An insolvency judge in London has thrown out a witness's testimony after catching him receiving real-time coaching through smart glasses during cross-examination - and the excuse he offered might be the most absurd ChatGPT defense yet.
How It Unraveled
The case, heard by Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Agnello KC, involved the liquidation of a Lithuanian company co-owned by Laimonas Jakštys. From the start of his cross-examination, Jakštys paused noticeably before answering questions. Defense counsel told the court she could hear interference coming from near the witness and asked him to remove his glasses, noting that smart glasses with audio communication exist.
That's when things fell apart. The Lithuanian interpreter reported hearing voices coming from the glasses themselves. Judge Agnello identified them as smart glasses and ordered them removed.
A photo of Jakštys's phone screen showed he had made multiple calls to the same number that morning, including one placed moments before entering the witness box. When the glasses were removed, the coaching voice continued - now audible through his mobile phone.
The ChatGPT Defense
Jakštys's explanation: he claimed the voice people heard from his phone was ChatGPT. Judge Agnello's response was blunt - the explanation "lacks any credibility." The judge ruled Jakštys "unreliable and untruthful" and determined his written witness statements were "clearly prepared by others."
This is not a case about AI misuse. It's a case about old-fashioned witness coaching where someone grabbed the nearest tech buzzword as a cover story. But it highlights something practical: "ChatGPT did it" is becoming a reflexive excuse, and courts are already wise to it.
Courts Are Paying Attention
This case follows a growing pattern of AI-related courtroom issues. Lawyers have been sanctioned for submitting ChatGPT-generated briefs containing fabricated case citations. Judges in multiple jurisdictions now require attorneys to disclose AI tool usage. And witnesses, apparently, are testing whether smart glasses can serve as invisible earpieces.
The ruling sends a clear message: blaming AI for human deception doesn't work. Judges can tell the difference between someone using a chatbot and someone being fed answers by another person on a phone call. The fact that Jakštys reached for "ChatGPT" as his alibi says more about AI's cultural footprint than about any actual technology failure.