CA6: ChatGPT’s opinion that evidence was “newly discovered” for a successor habeas is wrong

Defendant was the subject of an NIT (Playpen) search warrant years ago and was convicted. In a successor habeas he argues that “ChatGPT’s ‘opinion’ that the magistrate judge participated in a crime by issuing the NIT warrant does not make Jones’s proposed claim newly discovered.” It’s not. He always knew about the Playpen warrant. In re Jones, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 17669 (6th Cir. June 17, 2026).

Probable cause was shown for this warrant for information on defendant’s cash app and social media accounts in a drug case. There is probable cause on the totality. “Her complaints focus on what is not contained in the Affidavits rather than considering how the information demonstrates the supportive role Bogan is alleged to have played in the conspiracy. It is not necessary for a participant in a drug trafficking conspiracy to be directly involved in acquiring or delivering the controlled substances.” United States v. Bogan, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136564 (E.D. Mo. May 8, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Social media warrants. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.