Feed Salient the State's entire discovery, whether a hundred pages or a thousand. It reads every line. It ledgers every fact. It returns a complete reconnaissance of the case. A minute-by-minute timeline. A ten-part Fourth and Fifth Amendment chain. Contradictions identified. Anomalies identified. A weighted score on every motion suggested.
The Strategic Discovery Review is in production now. Deeper discovery, full trial preparation, habeas, and appellate drafting are in active development. All on the same fact-locked foundation.
Drop in the State's entire discovery production. Salient detects every source file, ledgers every atomic fact, and runs a full reconnaissance. The complete 24-section playbook from timeline to scorecard, 40–100 pages.
The Strategic Discovery Review is the first engine on a fact-locked foundation. Four more are built and working, rolling onto the platform now, each one ledgered to source the same way.
No prompt engineering, no babysitting. Hand Salient the State's production exactly as you received it. The engine does the rest in a single pass.
Drop the entire production: reports, 911, dispatch, bodycam, lab. Salient parses every file boundary and detects every source.
Every fact is pulled apart, assigned an EU-#### identifier, and pinned to its exact source page before any analysis begins.
Timeline, the constitutional chain, contradiction matrix, strategy, and scorecard execute in fixed order, with nine algorithmic cascades.
A typeset analysis, generated anonymously, with no attorney in the loop. Every assertion traces to an evidence unit; where the record goes silent, the engine reasons from what the corpus implies should exist and runs the Missing-Evidence Cascade, surfacing the gap as leverage instead of guessing.
Hours, not the weeks a manual corpus review demands, and every line of it traceable back to the page it came from.
Point Salient at an entire discovery database and it correlates across every related case at once. The evidence, the officers, the lab work, and the forensic reports the State would rather you never connect.
It does not choke on volume. One engagement spanned 1.95M records across 1,201 source artifacts and 79 related case numbers, all detected, parsed, and put on one searchable spine.
Salient swept the corpus and isolated the 6 of 79 cases carrying biology / DNA reports, the analysts who signed each one, the lab case numbers, and a CODIS high-stringency match that a paper review would never have tied together.
It maps which officers and lab analysts recur across cases and which events are linked. The same name on three reports, the same swab routed through two case numbers. Patterns one file alone will never reveal.
A research layer in active development: prosecution-pattern analysis, cross-jurisdictional comparison, and predictive outcome modeling, all built on the same fact-locked spine. Strategy before the State shows its hand.
Salient reads every page of the discovery you give it, ledgers every fact, and maps the case end to end: how it was built, where it breaks, and what to do about it. Here is every section, in the order the engine emits it.
Reconstruct the entire event, minute by minute, and trace the Fourth- and Fifth-Amendment chain from first contact to booking.
Turn the facts into legal pressure. What comes in, what stays out, and what the gaps are worth.
From facts to a plan: the story, the questions, the alternatives, and your leverage at the table.
The part that lets you trust the other 23: a coverage audit, an overreach scan, and a scored bottom line.
Attempted murder. Armed robbery. A warrantless search. A single-witness battery. Whatever the State brings, Salient takes it apart the same way. Twelve real matters below. Turn through them.
A self-defense shooting charged as attempted murder. Salient found the State's intent element resting on a wound the complainant himself described as accidental, and flagged the client's own conflicting statements before counsel walked in.
A multi-case home-invasion and firearm matter built on warrant affidavits. Salient ran each warrant through the Franks factors and mapped every search node: consent, scope, and the limits of the warrant, across a massive production.
An assault-with-a-deadly-weapon matter resting on one disputed account. Salient surfaced the gap between what the witness said, what the report claimed, and the charge actually filed.
Multiple robbery-with-a-deadly-weapon counts built on cooperator statements. Salient ran the identification integrity and mapped every place the State leaned on a deal.
A discharge-into-an-occupied-structure matter stacked into several felonies. Salient pulled the counts apart and tested attribution against the physical record.
A grand-larceny-auto and conspiracy matter where the charged counts shifted between documents. Salient caught the discrepancy and laid out what the State actually has to prove.
The client stated the complainant attacked him with a knife, forcing a defensive shooting EU-0010. The State charged Attempted Murder with Use of a Deadly Weapon EU-0003. Once justification is raised, the State bears the burden of disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt.
A Miranda-compliant admission of the shooting, paired with an immediate self-defense claim, lays the foundation for a justification defense under the applicable self-defense statutes.
Three civilian eyewitnesses uniformly place the complainant unarmed; the knife on scene was identified as the client’s own property EU-0011–0012. In a second interview the client changed his account. He “picked the knife up from the ground,” eliminating the complainant’s possession entirely EU-0013. Salient flags the contradiction before you walk into the room.
Motion to Compel DNA Analysis of the knife blade: tests the first account directly
Motion to Suppress Statements: second interview, re-Miranda gap
Motion to Reduce Attempted Murder to a lesser included: single leg shot, no follow-up
Motion in Limine re drug evidence found in the residence
Driven by a weak prosecution intent element and high-value discovery / Brady leverage, offset by an admitted discharge and near-zero suppression traction.
The State built its case on warrant affidavits for three storage units, a vehicle inventory, and tracking data EU-0031. Salient ran every affidavit through the Franks factors line by line, then cross-checked the lab and DNA returns against what the State claims they prove EU-0032.
A single affidavit that omits or misstates a material fact opens a Franks hearing and puts every item the warrant produced on the table for suppression.
Two affidavits recite tracking data and informant claims the corpus never substantiates EU-0044. Salient flags each omission as a Franks target, ranked by how much evidence falls with it.
The DNA return does not place the client on the seized items the way the State's theory needs EU-0061. Salient pairs the lab result with the attribution claim and marks the daylight between them.
The felony rests on a single complaining account, and the report itself records the offense on a calendar date that does not exist EU-0006. Salient cross-checked that date against the dispatch and booking timeline and weighed the charged degree against what the page actually describes EU-0009.
A police report that cannot state the correct date of the offense is impeachment material and a reliability problem the State has to carry on cross. The whole case is one account; impeach it and the charge collapses to a lesser, or to nothing.
The narrative conflicts with the complaining witness's later statement EU-0011, the deadly-weapon element is thin, and the charge sits a full degree above what the facts on the page support EU-0014.
Robbery with a deadly weapon and a conspiracy count carrying a criminal-gang enhancement trace back to one cooperating co-defendant EU-0019. Salient ran the identification integrity, separated the client's documented acts from the group, and timed the gap between arrest and booking EU-0022.
When the State's proof depends on a cooperator, every charge-disposition deal behind the testimony is Giglio material the defense is owed, and a gang enhancement demands its own independent proof the corpus may not contain.
The identification rests on a co-defendant who received favorable treatment EU-0026, the physical record does not independently tie the client to the weapon, and the client sat roughly five and a half hours between arrest and booking EU-0031.
A single discharge was charged as a stack of felonies at once: four counts of assault with a deadly weapon, plus discharging a firearm into an occupied structure and a minor-in-possession count EU-0012. Salient pulled the counts apart and tested attribution against the physical record and the conflicting witness accounts EU-0018.
Several felonies stacked on one act stand or fall together. If the State cannot prove this client fired, the whole tower of counts comes down with it.
No physical evidence independently places the weapon in the client's hands EU-0024, several people were present, and the witness accounts of who fired conflict with one another EU-0029.
The booking sheet lists one set of offenses; the arrest declaration cites a different, longer set, including a more serious public-officer charge that surfaces only after the fact EU-0004. On top of that, the named victim affirmatively declined to press charges EU-0008.
When the counts shift between documents, the defense pins the State to the elements it can actually prove and challenges every count that was added later or that the victim will not support.
At least one count appears in the declaration that the booking record never carried EU-0013, and the most serious charge is the one with the least support in the underlying report EU-0017.
The complaining party affirmatively declined to press charges, yet a battery on a protected person at a school was filed anyway, with a supplemental petition folded in later EU-0005. Salient traced each charge back through the report to find what, if anything, actually supports it EU-0010.
A named victim who declined to cooperate is a credibility and proof problem the State has to solve before it can ever reach a jury.
The protected-person count rests on an officer's account of an event the named victim would not stand behind EU-0012, and the later-added supplemental petition rests on material the original report never mentioned EU-0015.
Conspiracy and an attempt to take a vehicle were charged against several people as one, with multiple separate events folded into a single petition EU-0007. Salient separated the client's documented conduct from the group narrative the report leans on, event by event EU-0014.
Conspiracy needs an agreement and an overt act tied to this client, not mere presence in a group. Force the State to prove the client's piece, event by event.
The corpus describes a group but pins few specific acts to the client EU-0021, and at least two of the folded-in events name the client only in passing EU-0024.
The felony charged is an attempt, which requires a real step toward the crime, not presence or suspicion, and a companion false-statement count rides on the same thin encounter EU-0006. Salient checked the corpus for the specific conduct each element demands EU-0011.
If the overt step toward the offense isn't in the record, the felony attempt is vulnerable to dismissal or reduction, and the companion count falls with the stop that produced it.
The report supplies proximity and inference more than a documented act EU-0015, and the obstruction count rests on a statement the encounter never properly established EU-0019.
The matter turns on a single complaining account, and even the witness's own identifying details, including date of birth, are disputed in the record EU-0004. Salient mapped every inconsistency in that account against the rest of the corpus and against the client's prior referrals, both previously declined EU-0009.
When the whole case is one account, every inconsistency in it is reasonable doubt, and prior referrals the DA already declined do not get to come back as character.
Basic details in the complaining account, down to the witness's own date of birth, do not line up across the documents EU-0013, and the two prior referrals the State may lean on were each denied and closed EU-0016.
A conspiracy-with-a-deadly-weapon count attaches to the client largely through co-defendants who name a street nickname, not a verified identification EU-0008. Salient tested how the report gets from that nickname to this client EU-0016.
An identification built on a nickname from interested co-defendants is fragile, and every cooperation deal behind it is discoverable.
The corpus does not independently confirm the nickname maps to the client EU-0022, and the co-defendants who supplied it had their own counts amended down EU-0025.
The assault-on-a-protected-person count depends on an escalation story told by the responding officer, layered onto a separate domestic-battery arrest event EU-0005. Salient compared that narrative against the timeline and the rest of the documents EU-0012.
If the officer's escalation account is the only thing elevating the conduct to the charged offense, it is the whole fight, and a prior record of closed referrals is not evidence of anything.
The surrounding documents don't corroborate the escalation the way the narrative claims EU-0018, and the prior-record sheet the State may cite is a list of referrals that were closed or banked, not convictions EU-0021.
Anonymized excerpts, analysis condensed. Each live Strategic Discovery Review runs across all 24 sections, every assertion ledgered to source.
The point isn’t a document. It’s the confidence to sit across from the prosecutor having already mapped every weakness in their case, and to negotiate, or try it, from there.
Every atomic fact gets an EU-#### identifier traced to its exact source page before it ever enters analysis. A single case can run hundreds of units. It tracks what’s missing too: affirmative absences and a missing-evidence cascade. No invented law, no hallucinated authority. Anything outside the corpus is flagged, not guessed.
Every advantage Salient surfaces is immediately stress-tested against the facts that cut the other way. An AR-LEVERAGE / AR-REALITY pairing on every issue. You see the counter before the prosecutor raises it. Nothing rosy, nothing you have to walk back.
Seizure, detention, custodial interrogation, and search are run as continuous Fourth- and Fifth-Amendment chains. Each link scored strong or weak, every leverage point paired immediately with its factual reality. Built for a suppression motion, not a memo.
The playbook closes with a logistic, log-odds case-strength assessment, scored only from issues actually established in the sections above, every input backed by its evidence units. A defensible number, with the math you can trace.
Salient was built by a practicing criminal-defense trial lawyer, and a former U.S. Army combat medic with the 82nd Airborne Division, with active combat service in Afghanistan. The discipline that keeps you precise when everything is loud is exactly what makes this engine refuse to guess: get the facts right, because everything rides on them.
Three years spent encoding hard-won trial craft into an engine, built case by case, in real courtrooms. The standard never moves.
Comparison reflects Salient's design priorities; competitor capabilities vary by product and release.
Start with a single matter; scale to your whole docket. Trial Preparation is quoted per engagement.
A single complete playbook for one case. No commitment.
For the solo or small firm running an active docket.
Volume, multiple seats, and full Trial Preparation.
Salient is for licensed defense counsel. Request access with your bar credentials.
Bar credentials are verified before access is granted. Salient serves the defense bar only. Current or former prosecutors, and anyone employed by a prosecuting or police agency within the last four years, are not eligible.
✓ Received. We'll be in touch from a Salient address.
Salient is a tool, and the attorney is the one driving it. It analyzes the materials and directives counsel gives it: the discovery, plus whatever instructions, what-ifs, or hypotheticals you add. It extracts, organizes, and scores what those inputs contain. It does not authenticate your inputs and it does not give legal advice. You steer; it runs.
A State bar number is required to run it. This is a professional instrument for attorneys, not a consumer product, not a law firm, and no attorney–client relationship is created.
Run it, then run it again. Exclude a piece of evidence and watch the case shift. Test a fact that might exist. Iterate as many times as you want. It's your license and your strategy, and there's no limit on the tools you can put to work.
Every output is a starting point. Licensed counsel of record remains responsible for all inputs, verification, strategy, and use.