The Georgia Supreme Court highlighted numerous fabricated case citations in legal filings during oral arguments on Hannah Payne's murder conviction appeal. Payne, convicted in 2023 for the death of Kenneth Herring, argues ineffective counsel in her self-defense claim. The court noted at least five nonexistent cases and unsupported quotes in the trial court's order.
Hannah Payne, 25, was convicted in December 2023 on two counts of felony murder, three counts of possession of a weapon during a crime, one count of malice murder, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment. These charges stemmed from the May 2019 death of Kenneth Herring, 62, during a confrontation after a multi-vehicle collision. Payne received a life sentence with parole eligibility after 43 years and appealed, citing ineffective assistance of counsel. She lost her motion for a new trial in late summer 2025, leading the case to the Georgia Supreme Court for oral arguments this week before Chief Justice Nels S.D. Peterson and other justices. Payne testified she never intended to fire her handgun and claimed Herring shot himself during a struggle over the weapon. Her appellate lawyer, Andrew Fleischman, argued the trial counsel failed to pursue defenses of others or citizen's arrest alongside self-defense. Fleischman apologized, saying, 'I'm sorry I didn't catch it... I regret that I did not bring this to the court's attention.' During arguments, Peterson pointed out issues in the trial court's order denying a new trial: 'there are at least five citations to cases that don't exist, and there's at least five more citations to cases that do not support the proposition for which they're cited, including three quotations that don't exist.' Deborah Leslie of the Clayton County District Attorney's Office, who prepared a 37-page proposed order later shortened to 33 pages by Judge Jewel C. Scott, responded, 'Your Honor, I'm not aware of that, but I would be glad to research and provide the court with a supplement.' Both orders contained the same citations. The state maintains the omitted defenses lacked evidentiary support. The justices gave no indication of the impact and will consider all arguments before deciding.