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:

[ ] Lead with concise factual summary
[ ] Embed verbatim quotes for significant statements (quotation marks + context)
[ ] Note gaps where interviewee lacked knowledge or memory

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

[ ] Additional witnesses identified (name, contact, expected knowledge)
[ ] Documents to obtain
[ ] Topics requiring re-interview or clarification
[ ] Investigative leads generated
[ ] Areas needing corroboration

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.