Fox 5 Atlanta. Hannah Payne To Be Sentenced Friday
Her appellate attorney, Andrew Fleischman, argues that trial counsel Matthew Tucker provided ineffective assistance by failing to request two jury instructions. The first is based on Georgia’s citizen’s arrest statute, which was still in effect when the 2019 shooting occurred and was repealed in 2021. Under that framework, the defense contends, jurors should have been told they could acquit Payne if they found she was lawfully attempting to detain a suspected impaired hit-and-run driver. The second is a defense-of-others instruction, which Fleischman says was warranted because Payne believed Herring might cause another crash and injure other drivers.3Fox 5 Atlanta. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Hannah Payne Appeal
Fleischman told the Georgia Supreme Court that Tucker had focused his strategy solely on self-defense and the false imprisonment charge, and mistakenly believed the defense-of-others theory required the defendant to personally know the people being protected. Tucker’s “failure to research a basic point of law,” Fleischman argued, “dictated the result of this trial, regardless of the facts.”4Court TV. Court That Denied Hannah Payne New Trial Cited Nonexistent Cases
The state responded that the evidence supported neither instruction. Prosecutors said Payne was the aggressor who used unreasonable force against an unarmed motorist and that no imminent threat justified a defense-of-others claim. They also suggested Tucker may have made a deliberate strategic choice to avoid a citizen’s arrest theory, since arguing Payne was trying to detain Herring could have reinforced the false imprisonment charge against her.5AOL News. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments
How AI-Generated Citations Derailed the Appeal
The trial court denied Payne’s motion for a new trial in an order dated September 12, 2025. The problem with that order surfaced during oral arguments on March 18, 2026, when Justice Nels S.D. Peterson confronted Assistant District Attorney Deborah Leslie about the filings she had submitted. According to Peterson, the trial court’s order and the prosecution’s briefs contained at least five citations to cases that do not exist, at least five more citations to real cases that did not support the propositions for which they were cited, and three quotations that appeared nowhere in the legal record.4Court TV. Court That Denied Hannah Payne New Trial Cited Nonexistent Cases
The justices ordered Leslie to file a supplemental brief explaining the errors. On March 27, 2026, she filed an affidavit admitting she had used generative AI software to draft the state’s response to Payne’s motion for a new trial, the proposed order for the trial judge, and the state’s appellate brief. She acknowledged she had not independently verified any of the citations the software produced.6Law360. GA Prosecutor Suspended Over AI Errors in Murder Case Because the trial court’s order denying the new trial had been “largely prepared by ADA Leslie,” it carried the same fabricated and misattributed authorities into the record.7Atlanta News First. Georgia Supreme Court Orders Redo in Hannah Payne Case After Bogus AI Citations
A later review found Leslie had submitted 12 additional unverified AI-generated citations and was required to withdraw reliance on nine authorities from her December 2025 appellate brief because they contained inaccurate holdings, nonexistent precedent, or misquoted language.8ABA Journal. Georgia Prosecutor Suspended for AI Use by State Supreme Court
What the Georgia Supreme Court Ordered
On May 5, 2026, the Georgia Supreme Court issued its decision in Hannah Renee Payne v. The State, No. S26A0459. Justice Benjamin A. Land, writing for the court, vacated the trial court’s September 2025 order. The court did not rule on whether Payne received ineffective assistance of counsel or whether she deserves a new trial. It found only that the lower court’s order was “tainted by bogus and misused case citations generated with AI” and could not stand.1FindLaw. Hannah Renee Payne v. The State, No. S26A0459
The case was remanded to Clayton County Superior Court with three directives. The trial court must issue a new ruling on Payne’s motion for a new trial that contains no fictitious or misattributed citations. That new order “shall not be prepared by counsel for either party,” a pointed instruction meant to ensure the judge drafts it independently. And the court ordered production of all written communications between the District Attorney’s office and the trial court concerning the vacated order.1FindLaw. Hannah Renee Payne v. The State, No. S26A0459
Justice Land wrote that the court “ha[s] no rule against the responsible use of artificial intelligence software by attorneys,” but that “citing cases that do not exist or do not support the proposition for which they are cited is a violation of this Court’s rules and falls far beneath the conduct we expect from Georgia lawyers.”7Atlanta News First. Georgia Supreme Court Orders Redo in Hannah Payne Case After Bogus AI Citations The opinion also urged trial judges statewide to “carefully review proposed orders with the understanding that artificial intelligence software, with all of its potential risks and benefits, may have been used to prepare such proposed orders.”1FindLaw. Hannah Renee Payne v. The State, No. S26A0459
Sanctions Against the Prosecutor
The court imposed direct sanctions on Leslie. Her privilege to practice before the Georgia Supreme Court was suspended for six months. Before seeking reinstatement, she must complete 12 hours of continuing legal education focused on ethics, brief writing, and the proper use of AI in the legal system. Both Leslie and the Clayton County District Attorney’s office were formally admonished.1FindLaw. Hannah Renee Payne v. The State, No. S26A0459
District Attorney Tasha Mosley said her office had separately taken “strict disciplinary action” against Leslie, including an internal suspension, a performance plan, loss of certain privileges, and a grievance filed with the State Bar of Georgia.6Law360. GA Prosecutor Suspended Over AI Errors in Murder Case
What Happens Next
Payne remains in prison serving her life sentence. The central question her appeal raised, whether Tucker’s failure to request citizen’s arrest and defense-of-others instructions amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, is undecided. The trial court must first issue a new, independently drafted order on her motion for a new trial. If the motion is denied again, Payne can return to the Georgia Supreme Court, and the justices would then reach the merits. If it is granted, she would receive a new trial. No new order from the trial court had been reported as of mid-2026.