Interview Summary
Produces a structured memorandum distilling a witness or subject interview into actionable intelligence for defense teams and investigators.
Prerequisites
- Interview materials — transcript, audio transcription, investigator notes, or preliminary report
- Matter reference — case name/number and investigation context
- Related evidence — prior witness statements, documents shown during interview, or known inconsistencies
Quick Start
Collect interview materials, then generate each section below in order. Mark the document ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL.
Output Sections
1. Header Block
| Field |
Content |
| Date/Time |
Interview date, start/end time |
| Location |
Interview site |
| Interviewee |
Name, role, relationship to matter |
| Interviewer(s) |
Names, titles |
| Counsel Present |
Defense counsel, interviewee's counsel if any |
| Observers |
Anyone else present |
| Matter Reference |
Case name/number |
| Privilege Marking |
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL |
2. Executive Summary
3–5 sentences covering:
- Most significant factual revelations
- Key admissions or denials
- Overall credibility assessment
- Impact on defense theory
3. Substantive Summary
Organize thematically, not chronologically:
- Background & Relationship — connection to events, relevant history
- Key Events — who, what, when, where, why, how per incident
- Knowledge of Other Parties — interactions with co-defendants, witnesses, complainants
- Documents & Communications — documents shown, recognized, referenced; reactions to exhibits
Per theme:
4. Credibility & Demeanor
| Indicator |
Observation |
| Consistency |
Internal contradictions within interview |
| External conflicts |
Contradictions with other evidence or witnesses |
| Demeanor |
Evasiveness, reluctance, confidence on specific topics |
| Motive/Bias |
Relationship factors affecting reliability |
| Corroboration |
Statements supported by independent evidence |
5. Exculpatory / Inculpatory Assessment
| Category |
Statement/Fact |
Significance |
| Exculpatory |
... |
... |
| Inculpatory |
... |
... |
| Ambiguous |
... |
... |
6. Follow-Up & Recommendations
Pitfalls & Checks
- Objectivity — Distinguish interviewee statements, interviewer observations, and analytical assessments. Label each.
- Discoverability — Assume the summary may be disclosed. No speculation, no strategy, no mental impressions beyond factual observations.
- Privilege — Mark header with work-product designation. Do not embed legal strategy.
- Precision — Use exact names, dates, amounts. Flag approximations with
[approx.].
- Verbatim quotes — Use for admissions, denials, key characterizations, and potential impeachment material. Include surrounding context.
- Neutral tone — Factual language only. Label legal conclusions as analysis.
1---2name: interview-summary3description: Generates structured summaries of witness or subject interviews for criminal defense investigations. Distills key facts, verbatim statements, credibility indicators, and follow-up leads. Use when summarizing defense interviews, witness debriefs, subject interrogations, or investigative interview notes.4license: Apache-2.05---67# Interview Summary89Produces a structured memorandum distilling a witness or subject interview into actionable intelligence for defense teams and investigators.1011## Prerequisites12131. **Interview materials** — transcript, audio transcription, investigator notes, or preliminary report142. **Matter reference** — case name/number and investigation context153. **Related evidence** — prior witness statements, documents shown during interview, or known inconsistencies1617## Quick Start1819Collect interview materials, then generate each section below in order. Mark the document `ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL`.2021## Output Sections2223### 1. Header Block2425| Field | Content |26|-------|---------|27| Date/Time | Interview date, start/end time |28| Location | Interview site |29| Interviewee | Name, role, relationship to matter |30| Interviewer(s) | Names, titles |31| Counsel Present | Defense counsel, interviewee's counsel if any |32| Observers | Anyone else present |33| Matter Reference | Case name/number |34| Privilege Marking | `ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL` |3536### 2. Executive Summary37383–5 sentences covering:39- Most significant factual revelations40- Key admissions or denials41- Overall credibility assessment42- Impact on defense theory4344### 3. Substantive Summary4546Organize **thematically, not chronologically**:47- **Background & Relationship** — connection to events, relevant history48- **Key Events** — who, what, when, where, why, how per incident49- **Knowledge of Other Parties** — interactions with co-defendants, witnesses, complainants50- **Documents & Communications** — documents shown, recognized, referenced; reactions to exhibits5152Per theme:53- [ ] Lead with concise factual summary54- [ ] Embed verbatim quotes for significant statements (quotation marks + context)55- [ ] Note gaps where interviewee lacked knowledge or memory5657### 4. Credibility & Demeanor5859| Indicator | Observation |60|-----------|-------------|61| Consistency | Internal contradictions within interview |62| External conflicts | Contradictions with other evidence or witnesses |63| Demeanor | Evasiveness, reluctance, confidence on specific topics |64| Motive/Bias | Relationship factors affecting reliability |65| Corroboration | Statements supported by independent evidence |6667### 5. Exculpatory / Inculpatory Assessment6869| Category | Statement/Fact | Significance |70|----------|---------------|--------------|71| Exculpatory | ... | ... |72| Inculpatory | ... | ... |73| Ambiguous | ... | ... |7475### 6. Follow-Up & Recommendations7677- [ ] Additional witnesses identified (name, contact, expected knowledge)78- [ ] Documents to obtain79- [ ] Topics requiring re-interview or clarification80- [ ] Investigative leads generated81- [ ] Areas needing corroboration8283## Pitfalls & Checks8485- **Objectivity** — Distinguish interviewee statements, interviewer observations, and analytical assessments. Label each.86- **Discoverability** — Assume the summary may be disclosed. No speculation, no strategy, no mental impressions beyond factual observations.87- **Privilege** — Mark header with work-product designation. Do not embed legal strategy.88- **Precision** — Use exact names, dates, amounts. Flag approximations with `[approx.]`.89- **Verbatim quotes** — Use for admissions, denials, key characterizations, and potential impeachment material. Include surrounding context.90- **Neutral tone** — Factual language only. Label legal conclusions as analysis.9192---
ThomasMoreAI