OSINT Case Study: AI-Generated Filings in Wright v. Ramsey County
Date: November 24, 2025
Status: Open and Ongoing
Overview
This page documents observable discrepancies in court recordkeeping associated with Wright v. St. Paul Police Department, D. Minn. No. 0:25-cv-02502-JRT-DLM, with particular focus on the Registers of Actions (ROA) for the underlying Ramsey County criminal case, No. 62-CR-22-5111. The inquiry does not assess the merits of the criminal allegations or the conduct of the parties; it examines whether the court’s own records present a stable, internally consistent timeline suitable for procedural reliance.
Federal filings in Wright’s civil-rights case include two different ROA representations for the same underlying criminal matter: a public-facing Minnesota Court Records Online (MCRO) listing and a separate internal/attorney-facing register attached as an exhibit. These two records do not present the same sequencing or structure.
Case Context
Wright is an incarcerated, pro se litigant pursuing a federal civil-rights action arising from his treatment by municipal and county actors. His Amended Complaint was accepted by the District of Minnesota as the operative pleading, and the court issued a briefing schedule directing defendants already served to respond by a fixed deadline.
The federal court’s acceptance of Wright’s pleadings is procedurally relevant here because it establishes the posture in which the disputed ROA materials entered the record: as exhibits relied upon in an active federal case, not as speculative or informal screenshots.
Observed Record Discrepancies
The public MCRO listing for Case No. 62-CR-22-5111 presents as a conventional docket: entries appear one per line, index numbers increase in sequence, and events are arranged chronologically.
By contrast, the internal/attorney-facing ROA attached in federal filings displays non-sequential index numbers, bundled or grouped events, and reordering that does not correspond to a simple chronological progression. Index values appear to jump forward and backward, and multiple actions are grouped under single index clusters.
These features are not limited to formatting. Changes in sequence and grouping alter the apparent timing of filings, orders, and fee-related entries—elements that carry procedural significance in determinations involving notice, deadlines, and compliance.
Comparative Pattern
Wright’s ROA discrepancies mirror record behaviors documented in other, unrelated Ramsey County matters, including cases involving different litigants and different underlying facts. The shared characteristics include index renumbering, retroactive reordering, and divergence between public-facing MCRO views and internal ROA exports.
Wright has no documented connection to those other litigants and did not coordinate litigation strategy with them. The appearance of similar ROA characteristics across unrelated cases reduces the likelihood that the discrepancies are attributable to individual user error or misunderstanding of MCRO. :contentReference[oaicite:8]{index=8}
Procedural Implications
Registers of Actions function as timing-dependent records. Appeal windows, service determinations, contempt findings, and “failure to appear” rulings all depend on a reliable account of what occurred and when. Where multiple ROA representations exist for the same case, downstream reliance becomes contingent on which version is treated as authoritative.
In Wright’s case, the existence of two materially different ROA presentations—one public and one internal—demonstrates that the record itself can change based on audience or access level. This condition introduces uncertainty into any proceeding that relies on the internal register as a definitive timeline.
Use of the Internal ROA in Litigation
In related federal litigation involving Ramsey County, county counsel has treated internal ROA exports as the official record for purposes of argument and judicial reliance, notwithstanding discrepancies with MCRO. Wright’s exhibits place that practice in a broader context by showing the same internal ROA behaviors in a case unrelated to those proceedings.
The issue presented is not whether a given entry favors one party, but whether a record that exhibits reordering and renumbering can function as a stable evidentiary baseline when presented as definitive.
Institutional Context
Under federal civil-rights doctrine, isolated clerical errors are typically insufficient to establish municipal liability. Patterns that recur across cases, however, may be relevant to assessing whether a practice or custom exists at the institutional level. Wright’s ROA materials add an independent data point to an emerging record pattern.
The presence of dual ROA timelines—public and internal—across multiple cases suggests a structural characteristic of the recordkeeping system rather than a one-off anomaly.