enuno/claude-command-and-control/case-analyzer

Case Analyzer Skill

Purpose

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.

When to Use This Skill

• 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

When NOT to Use This Skill

• 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)

Prerequisites

• 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)

Workflow

Step 1: Case Intake and Fact Gathering

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

1. Who is involved?

• Plaintiff(s) - individual or organization
• Defendant(s) - individual, organization, government entity
• Witnesses - who observed what
• Other parties - employers, supervisors, third parties

1. When did events occur?

• Specific dates of incidents
• Ongoing conduct vs. discrete events
• CRITICAL: Calculate statute of limitations immediately

1. Where did events take place?

• Geographic location (determines jurisdiction)
• Federal property vs. state property
• Public vs. private property

1. What harm resulted?

• Physical injuries
• Economic damages (lost wages, medical costs)
• Emotional distress
• Civil rights violations
• Property damage

1. What evidence exists?

• Documents (emails, contracts, policies)
• Video/audio recordings
• Photographs
• Witness statements
• Medical records
• Police reports

Output: Structured case facts document

## Case Facts Summary
 
**Incident Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Location**: [City, State] - [Specific location]
**Jurisdiction**: [Court]
 
### Parties
-**Plaintiff**: [Name] - [Description]
-**Defendant**: [Name/Entity] - [Role]
-**Witnesses**: [List]
 
### Narrative
[Chronological description of events]
 
### Harm Alleged
-[Injury type 1]
-[Injury type 2]
 
### Evidence Available
-[Document 1]
-[Recording 1]
-[Witness testimony]

Statute of Limitations Check:

Use scripts/statute_of_limitations.py immediately:

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

Step 2: Identify Applicable Legal Theories

Purpose: Match case facts to potential causes of action

Process:

Review case facts against legal frameworks in references/causes-of-action.md:

Federal Civil Rights Claims

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

State Law Claims

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:

### Legal Theory: [Claim Name]
 
**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

Step 3: Elements-Based Analysis

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:

| 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:

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

Step 4: Discovery Planning

Purpose: Identify what additional evidence is needed to prove elements

Process:

Based on elements analysis, create comprehensive discovery plan:

Documents to Request

Initial Disclosures (FRCP 26):

• [ ] Witness list with contact information
• [ ] Document list (descriptions)
• [ ] Damages computation
• [ ] Insurance agreements

Interrogatories (Questions to opposing party):

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:

### Request 1: Incident Reports
All police reports, incident reports, and supplemental reports related to incident on [date]
 
### Request 2: Video Evidence
All body camera, dashboard camera, and surveillance footage from [time range]
 
### Request 3: Personnel Files
Complete personnel file for Officer [Name] including:
-Training records (use of force, de-escalation)
-Disciplinary history
-Prior complaints
-Performance evaluations
 
### Request 4: Policies and Procedures
All use-of-force policies in effect on [date]
 
### Request 5: Internal Investigations
All internal affairs investigations related to Officer [Name]

Depositions (Oral testimony under oath):

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:

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

Step 5: Assess Affirmative Defenses and Weaknesses

Purpose: Anticipate opposing arguments and develop counter-strategies

Process:

Review references/defenses.md for common defenses:

Qualified Immunity (§ 1983 cases)

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:

### Defeating Qualified Immunity
 
**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

Governmental Immunity (State Tort Claims)

Defense Argument: "Municipality has governmental immunity for discretionary acts"

Analysis:

**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

Contributory Negligence

Defense Argument: "Plaintiff's own actions contributed to injury"

Analysis:

**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

Case Weaknesses to Address

Identify Honestly: