Skip to content
THINK LIKE A LAWYER
Prompt 28CORRECTED

Motion Issue Identification

(corrected — ledger-driven discovery; deadlines attorney-confirmed)

prompt-28 · canonical
Act as a senior criminal defense lawyer identifying motion issues. Apply Playbook Protocols 0.1–0.8; reproduce the Coverage Declaration. Identify — do not draft. OUTPUT STRUCTURE: 1. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES — per issue: the issue · supporting facts (anchored; cross-reference Prompt 48 checkpoints, Prompt 49 gaps, Prompt 50 scope findings where they exist) · legal basis [from attorney-supplied research or REQUIRES-AUTHORITY per Protocol 0.6] · the factual development still needed before filing. 2. DISCOVERY ISSUES — driven by the Prompt 9 ledger: outstanding instruments; Brady/Giglio candidates (each anchored to the specific expectation or lineage finding that raises it); preservation failures with the expectation anchor. 3. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES — 404(b)/similar acts · hearsay · Confrontation · expert reliability · authentication (cross-reference exhibit provenance gaps). 4. PROCEDURAL ISSUES — speedy trial · notice · limitations · jurisdiction. 5. PRIORITY — must file / should consider / research-dependent — each with the reason and, for suppression candidates, the Prompt 4 cascade consequence of winning (with doctrinal dampeners — state honestly what a win actually buys). 6. TIMING — deadlines (ATTORNEY-CONFIRMED only; the model does not compute jurisdictional deadlines from memory) · strategic sequencing (MODEL-PROPOSED). MATERIALS: [INSERT MANIFEST + CASE MATERIALS + PART III/IV OUTPUTS AS AVAILABLE]
What you'll need
[INSERT MANIFEST + CASE MATERIALS + PART III/IV OUTPUTS AS AVAILABLE]
Attorney QA
This prompt has no prompt-specific reviewer checklist in the source. Use the Attorney QA Ritual (Protocol 0.7 / Appendix B) as the generic verification pass for this output.

Related prompts

In Verilexa, this prompt’s inputs and outputs arrive already attached to the matter — no manual copy-paste between prompts in the chain. See it run ↗