This is from an actual X-Ray report, a drug possession case in Florida. The defendant's name and case number have been changed. Everything else, the documents, the contradictions, the findings, is real.
X-RAY DISCOVERY ANALYSIS
ImNotAnAttorney | Know What They Know.
Every set of discovery documents contains findings. The question is whether someone has looked.
See what's in yours.
Get My X-Ray, $2,497Every finding includes the specific document, the specific page, and the specific question to ask your attorney.
Field Report (Officer Martinez, pg 4): “White powder substance, approximately 28.3 grams”
Lab Report (Forensic Sciences, Report #FSL-2023-4471, pg 2): “Off-white powder substance, net weight 7.2 grams”
Cross-Reference: Evidence Room Intake Log (pg 1): “White crystalline substance, 24.1 grams”
Three documents. Three different weights. A 73% discrepancy between the highest (28.3g) and lowest (7.2g) measurement.
Framework: Chapman II Drug Forensic Analysis, weight discrepancies between field and lab exceeding 5% indicate potential evidence integrity issues. This discrepancy exceeds 73%.
Question for attorney:
“The field weight was 28.3g, the evidence room logged 24.1g, and the lab tested 7.2g. What happened to 21.1 grams between seizure and testing? Was packaging weighed separately at each stage? Were calibration records for each scale preserved?”
Arrest Report (pg 2): “Miranda rights administered at 14:32”
Booking Record (pg 1): “Defendant made voluntary statements at 14:15”
[REDACTED, Attorney questions for this finding included in your report]
12 more red flags identified, 2 CRITICAL, 4 SIGNIFICANT, 4 NOTABLE, all with specific document citations and attorney questions.
This is one finding from one case. Yours will be different, but the process is the same. Every document reviewed. Every discrepancy documented. Every question calibrated to your case.
Get My X-Ray, $2,497Previously purchased Case Decoder or Intelligence Brief? You owe only the difference.
Cross-referenced statements from officers, witnesses, and reports.
Officer Martinez: “Suspect was combative, resisted being placed in handcuffs”
Officer Davis (backup report, pg 3): “Suspect was cooperative, placed hands behind back when instructed”
Same arrest, opposite descriptions of defendant behavior
Lab Analyst Chen: “Substance tested positive for cocaine hydrochloride”
Field Test (Officer Martinez, pg 5): “Substance tested presumptive positive for methamphetamine”
Different substance identified by field test vs. lab
+6 more witness contradictions identified and mapped in your report.
Showing 3 of 43 questions from this report. Each includes what a solid answer looks like, and what a red flag answer looks like.
Q1, EVIDENCE
“The field weight was 28.3 grams. The lab weight was 7.2 grams. What accounts for this 73% discrepancy?”
Basis: Weight Discrepancy Analysis (Red Flag #3)
Framework: Chapman II Drug Forensic Analysis
A solid answer: “The field weight included packaging. The lab weighs the net substance only. Here are the packaging weights documented at each stage.”
A red flag answer: “That's just how it works” or “The lab is what matters” without explaining the discrepancy.
Q2, CHAIN OF CUSTODY
“Evidence was checked out of the property room for 96 hours with no documented purpose. Who had custody during this period?”
Basis: Chain of Custody Break (Red Flag #5)
Framework: Scheck Evidence Integrity Protocol
A solid answer: “The evidence was sent to an external lab for confirmation testing. Here is the transfer documentation.”
A red flag answer: “I'd have to look into that” or “The property room logs should show it.”
Q3, CONSTITUTIONAL
“I made statements at 14:15. The arrest report shows Miranda wasn't read until 14:32. Does that timing create a suppression argument?”
Basis: Miranda Timing Inconsistency (Red Flag #7)
Framework: MacCarthy Suppression Methodology
A solid answer: “Yes, I've already drafted a motion to suppress. Here's our argument.”
A red flag answer: “Miranda doesn't apply here” without citing the specific exception.
Q4: Lab analyst certification and training records...
Q5: Field test reagent lot number and expiration...
Q6: Evidence room temperature and humidity controls...
... and 37 more, specific to your case details and documents
62
/100
Grade: C
| Category | Grade | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Police/Arrest Reports | B | Mostly complete |
| Lab/Forensic Reports | D | Significant gaps |
| [In your report] | ||
| [In your report] | ||
| [In your report] | ||
| [In your report] | ||
What a C means: Your discovery has enough documentation to identify issues, but significant gaps exist, particularly in forensic documentation. These gaps are themselves findings.
Your X-Ray now includes federal sentencing data from 819,248 cases. This grounds every finding in real-world outcomes, not estimates.
Sample, Middle District of Florida
| Metric | This District | National |
|---|---|---|
| Median sentence (drug possession) | 24.0 months | 27.0 months |
| Downward departure rate | 31.4% | 28.7% |
| Plea rate | 97.2% | 96.1% |
| Trial penalty (jury vs plea) | +63% | +58% |
Your full X-Ray includes judge-specific sentencing outlier flags and officer reliability cross-case data. Sentencing breakdowns by defendant demographics come from verified federal court records.
Inside this report
Every page of your discovery goes through our analysis process. Nothing is skimmed. Each document gets its own pass.
Sample
Lab report, page 3 — weight listed as 14.2g. Compared against chain-of-custody log showing 19.4g at booking. Flagged as CRITICAL discrepancy.
“$2,497is a lot of money.”
Every discovery document your attorney will argue against — cross-referenced, contradictions logged, questions calibrated. This is the research layer private defense teams build from scratch on every case. And your $2,497 is fully credited if you upgrade to The War Room.
“I don't have all my discovery yet.”
That's fine, and it's actually useful information. An incomplete discovery set is itself a finding. We document what's missing and generate questions about why it hasn't been provided.
“My attorney already reviewed my discovery.”
The question is whether that review produced specific, documented findings with page citations, and whether you saw them. If your attorney found a 73% weight discrepancy, they should be able to show you where.
“Is this legal advice?”
No. This is legal information and research, document analysis with specific questions. Your attorney makes strategy decisions. We make sure you have the information to ask the right questions.
The X-Ray finds it.
The Discovery Guarantee
If we analyze your discovery and don't identify at least one concrete issue your attorney can act on, a contradiction, a chain of custody gap, a constitutional question, you get every dollar back. No forms. No phone calls.
The Attorney Meeting Guarantee
Every X-Ray includes a formatted Attorney Delivery Package your attorney can read in 10 minutes, sourced back to specific pages. If your attorney says there's nothing there, send us their response, second round of analysis at no charge.
The Delivery Commitment
Delivered within 10 business days of document receipt, or 20% automatic refund. Past 15 business days: full refund. The commitment is a floor on rigor, not a speed promise.
Other things defendants use at this stage
These work alongside whatever tier you choose. No overlap, no upsell bait — each answers a different question the system won't answer for you.
Arrest Survival Kit
$47· On purchase
The first seven days after arrest are when the most damage gets done — phone calls to the wrong people, social posts, statements that end up in discovery. This kit walks you through exactly what to do, what to stop doing, and what to write down while memory is fresh.
District Court Intelligence
$147· On purchase
Before your attorney walks you through a plea offer, know what actually happens in your district. Judge sentencing patterns, prosecutor plea rates, bench vs. jury divergence — the same data the courtroom regulars already have, compiled into one report for your specific court.
Tabular Appendix
Every row below links to a public record. Click any source link to verify the data yourself.
About 1 in 5 suppression motions in similar FL drug possession cases succeeded in published opinions.
| Source | ||
|---|---|---|
| Granted | 21 % | Source (opens in new tab) |
| Denied | 79 % | Source (opens in new tab) |
Source: courtlistener (opens in new tab) — motion_outcome_rates — 2 cited entries
| ||
Defendants with no prior record received probation-only sentences in over half of comparable federal cases.
| Source | ||
|---|---|---|
| Probation only | 54 % | Source (opens in new tab) |
| Prison < 12 months | 28 % | Source (opens in new tab) |
| Prison ≥ 12 months | 18 % | Source (opens in new tab) |
Source: ussc (opens in new tab) — sentence_distribution — 3 cited entries
| ||
Chain-of-custody challenges citing lab handling errors led to evidence exclusion in about 1 in 8 published opinions.
| Source | ||
|---|---|---|
| Evidence excluded | 13 % | Source (opens in new tab) |
| Challenge denied | 87 % | Source (opens in new tab) |
Source: courtlistener (opens in new tab) — motion_outcome_rates — 2 cited entries
| ||
Built Thu, 21 May 2026 00:00:00 GMT · tier: x-ray · 8 cited rows
Where every fact came from
Every fact in this report links back to a public record. Click any source below to verify it.
Public databases used
Verifiable sources (3)
Our research team runs against public court records, government databases, and legal reference systems. These sources are the same ones your attorney can access. Report generated on May 21, 2026.
Names, case numbers, and dates have been changed. ImNotAnAttorney provides legal information and research, not legal advice.
