Feed Strata 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. Strata 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 Strata 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. Strata 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 Strata 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 1.9M records across 1,201 source artifacts and 25 related police event numbers, all detected, parsed, and put on one searchable spine.
Strata 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.
Strata 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.
Drop in the State’s entire production — reports, lab returns, body-worn camera, jail calls, phone dumps. The engine parses it all into facts, sorts them, and traces the ones that matter. On a single matter like the one below, that meant consuming over 383,000 files and sorting through more than 1.9 million facts spread across 25 separate police event numbers — following every CODIS hit back to its source.
Six matters follow, each attenuated and composited so that no combination of facts here maps back to a real person. These are the connections a human reviewer does not make — because they live across documents the State never consolidates. Every line is ledgered to a source.
A swab from one scene and a swab from a second scene both matched the same profile — and the CODIS hit connecting them was logged under a third case number. Read either file alone and the link is invisible.
The magazine and a casing at the scene share a common headstamp. The State calls it the forensic link to the shooting. Same box of ammunition is not the same gun — and the comparative ballistics report isn’t in discovery.
The search turned up no firearm, no magazine, no ammunition. The entire element rides on photos of the client with handguns — recovered from a phone he disclaimed and a third party claimed.
The detective’s own sworn declaration states, on its face, that officers questioned the client in custody “without Miranda.” Two lines later it buries a statement that a fourth person — never investigated — was the actual driver.
The supervisor’s written entry says the client was uninjured and uncooperative. The body-worn camera, same minute, records the client reporting an injury and an officer acknowledging force.
The Declaration of Arrest, two pages apart: “driving away with intent to deprive,” then “in the passenger seat.” Clothing descriptions are never matched to either suspect. The whole case turns on a role the State’s own report can’t settle.
The engine correlated two CODIS Hit Notifications logged under two different lab cases and two different burglary events EU-0061. The first: a match between a known profile and a swab from one scene. Seven weeks later, a second match — same profile, a swab from a different scene — filed under a third case number EU-0063. Read either file on its own and the connection does not exist.
DNA that crosses case numbers is either attribution or exculpation. Either way the State has to reconcile a linkage it never disclosed in one place — and the identity behind the arrestee profile is the first demand.
The swab is a multi-contributor mixture (STRmix) EU-0065, and the client’s own reference sample did not reach the lab until long after the arrest EU-0064. The reported match is a probabilistic call against an assumed number of contributors, not a confirmed profile.
Brady demand: the confirmed identity behind the CODIS hit + hit disposition
Daubert challenge: STRmix assumed NoC = 3, sensitivity analysis
Retain defense DNA expert — attack the moderate-stringency mask call
Compel lab validation data for 3-person mixtures at this template level
Driven by a cross-case DNA link the State never consolidated and a mixture interpretation acutely sensitive to its assumed contributor count.
The Crime Scene Analyst’s report states that the rounds in the recovered magazine and the casing at the scene share a common headstamp, and the State treats that as the forensic link between the recovered firearm and the shooting EU-0311. A headstamp identifies the ammunition’s source — same box, same factory — not the firearm that fired it. The comparative ballistics report, fired casing to recovered pistol, is not in the corpus EU-0312.
Without a weapon-level match, the physical linchpin between the client and the discharge is missing. A motion in limine precludes the State from ever implying a headstamp is a ballistic match.
No DNA, no fingerprint, no gunshot-residue result on the firearm appears in discovery either EU-0314. And the search that recovered the firearm rested on it feeling “heavy” and “possibly” being a gun — below the immediately-apparent plain-feel standard EU-0309.
The probation home-visit search produced “negative results for any contraband and/or weapons” — no firearm, no magazine, no ammunition, no holster EU-0421. The minor-in-possession-of-firearm count rests entirely on digital images of the client posing with handguns and a text thread about “ghost gun” parts, recovered from a phone the client disclaimed and a third party claimed EU-0423.
Suppress the phone under Riley and the probation-search scope, and the entire firearm element collapses with it — because the evidence is exclusively digital and exclusively phone-derived.
With no recovered weapon there is no actual or constructive possession of any physical firearm. The officer bootstrapped the charge on a “direct control and access” theory — not on a recovered gun.
The detective’s sworn warrant declaration states, on its face, that “during their preliminary interview, without Miranda” — a custodial interrogation conducted before any rights were administered EU-0510. It is a sworn admission of a J.D.B. / Rhode Island v. Innis violation sitting inside the State’s own charging instrument. Two lines later, an adult co-detainee told officers a fourth subject, not present, was the driver — exculpatory, never investigated, omitted from the probable-cause analysis EU-0511.
The State has already stipulated the violation. Suppress the statements and every identification fruit derived from them — the clothing observations that fed the field identification.
A separate report notes the subjects were released “due to being unable to place the subjects in the stolen vehicle” EU-0512 — then the fourth-suspect lead was dropped and the client charged anyway.
The supervisor’s written entry records that the client uninjured and uncooperative on scene EU-0143. The body-worn camera from the same minute captures the client reporting an injury and an officer acknowledging that force was used EU-0204–0206. The engine paired the written log to the contemporaneous audio without being told to.
A timestamped conflict between an official police record and primary-source media in the State’s own possession is impeachment and a Giglio predicate — and the internal use-of-force findings it references are not in discovery.
The internal-affairs investigation the log points to is absent from the corpus EU-2003 — Brady material — and the contradiction reopens the voluntariness of every statement taken after the takedown.
The Declaration of Arrest states on one page that the client “was observed entering and driving away in the stolen vehicle, with the intent to deprive the owner” EU-0708 and on the next that he “was observed in the passenger seat” of the stolen vehicle EU-0709. The surveillance narrative never matches either clothing description to either suspect, so the State’s own probable-cause statement cannot establish which role the client played.
Grand larceny of a motor vehicle requires that the client drove or entered with intent. The State’s report supplies both roles and proves neither — dismiss or reduce on the document’s own internal conflict.
Officers also placed the vehicle under “electronic surveillance” with no device named and no authority cited EU-0704 — a Carpenter-grade question the corpus never answers — and the booking sheet names four accomplices who appear nowhere else in the file.
Anonymized real matters, analysis condensed. Each live playbook 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 Strata 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.
Strata 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 Strata'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.
Strata is for licensed defense counsel. Request access with your bar credentials.
Bar credentials are verified before access is granted. Strata 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 Strata address.
Strata 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.