This is a SAMPLE built from a fictional case ("State v. John Fixture") so you can see exactly what a real report looks like. Every name, number, and quote below is invented.
Sample report — State v. John Fixture
A real report opens with the bottom line, in plain words. For this fictional case it would read: we found two things a lawyer would want to see soon, and one more worth a closer look.
What stands out
The findings we grade strongest — each one quotes the record, page and line.
Your loved one told his trial lawyer about a witness who could support his alibi — and the record shows the lawyer never contacted her. At trial, the State told the jury no one could back up his story. A lawyer will want to look at whether this counts as ineffective assistance of counsel.
Reporter’s Record Vol. 4, p. 212: “Q: Did you ever attempt to contact Ms. Alvarez? A: I did not, no.”
For your lawyer (Part B)
Potential IAC (failure to investigate): trial counsel admitted on the record (RR4:212) that he made no attempt to contact the alibi witness the defendant identified pre-trial (RR2:88). Prejudice argument writes itself against the State’s closing (RR5:301: “not one person came here to say he was elsewhere”). Strickland analysis attaches.
A lab worker testified that her notes were kept in the State’s working file and never given to the defense. If those notes contained anything helpful to your loved one, the State may have had a duty to turn them over. A lawyer will want the rest of that file.
Reporter’s Record Vol. 3, p. 145: “We kept those in our working file. They weren’t produced to anybody.”
For your lawyer (Part B)
Potential Brady issue: analyst conceded bench notes were never disclosed (RR3:145). Materiality unknown from this record alone — recommend a records request for the lab’s complete case file before evaluating a Brady claim.
Worth a closer look
The jury heard an expert compare a bite mark to your loved one. This type of comparison evidence has been seriously questioned by scientists since this trial. Texas has a specific law for challenging convictions built on science that has changed.
Reporter’s Record Vol. 4, p. 233: “In my opinion the dentition is consistent with the defendant to a reasonable degree of certainty.”
For your lawyer (Part B)
Possible Art. 11.073 vector: bitemark comparison testimony (RR4:233) presented as individualizing. Post-2016 consensus (TFSC bitemark moratorium) undermines the field. Strength depends on how central the testimony was — it was referenced twice in closing (RR5:298, 305).
Where the clock stands
A real report also shows the deadline picture for the case: when the conviction became final, our estimate of the federal one-year clock, and whether anything is pausing it right now — the dates a lawyer checks first.
And when we find nothing?
Some reviews end with no strong findings. That report says so plainly, shows what we checked, and spares your family thousands of dollars chasing weak claims. An honest "nothing strong here" is information too — we treat it with the same care.
This is what $299 buys — for your loved one’s real record.
Start the free check