Just across the Wabash River from Purdue University, police in Lafayette, Indiana, reportedly found problems during testing of Axon's Form One, an advanced AI tool for writing reports. According to a Forbes account based on public records, some officers said report-writing took longer with AI because the tool — which is aimed at the administrative fields of common forms — would include inaccurate plates, names, IDs, and more. (Forbes México has a free version of the article here.)

This is not the whole story. Oft-cited research about the problems with AI-assisted report-writing is from 2024, before the breakthroughs of coding agents in late 2025 and other exponential advancements. Further, both Lafayette officials and the vendor of the technology said it was early testing and that unspecified problems were addressed.

Earlier public records obtained from the same department—including internal emails about the technology and correspondence between Axon and Lafayette police—are available here and provide additional context on how the technology was marketed and evaluated.

An Indiana appellate judge has now twice suggested that AI might have produced error-filled trial transcripts. In Williams v. State, No. 25A-CR-3041 (Ind. Ct. App. July 23, 2026), Judge Paul Felix identified transcript passages that attributed a prosecution motion to the court, a defense objection to the bailiff, and part of the State’s closing argument to the court. Similar findings had been made in a March opinion by the same judge. Both opinions were nonprecedential and affirmed the convictions.

The errors may not be the product of a court reporter freelancing with an off-the-shelf chatbot. A December 2023 Marion County contract amendment established an enterprise transcription system in which TheRecordXchange’s VoiceCopy software automatically produces text from courtroom recordings. The company says Marion County reporters use its TranscriptionPro system to generate a first draft that the assigned reporter reviews, corrects and certifies. Both disputed transcripts were produced after that workflow was deployed.

A separate, court-approved pilot sends VoiceCopy output through Anthropic, using Amazon’s Bedrock service, but that program applies to expedited mental-health appeals. Public records do not show that Anthropic—or another generative model—handled either criminal transcript. They do show that automated transcription was part of Marion County’s institutional infrastructure, even though responsibility for certifying the final record remained with the court reporter.