Police Report and Discovery Inconsistency Finder
After the first discovery production arrives and before drafting motions or a cross outline, when you need every conflict between the report, dispatch records, footage transcripts and statements in one place.
Police reports are usually written after the fact, sometimes hours later, and often from memory. The dispatch log, body-cam footage and witness statements were created on different clocks by different people. The gaps between them (a stop that the CAD log shows happening before the reported traffic violation, a consent the footage never captures, a statement attributed to the wrong person) are where suppression arguments and impeachment come from. Finding them by hand across hundreds of pages is slow, and the most useful conflicts are often the quiet omissions.
This prompt places each source in its own tags so Claude can attribute every statement to where it came from. It then asks for a table that quotes each source side by side, labels the type of conflict, and rates its likely use: impeachment, a suppression issue, a discovery or Brady request, or nothing. Because it distinguishes omissions from contradictions and refuses to decide which source is true, the output stays an investigative map rather than a conclusion.
Transcripts are not recordings. Automated or third-party transcripts mishear words, misattribute speakers and drop overlapping speech, so every flagged row must be checked against the actual footage and documents before it appears in a filing or a question at a hearing. The motion value column is a prompt for your judgment, not a legal conclusion, and any authority you rely on must come from your own verified research.
The Prompt
I represent the defendant in [CASE NAME / CHARGES] in [JURISDICTION]. I am reviewing discovery for factual conflicts between the government's sources. Each source is below in its own tags. <police_report> [PASTE OFFICER NARRATIVE AND SUPPLEMENTS] </police_report> <cad_log> [PASTE CAD / DISPATCH LOG WITH TIMESTAMPS] </cad_log> <bodycam_transcript> [PASTE BODY-CAM TRANSCRIPT WITH TIMESTAMPS, NOTE WHICH OFFICER'S CAMERA] </bodycam_transcript> <witness_statements> [PASTE EACH STATEMENT, LABELED WITH WITNESS NAME AND DATE] </witness_statements> Defense theory, if any: [BRIEF THEORY, e.g., no reasonable suspicion for the stop; client never consented] Compare the sources and find every factual conflict. Focus on: times and elapsed time, the sequence of events, who said what and when, physical positions and observations, and every fact the report relies on for reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Output a table with these columns: # | Topic | What each source says (quote each, with source label and timestamp or page) | Type of conflict (direct contradiction, omission, timing gap, embellishment) | Possible value (impeachment, suppression motion, Brady/discovery request, none) | Confidence Rules: - Quote the exact source language. Do not paraphrase inside the quote column. - If a fact appears in one source and is absent from another, list it as an omission, not a contradiction. - Do not assume which source is accurate. Note when a transcript segment is marked inaudible or unclear. - Do not cite any case, statute or rule. The value column flags possible uses, not legal conclusions. - After the table, list follow-up discovery to request (for example, other officers' footage or radio traffic) and any source you expected but did not receive. This is a draft for my review; I will verify every quote against the original recordings and documents.
Example Output
A numbered conflict table quoting each source side by side, tagging each conflict by type and motion or impeachment value, followed by a follow-up discovery list.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
DISCOVERY CONFLICT TABLE State v. Marcus Delane (fictional) | DUI and possession | Defense theory: stop lacked reasonable suspicion 1 | Time of stop Report (p. 2): "At approximately 0142 hrs I observed the vehicle drift across the fog line." CAD log: "01:38:51 UNIT 14 TRAFFIC STOP, 400 BLK ELM" Body-cam (Ofc. Reyes, 00:00:12): footage begins with vehicle already stopped. Type: Timing gap. CAD shows the stop called in about 3 minutes before the reported observation. Value: Suppression (basis for stop); impeachment. Confidence: High 2 | Reason for stop Report: "drift across the fog line on two occasions." Body-cam (00:01:05) Reyes to driver: "I pulled you over because your tag light is out." Type: Direct contradiction. Value: Suppression; impeachment. Confidence: High 3 | Consent to search Report (p. 3): "Driver gave verbal consent to search the vehicle." Body-cam (00:09:40 to 00:11:02): [INAUDIBLE] while officer leans into window; no audible consent. Type: Omission / unclear. Value: Suppression (consent). Confidence: Medium, review footage. 4 | Odor of alcohol Report: "strong odor of an alcoholic beverage." Witness statement (J. Okafor, passenger): silent on odor. Type: Omission. Value: Low. Confidence: Low FOLLOW-UP DISCOVERY - Body-cam and dash-cam from backup Unit 22 (CAD shows arrival at 01:44). - Radio traffic audio for 01:35 to 01:50. - Expected but not received: tow inventory sheet referenced on report p. 4. Draft for attorney review. Quotes must be checked against the original recordings.
Tips
- •Keep the timestamps in the CAD log and body-cam transcript in their original format; converting them first invites errors that look like conflicts.
- •Run it again after each supplemental production and ask Claude to flag only new or changed conflicts against the previous table.
- •Feed the high-value rows straight into the officer cross-examination outline prompt so each question carries its impeachment source.
- •Treat every quote as a pointer, not evidence: watch the footage at each flagged timestamp before relying on it in a motion or at a hearing.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Claude watch the body-cam video itself?
No. This prompt works on transcripts and text you paste in. If you only have video, you need a transcript first, and machine transcripts are often wrong on exactly the words that matter, like consent or Miranda exchanges. Use the table as a list of timestamps to review on the actual footage, and never quote the transcript in a filing without confirming it against the recording.
How large a discovery production can I run through this?
Long productions work better in passes. Run the report and CAD log first, then add each body-cam transcript, then witness statements, asking Claude to merge new conflicts into the existing table. Keeping each source in labeled tags matters more than volume, because attribution is the whole point. If a source is too long, split it by time window and say so.
Does the motion value column mean I have a viable suppression motion?
No. The column flags facts that may support a suppression argument or impeachment so you know where to look. Whether a conflict supports a motion depends on your jurisdiction's controlling law and the full record. Research the standard yourself and verify any authority before filing. Claude is told not to supply case law in this prompt.
Is it safe to paste discovery into Claude?
Discovery often contains personal information about witnesses, victims and your client, and may be covered by a protective order. Check the order's terms and your confidentiality obligations under the rules of professional conduct before uploading. Use an account configuration whose data handling you have reviewed, and redact identifiers that the analysis does not need.
Related Prompts
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.