case-analyzer

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Case Analyzer Skill

案件分析器Skill

Purpose

用途

Conduct comprehensive legal case analysis to identify viable claims, evaluate strengths and weaknesses, map evidence requirements, and develop litigation strategy for civil rights and legal advocacy cases.
针对民权与法律维权案件开展全面法律分析,识别可行诉因、评估案件优劣、梳理证据要求并制定诉讼策略。

When to Use This Skill

适用场景

  • When user says "analyze this case" or "help me with a new case"
  • During initial case intake and assessment
  • When evaluating potential causes of action
  • When mapping legal theories to case facts
  • When assessing case viability for litigation
  • When identifying discovery needs
  • When strategizing affirmative defenses to counter
  • 当用户提出“分析这个案件”或“帮我处理新案件”时
  • 案件初步受理与评估阶段
  • 评估潜在诉因时
  • 梳理法律理论与案件事实对应关系时
  • 评估案件诉讼可行性时
  • 识别证据开示需求时
  • 制定积极抗辩策略时

When NOT to Use This Skill

不适用场景

  • For legal research (use legal-research-assistant skill instead)
  • For drafting legal documents (use legal-document-drafter skill instead)
  • For case archival (use arweave-case-archiver skill instead)
  • For calculating damages (use damages-calculator skill if available)
  • For trial preparation (use trial-prep skill if available)
  • 法律研究(请使用legal-research-assistant skill)
  • 法律文书起草(请使用legal-document-drafter skill)
  • 案件归档(请使用arweave-case-archiver skill)
  • 损害赔偿计算(如有可用请使用damages-calculator skill)
  • 庭审准备(如有可用请使用trial-prep skill)

Prerequisites

前置条件

  • Basic case facts available (who, what, when, where)
  • Jurisdiction identified (federal, state, which court)
  • General understanding of harm/violation alleged
  • Access to reference files in references/ directory
  • Python 3.9+ for automation scripts (statute of limitations calculator)

  • 具备基础案件事实(人物、事件、时间、地点)
  • 已确定管辖范围(联邦、州、具体法院)
  • 对主张的损害/侵权有基本认知
  • 可访问references/目录下的参考文件
  • 自动化脚本(诉讼时效计算器)需Python 3.9及以上版本

Workflow

工作流程

Step 1: Case Intake and Fact Gathering

步骤1:案件受理与事实收集

Purpose: Collect essential case information systematically
Process:
Ask the user these intake questions in order:
  1. What happened? (Chronological narrative of events)
    • Request dates, times, locations
    • Identify all parties involved
    • Note sequence of events
  2. Who is involved?
    • Plaintiff(s) - individual or organization
    • Defendant(s) - individual, organization, government entity
    • Witnesses - who observed what
    • Other parties - employers, supervisors, third parties
  3. When did events occur?
    • Specific dates of incidents
    • Ongoing conduct vs. discrete events
    • CRITICAL: Calculate statute of limitations immediately
  4. Where did events take place?
    • Geographic location (determines jurisdiction)
    • Federal property vs. state property
    • Public vs. private property
  5. What harm resulted?
    • Physical injuries
    • Economic damages (lost wages, medical costs)
    • Emotional distress
    • Civil rights violations
    • Property damage
  6. What evidence exists?
    • Documents (emails, contracts, policies)
    • Video/audio recordings
    • Photographs
    • Witness statements
    • Medical records
    • Police reports
Output: Structured case facts document
markdown
undefined
目的:系统收集关键案件信息
流程:
按顺序向用户询问以下受理问题:
  1. 事件经过?(按时间顺序叙述事件)
    • 要求提供日期、时间、地点
    • 识别所有相关方
    • 记录事件顺序
  2. 涉及人员?
    • 原告 - 个人或组织
    • 被告 - 个人、组织、政府实体
    • 证人 - 谁目睹了什么
    • 其他相关方 - 雇主、主管、第三方
  3. 事件发生时间?
    • 事件具体日期
    • 持续行为 vs 离散事件
    • 关键:立即计算诉讼时效
  4. 事件发生地点?
    • 地理位置(决定管辖范围)
    • 联邦财产 vs 州属财产
    • 公共区域 vs 私人区域
  5. 造成的损害?
  • 身体伤害
  • 经济损失(工资损失、医疗费用)
  • 精神损害
  • 民权侵害
  • 财产损失
  1. 现有证据?
    • 文件(邮件、合同、政策)
    • 视频/音频记录
    • 照片
    • 证人证言
    • 医疗记录
    • 警方报告
输出:结构化案件事实文档
markdown
undefined

Case Facts Summary

案件事实摘要

Incident Date: [YYYY-MM-DD] Location: [City, State] - [Specific location] Jurisdiction: [Court]
事件日期:[YYYY-MM-DD] 地点:[城市,州] - [具体位置] 管辖法院:[法院名称]

Parties

相关方

  • Plaintiff: [Name] - [Description]
  • Defendant: [Name/Entity] - [Role]
  • Witnesses: [List]
  • 原告:[姓名] - [描述]
  • 被告:[姓名/实体] - [角色]
  • 证人:[列表]

Narrative

事件叙述

[Chronological description of events]
[按时间顺序描述事件]

Harm Alleged

主张的损害

  • [Injury type 1]
  • [Injury type 2]
  • [损害类型1]
  • [损害类型2]

Evidence Available

现有证据

  • [Document 1]
  • [Recording 1]
  • [Witness testimony]

**Statute of Limitations Check**:

Use `scripts/statute_of_limitations.py` immediately:

```bash
python3 scripts/statute_of_limitations.py \
  --incident-date="2025-06-15" \
  --claim-type="1983" \
  --jurisdiction="california"
CRITICAL: If statute of limitations is approaching (<90 days), flag as URGENT

  • [文件1]
  • [记录1]
  • [证人证言]

**诉讼时效检查**:

立即使用`scripts/statute_of_limitations.py`:

```bash
python3 scripts/statute_of_limitations.py \
  --incident-date="2025-06-15" \
  --claim-type="1983" \
  --jurisdiction="california"
关键:若诉讼时效即将届满(<90天),标记为URGENT(紧急)

Step 2: Identify Applicable Legal Theories

步骤2:识别适用法律理论

Purpose: Match case facts to potential causes of action
Process:
Review case facts against legal frameworks in
references/causes-of-action.md
:
目的:匹配案件事实与潜在诉因
流程:
对照
references/causes-of-action.md
中的法律框架审查案件事实:

Federal Civil Rights Claims

联邦民权诉因

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act):
  • Elements:
    1. Defendant acted under color of state law
    2. Defendant's conduct violated constitutional rights
When to Consider:
  • Police misconduct (excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution)
  • Jail/prison conditions (deliberate indifference to harm)
  • First Amendment violations (retaliation for protected speech)
  • Due process violations
Check for:
  • State actor involvement (police, sheriff, correctional officers, public officials)
  • Constitutional rights implicated (4th, 8th, 14th Amendments)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
  • Title I: Employment discrimination
  • Title II: State/local government services discrimination
  • Title III: Public accommodations discrimination
When to Consider:
  • Disability discrimination by government entity
  • Failure to provide reasonable accommodation
  • Denial of access to services
42 U.S.C. § 1983(民权法案):
  • 构成要件:
    1. 被告以州法名义行事
    2. 被告行为违反宪法权利
适用场景:
  • 警察不当行为(过度武力、非法逮捕、恶意起诉)
  • 监狱/看守所条件(故意漠视损害)
  • 第一修正案侵权(因受保护言论遭报复)
  • 正当程序侵权
核查要点:
  • 国家行为体参与(警察、警长、狱警、公职人员)
  • 涉及的宪法权利(第四、第八、第十四修正案)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA,美国残疾人法案):
  • Title I:就业歧视
  • Title II:州/地方政府服务歧视
  • Title III:公共设施歧视
适用场景:
  • 政府实体的残疾歧视
  • 未提供合理便利
  • 拒绝服务访问

State Law Claims

州法诉因

Review
references/state-tort-law.md
for:
  • Assault and Battery: Intentional harmful or offensive contact
  • False Imprisonment: Unlawful restraint of liberty
  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Extreme and outrageous conduct
  • Negligence: Breach of duty causing harm
Analysis Framework:
For each potential claim, create preliminary assessment:
markdown
undefined
查阅
references/state-tort-law.md
了解:
  • Assault and Battery(殴打与袭击):故意造成伤害或冒犯性接触
  • False Imprisonment(非法拘禁):非法限制人身自由
  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress(故意造成精神损害):极端且令人发指的行为
  • Negligence(过失):违反注意义务造成损害
分析框架:
针对每个潜在诉因,创建初步评估:
markdown
undefined

Legal Theory: [Claim Name]

法律理论:[诉因名称]

Legal Basis: [Statute, constitutional provision]
Elements:
  1. [Element 1]
  2. [Element 2]
  3. [Element 3]
Fact Mapping:
  • Element 1: [How facts support this element]
  • Element 2: [How facts support this element]
  • Element 3: [How facts support this element]
Preliminary Viability: [Strong | Moderate | Weak]
Challenges:
  • [Potential defense 1]
  • [Evidentiary gap]

**Output**: List of 2-5 viable legal theories ranked by strength

---
法律依据:[法规、宪法条款]
构成要件:
  1. [要件1]
  2. [要件2]
  3. [要件3]
事实匹配:
  • 要件1:[事实如何支持该要件]
  • 要件2:[事实如何支持该要件]
  • 要件3:[事实如何支持该要件]
初步可行性:[Strong(强)| Moderate(中)| Weak(弱)]
挑战:
  • [潜在抗辩1]
  • [证据缺口]

**输出**:按优先级排序的2-5个可行法律理论列表

---

Step 3: Elements-Based Analysis

步骤3:要件分析

Purpose: Rigorously analyze whether facts satisfy each required legal element
Process:
For each identified claim (from Step 2), perform detailed elements analysis using
references/elements-checklists/
.
Example: § 1983 Excessive Force Claim
Load reference:
references/federal-civil-rights.md
→ § 1983 Elements
Required Elements:
  1. Defendant acted under color of state law
  2. Force used was objectively unreasonable (Graham v. Connor standard)
  3. Plaintiff suffered injury
Elements Analysis Table:
markdown
| Element | Facts Supporting | Evidence Available | Strength | Notes |
|---------|------------------|-------------------|----------|-------|
| Color of law | Officer on duty, badge #1234 | Body camera, uniform | ★★★★★ | Clear state actor |
| Objectively unreasonable | No resistance shown, compliant | Video, 3 witnesses | ★★★★☆ | Strong but need expert |
| Injury | Broken arm, bruising | Medical records, photos | ★★★★★ | Well documented |

**Overall Element Support**: 14/15 stars - STRONG CASE
Graham v. Connor Factors (for excessive force):
  1. Severity of crime at issue
  2. Whether suspect poses immediate threat
  3. Whether suspect actively resisting or fleeing
Analysis:
markdown
1. **Severity of Crime**: Misdemeanor jaywalking - LOW
2. **Immediate Threat**: No weapon, hands visible, compliant - NONE
3. **Resistance/Flight**: Video shows no resistance - NONE

**Conclusion**: Force objectively unreasonable under Graham
For Each Claim, Assess:
  • Strong (4-5 stars): All elements clearly supported by facts and evidence
  • ⚠️ Moderate (2-3 stars): Most elements supported but gaps exist
  • Weak (0-1 stars): Critical elements missing or unsupported
Output: Elements analysis for top 2-3 claims

目的:严谨分析事实是否满足每项法定要件
流程:
针对步骤2中识别的每个诉因,使用
references/elements-checklists/
开展详细要件分析。
示例:§ 1983过度武力诉因
加载参考文件:
references/federal-civil-rights.md
→ § 1983构成要件
必备要件:
  1. 被告以州法名义行事
  2. 使用的武力客观上不合理(Graham v. Connor标准)
  3. 原告遭受损害
要件分析表:
markdown
| 要件 | 支持事实 | 现有证据 | 强度 | 备注 |
|---------|------------------|-------------------|----------|-------|
| 以州法名义行事 | 执勤警官,警徽编号1234 | 执法记录仪、制服 | ★★★★★ | 明确的国家行为体 |
| 客观不合理武力 | 原告无反抗、配合执法 | 视频、3名证人 | ★★★★☆ | 证据充分但需专家证言 |
| 遭受损害 | 手臂骨折、瘀伤 | 医疗记录、照片 | ★★★★★ | 记录完整 |

**整体要件支持度**:14/15星 - 案件强度高
Graham v. Connor因素(针对过度武力):
  1. 涉案罪行的严重程度
  2. 嫌疑人是否构成即时威胁
  3. 嫌疑人是否主动反抗或逃跑
分析:
markdown
1. **罪行严重程度**:轻微违法(乱穿马路)- 低
2. **即时威胁**:无武器、双手可见、配合执法 - 无
3. **反抗/逃跑**:视频显示无反抗 - 无

**结论**:根据Graham标准,使用的武力客观上不合理
针对每个诉因,评估:
  • (4-5星):所有要件均有事实和证据明确支持
  • ⚠️ (2-3星):多数要件得到支持但存在缺口
  • (0-1星):关键要件缺失或无支持
输出:排名前2-3的诉因要件分析报告

Step 4: Discovery Planning

步骤4:证据开示规划

Purpose: Identify what additional evidence is needed to prove elements
Process:
Based on elements analysis, create comprehensive discovery plan:
目的:识别证明要件所需的额外证据
流程:
基于要件分析结果,制定全面的证据开示计划:

Documents to Request

需调取的文件

Initial Disclosures (FRCP 26):
  • Witness list with contact information
  • Document list (descriptions)
  • Damages computation
  • Insurance agreements
Interrogatories (Questions to opposing party):
markdown
1. Identify all officers present at scene on [date]
2. Describe all use-of-force policies in effect on [date]
3. Detail training received by Officer [Name] on [topic]
4. Identify all internal affairs investigations of Officer [Name]
5. [Additional interrogatories - maximum 25 under FRCP]
Document Requests:
markdown
undefined
初始披露(FRCP 26,联邦民事诉讼规则第26条):
  • 证人名单及联系方式
  • 文件清单(描述)
  • 损害赔偿计算
  • 保险协议
质询书(向对方当事人提出的问题):
markdown
1. 列出[日期]现场所有在场警官
2. 描述[日期]生效的所有武力使用政策
3. 详述[姓名]警官接受的[主题]培训
4. 列出[姓名]警官的所有内部调查记录
5. [额外质询 - 联邦民事诉讼规则下最多25条]
文件调取请求:
markdown
undefined

Request 1: Incident Reports

请求1:事件报告

All police reports, incident reports, and supplemental reports related to incident on [date]
所有与[日期]事件相关的警方报告、事件报告及补充报告

Request 2: Video Evidence

请求2:视频证据

All body camera, dashboard camera, and surveillance footage from [time range]
[时间段]内的所有执法记录仪、 dashboard camera(车载记录仪)及监控录像

Request 3: Personnel Files

请求3:人事档案

Complete personnel file for Officer [Name] including:
  • Training records (use of force, de-escalation)
  • Disciplinary history
  • Prior complaints
  • Performance evaluations
[姓名]警官的完整人事档案,包括:
  • 培训记录(武力使用、降级处置)
  • 纪律处分历史
  • 过往投诉
  • 绩效评估

Request 4: Policies and Procedures

请求4:政策与流程

All use-of-force policies in effect on [date]
[日期]生效的所有武力使用政策

Request 5: Internal Investigations

请求5:内部调查

All internal affairs investigations related to Officer [Name]

**Depositions** (Oral testimony under oath):
```markdown
Priority Order:
1. **Defendant Officer(s)** - 7 hour deposition
   - Training and experience
   - Incident reconstruction
   - Force decision-making process

2. **Supervisor(s)** - 4 hour deposition
   - Oversight and training
   - Policy enforcement

3. **Eyewitnesses** - 2-3 hours each
   - What they observed
   - Credibility assessment

4. **Plaintiff** - 6 hours (prepare thoroughly)
   - Incident narrative
   - Injuries and damages
   - Medical treatment
Expert Witnesses Needed:
markdown
1. **Use of Force Expert**
   - Credentials: Former police chief, trainer
   - Purpose: Opine on reasonableness of force
   - Cost: $10,000 - $25,000

2. **Medical Expert**
   - Credentials: Orthopedic surgeon
   - Purpose: Causation of injuries, permanence
   - Cost: $5,000 - $15,000

3. **Economic Expert** (if wage loss)
   - Credentials: Economist, CPA
   - Purpose: Calculate economic damages
   - Cost: $5,000 - $10,000
Output: Comprehensive discovery plan organized by category

所有与[姓名]警官相关的内部调查记录

** depositions(证词录取,宣誓口头证言)**:
```markdown
优先级顺序:
1. **被告警官** - 7小时证词录取
   - 培训与经验
   - 事件还原
   - 武力使用决策过程

2. **主管** - 4小时证词录取
   - 监督与培训
   - 政策执行

3. **证人** - 每人2-3小时
   - 所见情况
   - 可信度评估

4. **原告** - 6小时(需充分准备)
   - 事件叙述
   - 损害与赔偿
   - 医疗救治
所需专家证人:
markdown
1. **武力使用专家**
   - 资质:前警察局长、培训师
   - 目的:就武力合理性发表意见
   - 费用:$10,000 - $25,000

2. **医学专家**
   - 资质:骨科医生
   - 目的:损害因果关系、永久性
   - 费用:$5,000 - $15,000

3. **经济专家**(如有工资损失)
   - 资质:经济学家、注册会计师
   - 目的:计算经济损害
   - 费用:$5,000 - $10,000
输出:按类别整理的全面证据开示计划

Step 5: Assess Affirmative Defenses and Weaknesses

步骤5:评估积极抗辩与案件劣势

Purpose: Anticipate opposing arguments and develop counter-strategies
Process:
Review
references/defenses.md
for common defenses:
目的:预判对方论点并制定应对策略
流程:
查阅
references/defenses.md
了解常见抗辩:

Qualified Immunity (§ 1983 cases)

Qualified Immunity(合格豁免权,适用于§ 1983案件)

Defense Argument: "The constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the incident"
Two-Prong Test:
  1. Did defendant violate constitutional right?
  2. Was the right clearly established?
Our Response Strategy:
markdown
undefined
抗辩论点: "事件发生时,宪法权利未被明确确立"
双 prong 测试:
  1. 被告是否违反宪法权利?
  2. 该权利是否已被明确确立?
应对策略:
markdown
undefined

Defeating Qualified Immunity

击破合格豁免权

Prong 1: Constitutional Violation
  • Video evidence shows clear excessive force
  • No resistance, no threat = constitutional violation
Prong 2: Clearly Established Law
  • Case 1: [Circuit Case Name] (20XX)
    • Holding: Force against compliant suspect unreasonable
    • Similarity: [Explain how facts parallel our case]
  • Case 2: [Supreme Court Case]
    • Holding: Graham factors analysis
    • Application: All factors support plaintiff
Conclusion: Right was clearly established. QI should be denied.

**Risk Assessment**: [Low | Medium | High]
**Mitigation**: Conduct thorough legal research on circuit precedents
Prong 1:宪法权利侵权
  • 视频证据显示存在明显过度武力
  • 原告无反抗、配合执法 = 宪法权利侵权
Prong 2:权利已明确确立
  • 案例1:[巡回法院案例名称](20XX)
    • 判决:对配合执法的嫌疑人使用武力不合理
    • 相似性:[说明本案事实与该案例的相似性]
  • 案例2:[最高法院案例]
    • 判决:适用Graham因素分析
    • 应用:所有因素均支持原告
结论:权利已明确确立,应驳回合格豁免权申请

**风险评估**:[Low(低)| Medium(中)| High(高)]
**缓解措施**:全面研究巡回法院先例

Governmental Immunity (State Tort Claims)

Governmental Immunity(政府豁免权,适用于州侵权诉因)

Defense Argument: "Municipality has governmental immunity for discretionary acts"
Analysis:
markdown
**Immunity Type**: [Sovereign | Qualified | Discretionary]

**Exceptions Available**:
- Ministerial act exception
- Dangerous condition of public property
- [Jurisdiction-specific exceptions]

**Our Strategy**:
- Focus on federal § 1983 claim (no immunity)
- State claims as alternative/backup
- Identify applicable immunity exceptions
抗辩论点: "市政当局对自由裁量行为享有政府豁免权"
分析:
markdown
**豁免类型**:[Sovereign(主权)| Qualified(合格)| Discretionary(自由裁量)]

**可用例外**:
-  ministerial act(职务行为)例外
- 公共财产危险状况例外
- [管辖地特定例外]

**应对策略**:
- 重点推进联邦§ 1983诉因(无豁免权)
- 州法诉因作为备选/备份
- 识别适用的豁免例外

Contributory Negligence

Contributory Negligence(共同过失)

Defense Argument: "Plaintiff's own actions contributed to injury"
Analysis:
markdown
**Defendant's Likely Arguments**:
- Plaintiff was jaywalking (crime)
- Plaintiff didn't immediately comply

**Our Counters**:
- Jaywalking is minor infraction, doesn't justify force
- Video shows compliance
- Contributory negligence not applicable to § 1983 excessive force

**Risk**: Low - Strong video evidence of compliance
抗辩论点: "原告自身行为导致损害"
分析:
markdown
**被告可能的论点**:
- 原告乱穿马路(违法)
- 原告未立即配合执法

**我方抗辩**:
- 乱穿马路是轻微违规,不足以成为使用武力的理由
- 视频显示原告配合执法
- 共同过失不适用于§ 1983过度武力诉因

**风险**:低 - 视频证据明确显示原告配合执法

Case Weaknesses to Address

需解决的案件劣势

Identify Honestly:
markdown
undefined
如实识别:
markdown
undefined

Weakness 1: [Description]

劣势1:[描述]

Issue: Only plaintiff's testimony for initial contact Impact: Credibility battle Mitigation:
  • Obtain body camera footage
  • Depose witnesses
  • Medical records corroborate injuries
问题:仅原告证言证明初始接触情况 影响:可信度争议 缓解措施:
  • 获取执法记录仪录像
  • 录取证人证词
  • 医疗记录佐证损害

Weakness 2: [Description]

劣势2:[描述]

Issue: Minor physical injuries (no hospitalization) Impact: Lower damages Mitigation:
  • Emphasize constitutional violation (nominal + punitive damages available)
  • Emotional distress damages
  • Focus on deterrence value of verdict
问题:身体损害轻微(未住院) 影响:赔偿金额较低 缓解措施:
  • 强调宪法权利侵权(可主张名义赔偿+惩罚性赔偿)
  • 主张精神损害赔偿
  • 聚焦判决的威慑价值

Weakness 3: [Description]

劣势3:[描述]

Issue: [Specific weakness] Impact: [How it affects case] Mitigation: [Strategy to address]

**Output**: Comprehensive defense analysis with counter-strategies

---
问题:[具体劣势] 影响:[对案件的影响] 缓解措施:[应对策略]

**输出**:包含应对策略的全面抗辩分析报告

---

Step 6: Generate Case Analysis Report

步骤6:生成案件分析报告

Purpose: Create comprehensive documented analysis for case file
Process:
Synthesize all prior steps into structured CASE_ANALYSIS.md:
markdown
undefined
目的:为案件档案创建结构化的全面分析文档
流程:
将前述所有步骤内容整合为结构化的CASE_ANALYSIS.md:
markdown
undefined

Case Analysis: [Case Name]

案件分析:[案件名称]

Generated: [ISO Timestamp] Analyst: case-analyzer skill v1.0.0 Jurisdiction: [Court]

生成时间:[ISO时间戳] 分析工具:case-analyzer skill v1.0.0 管辖法院:[法院名称]

Executive Summary

执行摘要

[2-3 paragraph summary of case viability and recommended strategy]
Recommended Primary Strategy: [e.g., Federal § 1983 claim in U.S. District Court]
Estimated Likelihood of Success: [Percentage or qualitative assessment]
Estimated Settlement Range: $[Low] - $[High]
Statute of Limitations: [Date] ([X] days remaining)
Urgency: [CRITICAL <30 days | URGENT <90 days | MODERATE <180 days | ROUTINE]

[2-3段案件可行性与推荐策略摘要]
推荐核心策略:[例如,在美国联邦地区法院提起§ 1983诉因]
预估胜诉概率:[百分比或定性评估]
预估和解范围:$[下限] - $[上限]
诉讼时效:[截止日期](剩余[X]天)
紧急程度:[CRITICAL(<30天)| URGENT(<90天)| MODERATE(<180天)| ROUTINE(常规)]

Case Facts

案件事实

Incident Summary

事件摘要

[Chronological narrative - 3-5 paragraphs]
[3-5段按时间顺序的叙述]

Parties

相关方

  • Plaintiff: [Name], [Age], [Occupation]
  • Defendant: [Name/Entity], [Role]
  • Witnesses: [List with brief descriptions]
  • 原告:[姓名],[年龄],[职业]
  • 被告:[姓名/实体],[角色]
  • 证人:[带简要描述的列表]

Evidence Inventory

证据清单

Evidence TypeDescriptionStatusLocation
Body cameraOfficer #1234 footageRequestedCity PD
Medical recordsER visit 12/15/25✓ ObtainedCase file
Witness statements3 civilian witnessesPendingTo be deposed

证据类型描述状态存放位置
执法记录仪警官1234的录像已申请市警察局
医疗记录25年12月15日急诊记录✓ 已获取案件档案
证人证言3名平民证人待录取待录取证词

Legal Analysis

法律分析

Identified Claims

识别的诉因

Primary Claim: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Excessive Force

核心诉因:42 U.S.C. § 1983 - 过度武力

Legal Basis: Fourth Amendment via § 1983
Elements Analysis:
ElementSupportStrengthEvidence
Color of state lawOfficer on duty★★★★★Badge, uniform
Constitutional violationForce unreasonable★★★★☆Video, witnesses
InjuryPhysical harm★★★★★Medical records
Overall Viability: ★★★★☆ (STRONG)
Estimated Damages: $75,000 - $200,000
  • Compensatory: $25,000 - $75,000
  • Punitive: $50,000 - $125,000 (if malice/recklessness shown)
  • Attorney's fees: Recoverable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988
法律依据:通过§ 1983主张的第四修正案权利
要件分析:
要件支持度强度证据
以州法名义行事执勤警官★★★★★警徽、制服
宪法权利侵权武力不合理★★★★☆视频、证人
遭受损害身体伤害★★★★★医疗记录
整体可行性:★★★★☆(强)
预估赔偿金额:$75,000 - $200,000
  • 补偿性赔偿:$25,000 - $75,000
  • 惩罚性赔偿:$50,000 - $125,000(若证明存在恶意/鲁莽)
  • 律师费:根据42 U.S.C. § 1988可追偿

Alternative Claim: State Assault and Battery

备选诉因:州法下的殴打与袭击

Legal Basis: [State] Common Law Tort
Elements Analysis: [Similar format as above]
Overall Viability: ★★★☆☆ (MODERATE)
Challenges:
  • Governmental immunity may apply
  • Lower damages than § 1983
  • Purpose: Backup if federal claim fails

法律依据:[州]普通法侵权
要件分析: [格式同上]
整体可行性:★★★☆☆(中)
挑战:
  • 可能适用政府豁免权
  • 赔偿金额低于§ 1983诉因
  • 用途:联邦诉因失败时的备份

Discovery Plan

证据开示计划

Phase 1: Initial Disclosures (Due: [Date])

阶段1:初始披露(截止日期:[日期])

  • Witness list
  • Document list
  • Damages computation
  • Insurance disclosure
  • 证人名单
  • 文件清单
  • 损害赔偿计算
  • 保险披露

Phase 2: Written Discovery (Serve by: [Date])

阶段2:书面证据开示(送达截止:[日期])

Interrogatories (25 maximum):
  1. [Question 1]
  2. [Question 2] ...
Document Requests (50 recommended):
  1. All police reports re: incident
  2. All body/dashboard camera footage
  3. Personnel files for Officer [Name] ...
质询书(最多25条):
  1. [问题1]
  2. [问题2] ...
文件调取请求(建议50条):
  1. 所有与事件相关的警方报告
  2. 所有执法/车载记录仪录像
  3. [姓名]警官的人事档案 ...

Phase 3: Depositions (Complete by: [Date])

阶段3:证词录取(完成截止:[日期])

DeponentRolePriorityDurationTopics
Officer SmithDefendantHIGH7 hoursForce decision, training
Witness JonesEyewitnessMEDIUM2 hoursObservations
PlaintiffPartyHIGH6 hoursIncident, injuries, damages
被询问人角色优先级时长主题
Smith警官被告7小时武力使用决策、培训
Jones证人目击者2小时所见情况
原告当事人6小时事件、损害、赔偿

Phase 4: Expert Witnesses

阶段4:专家证人

Expert TypeNamePurposeCost EstDeadline
Use of force[TBD]Opine on reasonableness$15KDiscovery close
Medical[TBD]Injury causation$10KDiscovery close

专家类型姓名目的预估费用截止日期
武力使用[待定]就武力合理性发表意见$15K证据开示截止
医学[待定]损害因果关系$10K证据开示截止

Affirmative Defenses & Counter-Strategies

积极抗辩与应对策略

Defense 1: Qualified Immunity

抗辩1:合格豁免权

Defendant's Argument: "Right not clearly established; officer entitled to immunity"
Our Counter-Strategy:
  1. Identify circuit precedents with similar facts
  2. Emphasize obviousness of constitutional violation
  3. Cite: [Case 1], [Case 2], [Case 3]
Risk Level: MEDIUM Likelihood of Success in Defeating: 70%
被告论点: "权利未明确确立;警官享有豁免权"
我方应对策略:
  1. 识别事实相似的巡回法院先例
  2. 强调宪法权利侵权的明显性
  3. 引用:[案例1]、[案例2]、[案例3]
风险等级:中 击破概率:70%

Defense 2: [Additional Defense]

抗辩2:[其他抗辩]

[Similar format]

[格式同上]

Case Strengths and Weaknesses

案件优劣

Strengths ✓

优势 ✓

  1. Video Evidence: Body camera shows clear lack of resistance
  2. Injury Documentation: Medical records well-documented
  3. Precedent: Strong circuit law on excessive force
  4. Credible Plaintiff: No criminal history, steady employment
  1. 视频证据:执法记录仪显示原告无反抗
  2. 损害记录:医疗记录完整
  3. 先例支持:过度武力方面的巡回法院判例充足
  4. 原告可信度:无犯罪记录、工作稳定

Weaknesses ⚠️

劣势 ⚠️

  1. Minor Crime: Jaywalking is low-level infraction
    • Mitigation: Emphasize this strengthens our case (force disproportionate)
  2. Limited Physical Injury: No hospitalization
    • Mitigation: Focus on constitutional violation + emotional distress
  3. Witness Credibility: Only 1 witness to initial contact
    • Mitigation: Obtain body camera, depose all witnesses early

  1. 轻微罪行:乱穿马路是低级别违规
    • 缓解措施:强调这反而强化我方论点(武力与违规程度不成比例)
  2. 身体损害轻微:未住院
    • 缓解措施:聚焦宪法权利侵权 + 精神损害赔偿
  3. 证人可信度:仅1名证人证明初始接触
    • 缓解措施:获取执法记录仪录像、尽早录取所有证人证词

Recommended Strategy

推荐策略

Forum Selection

管辖法院选择

Primary: U.S. District Court, [District]
  • Rationale: Federal jurisdiction via § 1983, federal judges experienced in civil rights
Alternative: State Superior Court
  • Use if: Federal court dismisses on qualified immunity (unlikely)
核心:美国[地区]联邦地区法院
  • 理由:§ 1983诉因的联邦管辖权、联邦法官熟悉民权案件
备选:州高等法院
  • 适用场景:联邦法院以合格豁免权为由驳回案件(可能性低)

Claim Prioritization

诉因优先级

  1. Primary: § 1983 excessive force (strongest claim)
  2. Alternative: State assault/battery (backup)
  3. Omit: [Weaker claims with high risk]
  1. 核心:§ 1983过度武力(最强诉因)
  2. 备选:州法殴打与袭击(备份)
  3. 排除:[风险高的弱诉因]

Settlement Posture

和解姿态

Pre-Suit Demand: $150,000 Post-Suit Settlement Range: $100,000 - $175,000 Trial Verdict Estimate: $150,000 - $250,000
Timing:
  • Demand letter: Immediate (preserve SOL)
  • Mediation: Post-discovery (6-9 months)
  • Trial: 12-18 months if no settlement

诉前和解要求:$150,000 诉中和解范围:$100,000 - $175,000 庭审判决预估:$150,000 - $250,000
时间规划:
  • 索赔函:立即发送(保留诉讼时效)
  • 调解:证据开示后(6-9个月)
  • 庭审:若未和解,12-18个月后

Next Steps

下一步行动

Immediate (Week 1)

立即(第1周)

  • Calculate exact SOL deadline (scripts/statute_of_limitations.py)
  • Draft and send demand letter to defendant
  • Preserve evidence (send preservation letter)
  • 使用scripts/statute_of_limitations.py计算准确的诉讼时效截止日期
  • 起草并向被告发送索赔函
  • 发送证据保留函(保全证据)

Short-term (Weeks 2-4)

短期(第2-4周)

  • Conduct legal research on qualified immunity
  • Draft federal complaint (use legal-document-drafter skill)
  • Identify and retain expert witnesses
  • 开展合格豁免权相关法律研究
  • 起草联邦起诉状(使用legal-document-drafter skill)
  • 识别并聘请专家证人

Medium-term (Months 1-3)

中期(1-3个月)

  • File complaint
  • Serve defendants
  • Initiate discovery process
  • 提交起诉状
  • 送达被告
  • 启动证据开示流程

Long-term (Months 4-12)

长期(4-12个月)

  • Complete discovery
  • Prepare for trial or mediation
  • Archive case documents to Arweave (arweave-case-archiver skill)

  • 完成证据开示
  • 准备庭审或调解
  • 使用arweave-case-archiver skill将案件文档归档至Arweave

Statute of Limitations Tracker

诉讼时效跟踪

Incident Date: 2025-06-15 Claim Type: § 1983 (uses state personal injury SOL) Jurisdiction: California (2-year SOL) Filing Deadline: 2027-06-15 Days Remaining: 547 days Urgency: ROUTINE (adequate time)
Calculated by: scripts/statute_of_limitations.py Last Checked: [ISO Timestamp]

事件日期:2025-06-15 诉因类型:§ 1983(适用州人身伤害诉讼时效) 管辖地:加利福尼亚州(2年诉讼时效) 起诉截止日期:2027-06-15 剩余天数:547天 紧急程度:ROUTINE(常规,时间充足)
计算工具:scripts/statute_of_limitations.py 上次核查:[ISO时间戳]

Archive Information

归档信息

Case ID: [UUID] Arweave TX IDs: [To be populated after archival] Last Updated: [ISO Timestamp] Next Review: [Date + 30 days]

END OF CASE ANALYSIS

**Quality Check**:
- [ ] All sections complete
- [ ] Legal citations accurate
- [ ] Evidence mapped to elements
- [ ] Discovery plan comprehensive
- [ ] Defense analysis thorough
- [ ] Next steps actionable
- [ ] SOL calculated and verified

---
案件ID:[UUID] Arweave交易ID:[归档后填充] 最后更新:[ISO时间戳] 下次复查:[日期 + 30天]

案件分析结束

**质量检查**:
- [ ] 所有章节完整
- [ ] 法律引用准确
- [ ] 证据与要件对应
- [ ] 证据开示计划全面
- [ ] 抗辩分析透彻
- [ ] 下一步行动可执行
- [ ] 诉讼时效已计算并验证

---

Error Handling

错误处理

Scenario: Insufficient Facts Provided

场景:事实信息不足

Symptom: User provides vague description like "police mistreated me"
Response:
I notice we need more detailed facts to conduct thorough analysis. Let me ask some targeted questions:

1. What specifically did the officer(s) do? (describe physical actions)
2. When did this occur? (exact date and time if possible)
3. Where did this take place? (city, state, specific location)
4. What injuries did you sustain? (physical, emotional, economic)
5. Do you have any documentation? (reports, medical records, video)

Once we have these details, I can identify viable legal claims and assess case strength.
Escalation: If user cannot provide basic facts, suggest:
  • Obtain police report
  • Gather medical records
  • Interview witnesses
  • Return when facts are better documented

症状:用户提供模糊描述,如“警察虐待我”
回复:
我发现需要更详细的事实才能开展全面分析。请回答以下针对性问题:

1. 警官具体实施了什么行为?(描述物理动作)
2. 事件发生时间?(尽可能提供准确日期和时间)
3. 事件发生地点?(城市、州、具体位置)
4. 你遭受了什么损害?(身体、精神、经济)
5. 你有任何相关文件吗?(报告、医疗记录、视频)

获取这些细节后,我可以识别可行的法律诉因并评估案件强度。
升级处理:若用户无法提供基础事实,建议:
  • 获取警方报告
  • 收集医疗记录
  • 询问证人
  • 待事实更完整后再返回

Scenario: Novel Legal Issue

场景:新型法律问题

Symptom: Facts don't clearly fit known causes of action
Response:
markdown
undefined
症状:事实无法明确匹配已知诉因
回复:
markdown
undefined

Novel Legal Issue Identified

识别到新型法律问题

Issue: [Description of novel issue]
Why Novel: [Explanation - e.g., "No binding precedent in this circuit"]
Recommended Approach:
  1. Flag for legal research (use legal-research-assistant skill)
  2. Research analogous cases in other circuits
  3. Consult with senior attorney specializing in [area]
  4. Consider test case strategy if issue important
Risk: [HIGH - outcome uncertain] Recommendation: Proceed with caution; may require expert consultation

---
问题:[新型问题描述]
为何属于新型:[解释 - 例如,“本巡回法院无约束性先例”]
推荐方案:
  1. 标记为法律研究事项(使用legal-research-assistant skill)
  2. 研究其他巡回法院的类似案例
  3. 咨询[领域]资深律师
  4. 若问题重要,考虑作为测试案件推进
风险:[高 - 结果不确定] 建议:谨慎推进;可能需要专家咨询

---

Scenario: Statute of Limitations Expired

场景:诉讼时效已届满

Symptom: SOL calculator returns negative days remaining
Response:
markdown
⚠️ **CRITICAL ISSUE: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED**

**Incident Date**: [Date]
**SOL Deadline**: [Date - in past]
**Days Overdue**: [X] days

**Implications**:
- Case likely barred from filing
- Exceptions are rare and narrow

**Possible Exceptions to Explore**:
1. **Tolling**: Was plaintiff minor, incapacitated, or fraudulently concealed?
2. **Discovery Rule**: Did plaintiff reasonably discover injury later?
3. **Continuing Violation**: Is conduct ongoing?
4. **Equitable Tolling**: Extraordinary circumstances?

**URGENT ACTION REQUIRED**:
Consult experienced attorney immediately to assess exception applicability.
Do NOT proceed with case analysis until SOL issue resolved.

症状:诉讼时效计算器返回剩余天数为负数
回复:
markdown
⚠️ **关键问题:诉讼时效已届满**

**事件日期**:[日期]
**诉讼时效截止日期**:[已过去的日期]
**逾期天数**:[X]天

**影响**:
- 案件可能无法起诉
- 例外情况罕见且范围狭窄

**可探索的例外**:
1. **时效中止**:原告是否为未成年人、无行为能力人,或被告存在欺诈隐瞒?
2. **发现规则**:原告是否合理延后发现损害?
3. **持续侵权**:侵权行为是否仍在持续?
4. **衡平时效中止**:是否存在特殊情况?

**紧急行动要求**:
立即咨询资深律师评估例外情况的适用性。在诉讼时效问题解决前,请勿继续案件分析。

Scenario: Jurisdictional Complexity

场景:管辖复杂性

Symptom: Multiple potential forums (federal, multiple states, tribal, etc.)
Response:
markdown
undefined
症状:存在多个潜在管辖法院(联邦、多个州、部落等)
回复:
markdown
undefined

Jurisdictional Analysis Required

需开展管辖分析

Complexity Detected: [e.g., "Incident spans multiple states"]
Potential Forums:
  1. U.S. District Court - [District]
    • Pros: [Federal question jurisdiction, experienced judges]
    • Cons: [Qualified immunity more common]
  2. [State] Superior Court
    • Pros: [Jury pool favorable, state law claims easier]
    • Cons: [Slower docket, less civil rights experience]
  3. [Other Forum]
    • Pros: [...]
    • Cons: [...]
Recommendation: Analyze forum selection as separate task Tools: Use jurisdiction_analyzer.py script (if available) Consult: Attorney licensed in all relevant jurisdictions

---
识别到的复杂性:[例如,“事件涉及多个州”]
潜在管辖法院:
  1. 美国[地区]联邦地区法院
    • 优势:[联邦问题管辖权、法官经验丰富]
    • 劣势:[合格豁免权适用更普遍]
  2. [州]高等法院
    • 优势:[陪审团倾向有利、州法诉因更易推进]
    • 劣势:[案件排期慢、民权案件经验不足]
  3. [其他法院]
    • 优势:[...]
    • 劣势:[...]
建议:将管辖分析作为单独任务开展 工具:使用scripts/jurisdiction_analyzer.py(如有) 咨询:所有相关管辖地执业律师

---

Quality Standards

质量标准

Output Quality Checklist

输出质量检查表

Before marking case analysis complete, verify:
  • Completeness: All 6 workflow steps executed
  • Accuracy: Legal citations correct (case names, statutes)
  • Element Mapping: Every element analyzed with evidence
  • Risk Assessment: Strengths and weaknesses candidly assessed
  • Actionability: Next steps are specific and time-bound
  • SOL Verified: Deadline calculated and flagged if urgent
  • Professional Tone: Objective, analytical, non-judgmental
  • Organized: Clear structure with headers and tables
  • Archived: Ready for Arweave permanent storage
在标记案件分析完成前,验证:
  • 完整性:已执行全部6个工作流程步骤
  • 准确性:法律引用正确(案例名称、法规)
  • 要件匹配:每个要件均有证据支持
  • 风险评估:如实评估案件优劣
  • 可执行性:下一步行动具体且有时间节点
  • 诉讼时效验证:已计算并标记紧急情况
  • 专业语气:客观、分析性、无偏见
  • 结构化:清晰的标题与表格
  • 可归档:已准备好用于Arweave永久存储

Red Flags (Do Not Proceed)

红色预警(请勿继续)

  • ❌ Statute of limitations < 30 days without immediate action plan
  • ❌ Critical facts missing (who, what, when, where)
  • ❌ Jurisdictional issues unresolved
  • ❌ Legal issues beyond analyzer's expertise (complex constitutional law, novel theories)
  • ❌ Conflicts of interest detected
If Red Flag Detected: Escalate to supervising attorney

  • ❌ 诉讼时效剩余<30天且无立即行动计划
  • ❌ 核心事实缺失(人物、事件、时间、地点)
  • ❌ 管辖问题未解决
  • ❌ 超出分析器专业范围的法律问题(复杂宪法问题、新型理论)
  • ❌ 识别到利益冲突
若触发红色预警:升级至主管律师

Resources

资源

Reference Files

参考文件

Load these as needed during analysis:
  • references/causes-of-action.md
    - Comprehensive list of federal/state claims
  • references/federal-civil-rights.md
    - § 1983, ADA, Fair Housing detailed
  • references/state-tort-law.md
    - State-specific tort claims by jurisdiction
  • references/elements-checklists/
    - Element-by-element analysis templates
  • references/defenses.md
    - Common affirmative defenses and counters
  • references/qualified-immunity.md
    - QI doctrine and defeat strategies
分析过程中按需加载:
  • references/causes-of-action.md
    - 联邦/州诉因综合列表
  • references/federal-civil-rights.md
    - § 1983、ADA、公平住房法详细内容
  • references/state-tort-law.md
    - 按管辖地划分的州法侵权诉因
  • references/elements-checklists/
    - 要件分析模板
  • references/defenses.md
    - 常见积极抗辩与应对策略
  • references/qualified-immunity.md
    - 合格豁免权原则与击破策略

Automation Scripts

自动化脚本

  • scripts/statute_of_limitations.py
    - Calculate filing deadlines
    bash
    python3 scripts/statute_of_limitations.py \
      --incident-date="2025-06-15" \
      --claim-type="1983" \
      --jurisdiction="california"
  • scripts/jurisdiction_analyzer.py
    - Determine proper venue (optional)
  • scripts/damages_estimator.py
    - Estimate settlement range (optional)
  • scripts/statute_of_limitations.py
    - 计算起诉截止日期
    bash
    python3 scripts/statute_of_limitations.py \
      --incident-date="2025-06-15" \
      --claim-type="1983" \
      --jurisdiction="california"
  • scripts/jurisdiction_analyzer.py
    - 确定适当管辖法院(可选)
  • scripts/damages_estimator.py
    - 预估和解范围(可选)

Templates

模板

  • assets/intake-questionnaire.md
    - Client intake form
  • assets/case-analysis-template.md
    - Blank analysis template

  • assets/intake-questionnaire.md
    - 客户受理问卷
  • assets/case-analysis-template.md
    - 空白分析模板

Integration with MISJustice Platform

与MISJustice平台的集成

Related Skills

相关Skills

  • legal-research-assistant: Use after Step 2 to research identified claims
  • legal-document-drafter: Use after Step 6 to draft complaint
  • arweave-case-archiver: Use after Step 6 to permanently archive analysis
  • legal-research-assistant:步骤2后用于研究识别的诉因
  • legal-document-drafter:步骤6后用于起草起诉状
  • arweave-case-archiver:步骤6后用于永久归档分析报告

Related Commands

相关命令

  • /case-plan
    : Orchestrates this skill + research + drafting
  • /legal-session-start
    : Loads legal context before case analysis
  • /case-plan
    :协调本Skill + 研究 + 起草流程
  • /legal-session-start
    :案件分析前加载法律上下文

MCP Dependencies

MCP依赖

None currently. Future: Legal database MCPs (Westlaw, LexisNexis)
当前无依赖。未来:法律数据库MCP(Westlaw、LexisNexis)

Orchestration

流程编排

Can be chained with other skills:
case-analyzer → legal-research-assistant → legal-document-drafter → arweave-case-archiver

可与其他Skills链式调用:
case-analyzer → legal-research-assistant → legal-document-drafter → arweave-case-archiver

Examples

示例

Example 1: § 1983 Excessive Force Case

示例1:§ 1983过度武力案件

Input (User):
I was arrested for jaywalking on December 15, 2025. The officer tackled me to the ground even though I wasn't resisting. I suffered a broken arm and needed surgery. I have body camera footage showing I had my hands up. This happened in Oakland, California.
Output (case-analyzer):
markdown
undefined
用户输入:
我在2025年12月15日因乱穿马路被逮捕。尽管我没有反抗,警官还是把我按倒在地,导致我手臂骨折需要手术。我有执法记录仪录像显示我当时双手举起。事件发生在加利福尼亚州奥克兰市。
case-analyzer输出:
markdown
undefined

Case Analysis: [Plaintiff] v. Oakland Police Department

案件分析:[原告]诉奥克兰警察局

Executive Summary

执行摘要

Strong § 1983 excessive force claim against arresting officer. Video evidence shows plaintiff compliant with hands up when tackled, resulting in significant physical injury (broken arm requiring surgery). Incident occurred 17 days ago, SOL deadline is December 15, 2027 (729 days remaining).
Recommended Strategy: File federal § 1983 claim in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Estimated settlement value: $100,000 - $250,000.
Urgency: MODERATE (adequate time but act promptly to preserve evidence)
针对逮捕警官的§ 1983过度武力诉因强度高。视频证据显示原告双手举起配合执法时被按倒,造成严重身体损害(手臂骨折需手术)。事件发生17天前,诉讼时效截止日期为2027年12月15日(剩余729天)。
推荐策略:在加利福尼亚州北区联邦地区法院提起联邦§ 1983诉因。预估和解金额:$100,000 - $250,000。
紧急程度:中(时间充足但需及时保全证据)

Identified Claims

识别的诉因

Primary: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Fourth Amendment Excessive Force

核心诉因:42 U.S.C. § 1983 - 第四修正案过度武力

Elements Analysis:
ElementSupportStrengthEvidence
Color of lawOakland PD officer on duty★★★★★Body camera, badge
Objectively unreasonable forceTackling compliant suspect for jaywalking★★★★★Body camera, medical records
InjuryBroken arm requiring surgery★★★★★Medical records, X-rays, surgical notes
Graham v. Connor Analysis:
  1. Severity of crime: Jaywalking (infraction) - MINIMAL
  2. Immediate threat: Hands up, compliant - NONE
  3. Active resistance/flight: No resistance shown on video - NONE
Conclusion: All Graham factors favor plaintiff. Force objectively unreasonable.
Viability: ★★★★★ (VERY STRONG)
[... continues with full analysis ...]

---
要件分析:
要件支持度强度证据
以州法名义行事奥克兰警察局执勤警官★★★★★执法记录仪、警徽
客观不合理武力因乱穿马路对配合执法的原告使用按倒动作★★★★★执法记录仪、医疗记录
遭受损害手臂骨折需手术★★★★★医疗记录、X光片、手术记录
Graham v. Connor分析:
  1. 罪行严重程度:乱穿马路(轻微违规)- 极低
  2. 即时威胁:双手举起、配合执法 - 无
  3. 反抗/逃跑:视频显示无反抗 - 无
结论:所有Graham因素均支持原告,使用的武力客观上不合理。
可行性:★★★★★(极强)
[...完整分析内容后续...]

---

Example 2: ADA Disability Discrimination

示例2:ADA残疾歧视案件

Input (User):
I use a wheelchair. Last month, the county courthouse had no elevator working and staff refused to help me access the courtroom on the second floor. I missed my hearing because of this. This was in Tampa, Florida on January 5, 2026.
Output (case-analyzer):
markdown
undefined
用户输入:
我使用轮椅。上个月,县法院的电梯全部故障,工作人员拒绝帮助我进入二楼的法庭,导致我错过听证会。事件发生在佛罗里达州坦帕市,日期为2026年1月5日。
case-analyzer输出:
markdown
undefined

Case Analysis: [Plaintiff] v. [County] Courthouse

案件分析:[原告]诉[县]法院

Executive Summary

执行摘要

Strong ADA Title II claim against county for failure to provide access to government services. Plaintiff, wheelchair user, denied access to second-floor courtroom due to broken elevator and staff refusal to assist, causing missed court hearing.
Recommended Strategy: Federal ADA Title II claim + potential § 1983 claim (deprivation of court access). Settlement range: $25,000 - $75,000 + injunctive relief.
针对县法院的ADA Title II诉因强度高。原告为轮椅使用者,因电梯故障且工作人员拒绝协助而无法进入二楼法庭,导致错过听证会。
推荐策略:联邦ADA Title II诉因 + 潜在§ 1983诉因(剥夺法庭访问权)。和解范围:$25,000 - $75,000 + 禁令救济。

Identified Claims

识别的诉因

Primary: ADA Title II - Denial of Access to Government Services

核心诉因:ADA Title II - 拒绝政府服务访问

Elements Analysis:
ElementSupportStrengthEvidence
Plaintiff has disabilityWheelchair user (physical impairment)★★★★★Medical documentation needed
Otherwise qualifiedHad court hearing scheduled★★★★★Court docket
Excluded from servicesDenied courtroom access★★★★★Witness testimony, court records
Because of disabilityInaccessible second floor★★★★★Physical inspection, photos
Viability: ★★★★★ (VERY STRONG)
Estimated Damages:
  • Compensatory: $25,000 - $50,000 (emotional distress, legal consequences of missed hearing)
  • Injunctive relief: Elevator repair, accessibility plan
  • Attorney's fees: Recoverable under ADA
要件分析:
要件支持度强度证据
原告存在残疾轮椅使用者(身体障碍)★★★★★需医疗记录佐证
符合服务资格已预约听证会★★★★★法院日程表
被拒绝服务无法进入法庭★★★★★证人证言、法院记录
因残疾被拒绝二楼无法访问★★★★★现场检查、照片
可行性:★★★★★(极强)
预估赔偿金额:
  • 补偿性赔偿:$25,000 - $50,000(精神损害、错过听证会的法律后果)
  • 禁令救济:修复电梯、制定无障碍计划
  • 律师费:根据ADA可追偿

Alternative: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Access to Courts

备选诉因:42 U.S.C. § 1983 - 法庭访问权

[... continues with full analysis ...]

---
[...完整分析内容后续...]

---

Example 3: Weak Case (Honest Assessment)

示例3:弱势案件(如实评估)

Input (User):
I got a speeding ticket last week and the cop was really rude to me. Can I sue for civil rights violations?
Output (case-analyzer):
markdown
undefined
用户输入:
我上周收到一张超速罚单,警察对我非常粗鲁。我可以起诉民权侵权吗?
case-analyzer输出:
markdown
undefined

Case Analysis: Speeding Stop

案件分析:超速拦截

Executive Summary

执行摘要

Case Viability: ★☆☆☆☆ (VERY WEAK - NOT RECOMMENDED)
After analyzing the facts, this case does not present a viable civil rights claim. While the officer's rudeness was unprofessional, it does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
案件可行性:★☆☆☆☆(极弱 - 不推荐)
分析事实后,本案不构成可行的民权诉因。尽管警官的粗鲁行为不专业,但未达到宪法权利侵权的标准。

Analysis

分析

Potential Claim: § 1983 Violation

潜在诉因:§ 1983侵权

Why This Fails:
  1. No Constitutional Right Violated: Rudeness alone does not violate the Constitution
  2. No Physical Force: Traffic stop without excessive force is lawful
  3. No Unlawful Detention: Speeding provides probable cause for stop
  4. No Actionable Harm: Emotional distress from rudeness insufficient
Supreme Court Precedent: "The Fourth Amendment does not forbid officers from being rude" - controlling case law
为何不成立:
  1. 无宪法权利侵权:仅粗鲁行为不违反宪法
  2. 无武力使用:无过度武力的交通拦截合法
  3. 无非法拘禁:超速拦截具备合理依据
  4. 无可诉损害:粗鲁行为造成的精神损害不足以起诉
最高法院先例: “第四修正案不禁止警官粗鲁行事” - 约束性判例

Alternative Options

备选方案

  1. Traffic Court: Challenge the ticket on its merits
  2. Police Complaint: File internal affairs complaint about officer conduct
  3. Not Recommended: Federal civil rights lawsuit (likely dismissed, waste of resources)
  1. 交通法庭:从事实层面抗辩罚单
  2. 警察投诉:就警官行为向内部事务部门投诉
  3. 不推荐:联邦民权诉讼(可能被驳回,浪费资源)

Recommendation

建议

Do NOT pursue civil rights litigation. This case does not meet the threshold for federal constitutional claims.
Alternative Actions:
  • Contest ticket in traffic court if factual disputes
  • File police complaint if officer conduct warrants discipline
  • Accept outcome and move forward
Consultation: If you believe there are additional facts not disclosed (physical force, discriminatory statements, unlawful search), please provide those details for re-analysis.

---
请勿提起民权诉讼。本案未达到联邦宪法诉因的标准。
替代行动:
  • 若存在事实争议,在交通法庭抗辩罚单
  • 若警官行为需惩戒,提交警察投诉
  • 接受结果并推进后续事项
咨询提示:若你未披露其他事实(如武力使用、歧视性言论、非法搜查),请提供这些细节以便重新分析。

---

Version History

版本历史

  • 1.0.0 (2026-01-01): Initial release
    • Comprehensive 6-step workflow
    • Federal civil rights focus (§ 1983, ADA)
    • State tort law integration
    • Discovery planning module
    • Defense analysis framework
    • SOL automation integration

  • 1.0.0(2026-01-01):初始版本
    • 全面的6步工作流程
    • 聚焦联邦民权(§ 1983、ADA)
    • 整合州法侵权
    • 证据开示规划模块
    • 抗辩分析框架
    • 诉讼时效自动化集成

Troubleshooting

故障排除

Issue: Skill produces overly optimistic case assessment
Solution:
  • Re-review Step 5 (affirmative defenses)
  • Ensure weaknesses are honestly identified
  • Apply "red team" thinking - argue against your own case
  • Consult qualified-immunity.md for realistic QI assessment

Issue: Legal citations are outdated or incorrect
Solution:
  • Verify citations in
    references/
    files are current
  • Update reference files annually
  • Flag for legal research if citation uncertain
  • Use legal-research-assistant skill for verification

Issue: Jurisdiction-specific rules not addressed
Solution:
  • Ensure
    references/state-tort-law.md
    includes your jurisdiction
  • Add jurisdiction-specific reference files as needed
  • Consult local counsel for unique state rules
  • Note jurisdiction limitations in analysis

END OF SKILL DOCUMENTATION
问题:Skill产出的案件评估过于乐观
解决方案:
  • 重新审查步骤5(积极抗辩)
  • 确保如实识别案件劣势
  • 采用“红队”思维 - 反驳自身案件
  • 查阅qualified-immunity.md进行合理的合格豁免权评估

问题:法律引用过时或错误
解决方案:
  • 验证
    references/
    文件中的引用是否最新
  • 每年更新参考文件
  • 若引用不确定,标记为法律研究事项
  • 使用legal-research-assistant skill验证

问题:未考虑管辖地特定规则
解决方案:
  • 确保
    references/state-tort-law.md
    包含你的管辖地
  • 按需添加管辖地特定参考文件
  • 咨询当地律师了解独特的州法规则
  • 在分析中注明管辖地限制

Skill文档结束