(File Photo by Kevin Mathewson Kenosha County Eye)
BRISTOL, Wis. — Two felony cargo burglary cases were dismissed without prejudice Friday after a Kenosha County judge found prosecutors failed to establish probable cause at the preliminary hearing stage, a ruling that also briefly touched on District Attorney Xavier Solis’ undisclosed use of artificial intelligence in a court filing. According to sources, the Kenosha County District Attorney’s Office plans to refile the charges in the coming weeks.
(Kenosha County Sheriff’s Office)
Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge David Hughes dismissed the cases against Cornelius M. Garrett and Christain Dejuan Garrett following a Feb. 6 motion hearing, concluding the cases should never have been bound over for trial in the first place. The defendants had originally been bound over in 2023 by Court Commissioner William “Bargain Bail Billy” Michel II. Because the dismissals were issued without prejudice, prosecutors are permitted to bring the charges again.
(File Photo by Kevin Mathewson, Kenosha County Eye)
Both defendants were originally bound over for trial after preliminary hearings held under the prior district attorney’s administration. Defense attorneys Michael D. Cicchini and Brenda L. VanCuick later appealed those bindover decisions, arguing that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearings failed to meet the legal threshold required to support felony charges.’
(File Photo by Kevin Mathewson, Kenosha County Eye)
After reviewing defense briefs and transcripts from the original preliminary hearings, Hughes agreed. The judge ruled that the commissioner erred and that the evidence presented did not establish probable cause that the defendants committed felony offenses. The ruling focused narrowly on the sufficiency of the evidence at the preliminary hearing stage, not on whether crimes occurred or whether the defendants could ultimately be charged again.
During the hearing, Hughes questioned Solis about whether artificial intelligence had been used in drafting the state’s response brief. Solis acknowledged that AI had been used as an assistive drafting tool and that he did not properly certify that use under a recently adopted local court rule requiring disclosure.
The issue arose after the AI-assisted filing cited a case that does not exist, a phenomenon commonly referred to as an AI “hallucination.” Solis apologized to the court for the oversight.
In a statement to Kenosha County Eye, Solis accepted responsibility for the mistake and emphasized that the AI issue played no role in the dismissal of the cases.
“I learned from this mistake and it will not be repeated,” Solis said. “In the future, I will make the required disclosures when using AI and will ensure all content is carefully reviewed before filing.”
The disclosure rule, championed by Kenosha County Circuit Judge Heather Iverson, was implemented only a few months ago. It does not prohibit AI use by attorneys or prosecutors, a practice now common nationwide, but instead requires transparency and verification when AI tools are used in court filings.
Despite this, a Democrat internet blogger — who is a drug user and currently out on bail in a separate criminal case — publicly blamed the dismissals on the AI issue and attacked the prior Graveley administration as “incompetent” for not doing a better job at the preliminary hearing stage. Court records, transcripts, and the judge’s ruling directly contradict that narrative. The cases were dismissed because the state, under the Graveley administration, failed to meet its evidentiary burden at the preliminary hearing stage — a defect in the original bindover that predated Solis’ tenure and had nothing to do with AI use.
5 Responses
Michel another mistake, when are citizens of Kenosha going to be done with him?? We need solid judges and commissioners not DEI stupid idiots.
Xavier Solis using AI is a national scandal. This has nothing to do with the judge.
He did not rule there was not probable cause; dismissal was BECAUSE of the AI. That’s why it was without prejudice.
You are incorrect; he did rule there was no probable cause (that’s what “defective bindover” means… defective in that there was no probable cause). Court record confirms: “Court grants Motion to Dismiss for defective bind-over, in its entirety, without prejudice.”
This is a great lawsuit no