Sample Report — Real Case, Redacted
What a Case Decoder Actually Looks Like
This is a real report from a real trafficking case. Names, case numbers, and dates have been changed. The findings are real. The questions are real. The attorney had found none of it.
CASE DECODER REPORT
ImNotAnAttorney | We Research. You Ask.
Prepared for: Marcus T.
Charge(s): Trafficking in Amphetamine (25g+)
Jurisdiction: Brevard County, FL
Case Stage: Pre-Trial
Methodology
Every question in this report traces to a specific documented winning method from elite criminal defense attorneys:
- CI reliability questions → Jeffrey Lichtman's 7-pillar informant destruction protocol — the same methodology Lichtman used to win 3 mistrials for John Gotti Jr. and lead El Chapo's defense.
- Forensic and evidence questions → Barry Scheck's chain of custody methodology — co-founder of the Innocence Project, lead DNA counsel in OJ Simpson, responsible for 375+ wrongful conviction exonerations.
- Constitutional and suppression issues → Alan Dershowitz's appellate preservation framework — youngest full professor at Harvard Law, reversed the Claus von Bulow conviction.
- Weight and substance analysis → Ron Chapman II's drug forensic protocols — former federal prosecutor turned defense specialist.
Each question traces to a specific documented winning method. This is not a general checklist.
Section 1: Your Charges — In Plain English
Trafficking in Amphetamine (25g+) — F.S. § 893.135(1)(f)1
The State alleges that Marcus T. knowingly possessed 25 grams or more of amphetamine. Under Florida law, trafficking is determined solely by weight — not by whether you were actually “trafficking.” Possessing over the threshold weight IS trafficking, regardless of intent.
What the prosecution must prove:
- Knowing possession or constructive possession of the substance
- The substance is amphetamine (as defined by Florida statute)
- The weight meets or exceeds 25 grams
Mandatory minimum: 3 years Florida State Prison + $50,000 fine (25g–199g)
Maximum: 30 years + $500,000 fine
FATAL VARIANCE IDENTIFIED
The charging document alleges amphetamine. The FDLE lab confirmed MDMA/MDA — not amphetamine. These are different substances under different statutory provisions. This is a potentially fatal variance between the charge and the evidence.
Section 2: Where Your Case Should Be Right Now
| Milestone | Typical Timing | Your Status |
|---|---|---|
| Arraignment | Within 30 days | Done |
| Discovery production | 30-60 days | Partial — gaps exist |
| Depositions | 60-120 days | Not scheduled |
| Motion to suppress | Pre-trial | No motions filed |
| Pre-trial conference | 90-180 days | Pending |
| Trial setting | 175-day speedy | Approaching |
Assessment: BEHIND SCHEDULE
At this stage, the attorney should have completed discovery review, identified the substance variance, flagged the weight discrepancy, and filed or discussed motions. None of these steps appear to have occurred.
Section 3: Attorney Accountability Checklist
3 / 10
Significant gaps in attorney engagement on case-specific issues. The substance variance, weight discrepancy, and fingerprint results should have been raised within 30 days of discovery review.
This is what case-specific research looks like.
Want questions built from YOUR case details?
Find What's in My Case — $97 →Section 4: 15 Questions to Ask Your Attorney
Showing 5 of 15 questions from this report. Each is built from actual case findings.
Q1 — WEIGHT DISCREPANCY
“The police inventory shows 93.9g seized at the scene. The FDLE lab shows 25.59g tested. That's 68.3 grams — 73% of the evidence — unaccounted for. Where is the missing weight?”
Why this matters: Weight determines the trafficking tier and mandatory minimum. A 73% discrepancy suggests evidence handling problems.
SOURCE: Barry Scheck's chain of custody protocol — used in OJ Simpson and 375+ Innocence Project exonerations.
Q2 — FATAL SUBSTANCE VARIANCE
“The charging document says ‘amphetamine.’ The FDLE lab confirmed MDMA and MDA — not amphetamine. Has a motion to dismiss based on fatal variance been filed? If not, why not?”
Why this matters: If the charge doesn't match the lab evidence, the State may be forced to amend — potentially changing penalties entirely.
SOURCE: Ron Chapman II's substance identification protocol for federal drug cases.
Q3 — FINGERPRINTS
“21 latent fingerprints collected. Not a single one matches the defendant. Whose prints are they? Has a motion to compel full comparison results been filed?”
Why this matters: In a constructive possession case, the State must prove knowing possession. Zero fingerprint match is powerful reasonable doubt.
SOURCE: Barry Scheck's forensic evidence methodology.
Q4 — CI PHONE DUAL ATTRIBUTION
“The same phone number is attributed to both the confidential informant and the defendant in the same detective's report. Has a Franks v. Delaware motion been considered?”
Why this matters: Factual inconsistencies in a sworn affidavit can be grounds to challenge the entire search warrant.
SOURCE: Jeffrey Lichtman's 7-pillar CI destruction playbook — Gotti Jr., El Chapo.
Q5 — IDENTITY MISMATCH
“The SUSPECT identification photo shows an individual with a full head of hair. The defendant is bald. Has this discrepancy been documented?”
Why this matters: A physical description mismatch raises fundamental identity questions about the investigation's target.
+ 10 more questions covering money discrepancies, report timeline impossibilities, CI reliability history, chain of custody gaps, constructive possession standards, and motion deadlines.
Section 5: Red Flags
Attorney Inaction on Foundational Issues
Substance variance, weight discrepancy, and fingerprint results are foundational issues that should have been raised immediately.
Fatal Substance Variance Unaddressed
Being charged with the wrong substance is one of the most powerful defense tools. No motion to dismiss has been filed.
73% Weight Discrepancy Ignored
Nearly three-quarters of the alleged evidence weight is unaccounted for between seizure and lab testing.
Identity Contradiction in Case File
SUSPECT photo shows hair — defendant is bald. Fundamental investigation target identification issue.
Impossible Report Dates
A report dated before the events it describes. Either administrative error or something worse.
Section 6: Motions That May Apply
| Motion | What It Does | Deadline? |
|---|---|---|
| Dismiss — Fatal Variance | Charge (amphetamine) doesn't match evidence (MDMA/MDA) | Before plea/trial |
| Suppress — Franks v. Delaware | Challenge warrant based on CI phone inconsistency | Pre-trial |
| Compel Discovery | Force production of fingerprint analysis, weight docs, CI history | File ASAP |
| Daubert Challenge | Challenge field test reliability and lab methodology | Pre-trial |
| Suppress — Weight | 73% discrepancy makes weight evidence unreliable | Pre-trial |
Every question above came from one case. Imagine what we'll find in yours.
15 questions. 5 red flags. 5 potential motions. Starting at $97.
Find What's in My Case — $97 →Names, case numbers, and dates have been changed. Findings and discrepancy magnitudes are real. ImNotAnAttorney provides legal information and research — not legal advice.