Prompt Pilotby Write.law
All prompts

Workflow

Build a trial exhibit list that argues

Turns a document inventory into a numbered exhibit list ordered to tell the story, each exhibit tied to a pillar of your theory, with its foundation witness, the objection it will draw, and your answer.

About 15 minintermediateLitigation

Your prompt5,226 characters

Still to fill in: Theory and pillars, Document inventory, Trial witnesses, in call order, Court and pretrial order

RoleYou are a trial lawyer who treats the exhibit list as a closing-argument outline: every exhibit earns its number or comes off. You have watched a judge exclude the one document a case turned on because nobody on the witness list could say who made it, so you assign a foundation witness before you assign a number. You cut cumulative exhibits without sentiment (the fortieth email is where a jury stops listening) and you will not list a document you cannot actually get in.What I needBuild a trial exhibit list for Who you represent / exhibit prefix in Court and pretrial order, ordered to tell the story and keyed to the pillars below.InputsTheory and pillars: Theory and pillars Document inventory: Document inventory Witnesses, in call order: Trial witnesses, in call order Court and pretrial order: Court and pretrial order Party / exhibit prefix: Who you represent / exhibit prefixHow to work this1. Restate Theory and pillars as three pillars, one line each. Every exhibit ties to exactly one. Anything that ties to none comes off. 2. Sequence the list to the witness order in Trial witnesses, in call order and to the story, not to the dates the documents were created. 3. For each exhibit give: number, description with date, pillar, foundation witness, authentication path, the objection you expect, and the answer you will give at counsel table. 4. Where nobody in Trial witnesses, in call order can lay the foundation, say so and name what you need (a business-records certification, a stipulation, a custodian deposition) and the deadline under Court and pretrial order. 5. Put demonstratives and summaries in a separate table. Say whether each is offered as evidence or used illustratively, and whether the pretrial order requires advance disclosure. 6. List the cuts with one reason each: cumulative, no pillar, no foundation, more prejudicial than probative. 7. Flag the exhibits most likely to draw a motion in limine and say what happens to the case if you lose each.Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. Every assumption about authenticity, production in discovery, prior admissions, and what each witness can competently authenticate. Mark each [verify] or [safe]. Flag any exhibit I assumed was produced with a Bates number. Where this is weakest. The two or three foundations most likely to fail, and the exhibit whose exclusion hurts most. Name the exhibit number, not "the list generally." What only you can decide. The calls I left to you, each as options with tradeoffs. At minimum: how long the list runs. A long list preserves optionality and makes them object to everything, but it invites a blanket in limine motion, tells the judge you have not chosen a case, and under most pretrial orders their reciprocal listing puts their marginal documents in play too. A short list is cleaner and more persuasive, but exhibits not listed are generally excluded except for impeachment, so you lose rebuttal material. Also yours: whether to trade authenticity stipulations: it saves a day of trial and buys goodwill, but gives up the chance to exclude documents whose custodian they cannot produce. What would make this materially better. What would sharpen the next pass most: the pretrial order text, the deposition pages where documents were authenticated, the RFA responses, or their exhibit list. Rank by impact.Output formatA table: # | Exhibit and date | Pillar | Foundation witness | Authentication path | Likely objection | Response. Then a separate demonstratives table with Use and Offered-or-illustrative. Then "Cuts" with one reason each, and "In limine exposure" naming the two or three most vulnerable exhibits and the cost of losing them. Then the four closing sections.Never do this- If this list would work in any case with any documents, it is too generic. Rebuild it from these pillars and this witness order. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," and "may be objectionable" as a substitute for naming the objection. Do not tell me to consult an attorney. I am trying the case. - Every rule, Bates number, exhibit number, and case reference must come from my inputs or be marked [UNVERIFIED - confirm before pre-marking]. Never invent a Bates range or a hearsay exception. - Where you do not know whether Court and pretrial order allows a certification in place of a live custodian, say you do not know rather than smoothing over it with confident-sounding rule numbers. - Do not pad the list to look thorough. Forty exhibits nobody can authenticate is worse than twelve that come in. Length is not value.Before you answer- Does every exhibit tie to exactly one pillar, and is every pillar covered? - Does every row name a live human who can lay the foundation? - Did I actually cut documents, or list everything I was given? - Would this list be useless in any other case? It should be. - Is any Bates number, exhibit number, or rule cite here something I generated rather than was given?

Adds driver's-seat tunes: options instead of answers, questions before work, every citation flagged. Your values come with it.

2

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

There is a client on the other side paying real money to keep three of these documents away from the jury, and their lawyer has two weeks before the pretrial conference to make that happen. Work my list as the lawyer they are paying, drafting motions in limine. Pick the three you move on, write the one-sentence ground for each, and say honestly whether the motion wins. Then fix the foundation, add a second authentication path, or tell me to drop the exhibit and try the case without it.
3

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

Exhibits get excluded before trial, not during it. Build the motions in limine plan: the three motions worth filing, the three of theirs we must oppose, the order to argue them at the pretrial conference, and (for each of our motions) the fallback ruling we would accept if the judge is not inclined to exclude outright.

Before you run it

What to gather first

  • Your one-sentence theory and the three pillars under it
  • The document inventory with dates, authors, and Bates ranges
  • The trial witness list in the order you plan to call them
  • The pretrial order's exhibit, objection, and demonstrative deadlines
  • Which documents the other side has already authenticated in depositions or admitted in RFAs

Watch for

  • The pretrial order controls. Pre-marking deadlines, objection deadlines, and the rule that unlisted exhibits are excluded except for impeachment will beat anything this list says. Read the order first.
  • The model cannot confirm a document was actually produced in discovery or that a Bates range is real. An exhibit that was never produced can be excluded no matter how clean the foundation looks.
  • Business-records certifications, self-authentication, and summary exhibits work differently in state practice than in federal court. Confirm the path in your forum before relying on it.
  • Judges treat demonstratives inconsistently: advance disclosure, admission versus illustrative use, and whether they go back to the jury room all vary. Check chambers practice, not just the rule.
  • A bloated list draws a 403 ruling that cuts the exhibits you needed along with the ones you did not. Cumulative documents cost more than they add.

What comes back

A main table: # | Exhibit and date | Pillar | Foundation witness | Authentication path | Likely objection | Response, sequenced to witness order. Then a separate demonstratives table marked offered-or-illustrative, a "Cuts" list with one reason per document, and an "In limine exposure" section naming the most vulnerable exhibits and the cost of losing each. Closes with Assumptions / Where this is weakest / What only you can decide / What would make this better.

See an example of what you’ll get
*(Plaintiff Acme Industries, N.D. Cal.; pillars: (1) Acme performed; (2) BetaCorp repudiated April 14; (3) cover was reasonable at $842K.)* Exhibit list: sequenced to witness order | # | Exhibit and date | Pillar | Foundation witness | Authentication path | Likely objection | Response | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | P-1 | Supply Agreement, Feb. 12, 2024 (ACME00012-45) | 1 | Rios (CFO, signatory) | Personal knowledge, FRE 901(b)(1) | Best evidence / completeness | Offer the full agreement including Exhibit B; no partial offer | | P-2 | Acme payment records, Mar. 2024 (ACME00310-42) | 1 | Rios | Business record, 803(6) + 902(11) certification | Hearsay | Certification served Mar. 4; no live custodian needed | | P-3 | Warehouse lease, Mar. 1, 2024 (ACME00501-16) | 1 | Tam | Business record | Relevance | Proves reliance and the scale of Acme's commitment | | P-4 | Whitfield email, "Cannot perform," Apr. 14 (BETA00921) | 2 | Whitfield (adverse, on call) | Party admission, 801(d)(2)(A) | Hearsay; completeness | It is their CEO's statement; offer the full thread to defuse 106 | | P-5 | Whitfield deposition, 88:4–94:17 | 2 | Read-in / video | Party admission | 403 | Designations exchanged with the pretrial order | | P-6 | Three replacement invoices, Apr. 16–24 (ACME01120-24) | 3 | Tam | Business record, 803(6) | Hearsay; foundation | Tam ordered and received each shipment | | P-7 | Tam's procurement notebook, Apr. 2024 | 3 | Tam | Present sense impression / recorded recollection | 403; hearsay | Contemporaneous; goes to commercial reasonableness | Demonstratives | # | Demonstrative | Use | Status | |---|---|---|---| | D-1 | Timeline: Feb. 12 → Mar. payments → Apr. 14 → cover | Opening and closing | Illustrative only; disclose 7 days out per the pretrial order | | D-2 | Cover damages calculation | Direct of Dr. Ng | Offered as a summary under FRE 1006; underlying invoices must be produced first | Cuts. Pre-2023 supply history (no pillar). Eleven internal Acme emails about pricing frustration (cumulative to P-6, and three contain language that helps their impracticability theme). BetaCorp marketing brochures (no pillar). Rios's summary memo (hearsay, and Rios is testifying live). In limine exposure. P-7 is the most vulnerable: Tam's notebook is a mix of contemporaneous entries and later annotations, which invites both a hearsay ruling and a 403 argument. If it goes, pillar 3 rests on invoices alone, which is survivable but weaker on reasonableness. P-5's designations are the second exposure; expect counter-designations that soften "cannot perform." --- Assumptions I made. That every document listed was produced with the Bates ranges you gave me [verify - an unproduced exhibit is excluded regardless of foundation]. That the 902(11) certification for P-2 was served within a reasonable time [verify - I have not seen it]. That Whitfield remains within subpoena range and will appear adverse [verify - if not, P-4 needs a custodian and P-5 becomes the primary vehicle]. That FRE, not California evidence law, governs [safe - federal court, diversity does not change the hearsay rules]. Where this is weakest. P-7's foundation. "Present sense impression" is doing a lot of work for a notebook with mixed entry dates; if Tam annotated after the fact, the entries become recorded recollection at best, read but not received. Second weakest: P-2's certification, which nobody has confirmed was actually served. What only you can decide. How long this list runs. Twelve exhibits is a list that says you know your case, and it will read well to Judge Chhabria, but under his pretrial order anything unlisted is out except for impeachment, so you are giving up rebuttal material you may want after Whitfield testifies. Adding the eleven internal emails buys optionality and forces objections, but three of them contain "we can't hold this price either," which hands them their impracticability theme in your own documents. Also yours: whether to offer BetaCorp a mutual authenticity stipulation. It saves the better part of a trial day and costs you the chance to exclude their two documents whose custodian left the company. What would make this materially better. (1) The pretrial order text: every deadline here is derived from your summary. (2) The deposition pages where Whitfield was shown BETA00921, which would let me swap P-4's foundation to something the other side cannot contest. (3) BetaCorp's exhibit list, so the cuts can account for reciprocal listing.
Why this prompt is built the way it is
## Framework 1. **Every exhibit serves a pillar.** Three pillars, one line each. A document that does not prove one comes off the list. 2. **Order tells the story.** Sequence to the witness order and the narrative, not to the date the document was created. 3. **Foundation before number.** Name the witness who lays it and the path: personal knowledge, business record, self-authentication, stipulation. 4. **Objection and answer, in the same row.** Hearsay, relevance, 403, authentication, completeness, with the response you will actually give standing at counsel table. 5. **No foundation, no number.** If nobody on the witness list can authenticate it, say what you need and by when. 6. **Demonstratives are separate.** Say whether each is offered as evidence or used illustratively, and whether the pretrial order requires advance disclosure. 7. **Cut, and show the cuts.** Every document left off gets one reason: cumulative, no pillar, no foundation, prejudicial.