case-analyzer

案件分析技能

目的

开展全面的法律案件分析，以识别可行的诉求、评估优势和劣势、梳理证据要求，并为民权和法律倡导案件制定诉讼策略。

何时使用此技能

• 用户说“分析这个案件”或“帮我处理一个新案件”时
• 初步案件受理和评估期间
• 评估潜在诉因时
• 将法律理论与案件事实对应时
• 评估案件是否适合提起诉讼时
• 确定证据开示需求时
• 制定反制积极抗辩的策略时

何时不使用此技能

• 进行法律研究时（请改用 legal-research-assistant skill）
• 起草法律文件时（请改用 legal-document-drafter skill）
• 归档案件时（请改用 arweave-case-archiver skill）
• 计算损害赔偿时（如有，请使用 damages-calculator skill）
• 准备庭审时（如有，请使用 trial-prep skill）

前提条件

• 已掌握基本案件事实（谁、发生了什么、何时、何地）
• 已确定管辖权（联邦、州以及具体法院）
• 大致了解所指称的损害／侵害
• 可以访问 references/ 目录中的参考文件
• 自动化脚本需要 Python 3.9+（时效期限计算器）

---

工作流

步骤 1：案件受理与事实收集

目的：系统地收集案件的关键信息

流程：

按顺序向用户询问以下受理问题：

1. 发生了什么？（按时间顺序叙述事件）

   • 询问日期、时间和地点
   • 确定所有相关方
   • 记录事件顺序

2. 涉及哪些人？

   • 原告 - 个人或组织
   • 被告 - 个人、组织或政府实体
   • 证人 - 谁目睹了什么
   • 其他相关方 - 雇主、主管、第三方

3. 事件发生在什么时候？

   • 事件发生的具体日期
   • 持续性行为还是独立事件
   • 重要：立即计算时效期限

4. 事件发生在什么地方？

   • 地理位置（决定管辖权）
   • 联邦财产还是州财产
   • 公共财产还是私人财产

5. 造成了什么损害？

   • 人身伤害
   • 经济损失（工资损失、医疗费用）
   • 精神损害
   • 民权侵害
   • 财产损失

6. 有哪些证据？

   • 文件（电子邮件、合同、政策）
   • 视频／音频记录
   • 照片
   • 证人陈述
   • 医疗记录
   • 警方报告

输出：结构化的案件事实文档

## Case Facts Summary

**Incident Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Location**: [City, State] - [Specific location]
**Jurisdiction**: [Court]

### Parties
- **Plaintiff**: [Name] - [Description]
- **Defendant**: [Name/Entity] - [Role]
- **Witnesses**: [List]

### Narrative
[Chronological description of events]

### Harm Alleged
- [Injury type 1]
- [Injury type 2]

### Evidence Available
- [Document 1]
- [Recording 1]
- [Witness testimony]

时效期限检查：

立即使用 scripts/statute_of_limitations.py：

python3 scripts/statute_of_limitations.py \
  --incident-date="2025-06-15" \
  --claim-type="1983" \
  --jurisdiction="california"

重要：如果时效期限即将届满（少于 90 天），请标记为紧急

---

步骤 2：确定适用的法律理论

目的：将案件事实与潜在诉因相匹配

流程：

根据 references/causes-of-action.md 中的法律框架审查案件事实：

联邦民权诉求

42 U.S.C. § 1983（《民权法案》）：

• 构成要件：
  1. 被告以州法律赋予的身份行事
  2. 被告的行为侵害了宪法权利

适用情形：

• 警察不当行为（过度使用武力、虚假逮捕、恶意起诉）
• 监狱／拘留所条件（对伤害漠不关心）
• 第一修正案侵害（因受保护言论而遭报复）
• 正当程序侵害

检查事项：

• 是否有州行为者参与（警察、治安官、狱警、公职人员）
• 涉及哪些宪法权利（第四、第八、第十四修正案）

《美国残疾人法案》（ADA）：

• 第一篇：就业歧视
• 第二篇：州／地方政府服务歧视
• 第三篇：公共设施歧视

适用情形：

• 政府实体实施残疾歧视
• 未提供合理便利
• 拒绝提供服务

州法索赔

查看 references/state-tort-law.md，了解以下内容：

• 攻击和殴打：故意实施有害或冒犯性接触
• 非法拘禁：非法限制人身自由
• 故意造成精神损害：极端且令人发指的行为
• 过失：违反义务并造成损害

分析框架：

针对每项潜在索赔，进行初步评估：

### Legal Theory: [Claim Name]

**Legal Basis**: [Statute, constitutional provision]

**Elements**:
1. [Element 1]
2. [Element 2]
3. [Element 3]

**Fact Mapping**:
- Element 1: [How facts support this element]
- Element 2: [How facts support this element]
- Element 3: [How facts support this element]

**Preliminary Viability**: [Strong | Moderate | Weak]

**Challenges**:
- [Potential defense 1]
- [Evidentiary gap]

输出：列出 2-5 项可行的法律主张，并按强弱排序

---

步骤 3：基于构成要件的分析

目的：严格分析事实是否满足每项必需的法律构成要件

流程：

针对每项已确定的索赔（来自步骤 2），使用 references/elements-checklists/ 进行详细的构成要件分析。

示例：§ 1983 过度使用武力索赔

加载参考资料：references/federal-civil-rights.md → § 1983 构成要件

必需构成要件：

1. 被告以州法律授权身份行事
2. 所使用的武力在客观上不合理（Graham v. Connor 标准）
3. 原告遭受了伤害

构成要件分析表：

| Element | Facts Supporting | Evidence Available | Strength | Notes |
|---------|------------------|-------------------|----------|-------|
| Color of law | Officer on duty, badge #1234 | Body camera, uniform | ★★★★★ | Clear state actor |
| Objectively unreasonable | No resistance shown, compliant | Video, 3 witnesses | ★★★★☆ | Strong but need expert |
| Injury | Broken arm, bruising | Medical records, photos | ★★★★★ | Well documented |

**Overall Element Support**: 14/15 stars - STRONG CASE

Graham v. Connor 因素（适用于过度使用武力）：

1. 涉案罪行的严重程度
2. 嫌疑人是否构成立即威胁
3. 嫌疑人是否正在积极反抗或逃跑

分析：

1. **Severity of Crime**: Misdemeanor jaywalking - LOW
2. **Immediate Threat**: No weapon, hands visible, compliant - NONE
3. **Resistance/Flight**: Video shows no resistance - NONE

**Conclusion**: Force objectively unreasonable under Graham

针对每项索赔进行评估：

• ✅ 强（4-5 星）：所有构成要件均有事实和证据的明确支持
• ⚠️ 中等（2-3 星）：大多数构成要件有支持，但仍存在缺口
• ❌ 弱（0-1 星）：缺少关键构成要件或缺乏支持

输出：针对最有力的 2-3 项索赔进行构成要件分析

---

步骤 4：证据开示规划

目的：确定证明各项构成要件还需要哪些证据

流程：

根据构成要件分析，制定全面的证据开示计划：

要求提供的文件

初始披露（FRCP 26）：

• 附联系信息的证人名单
• 文件清单（含说明）
• 损害赔偿金额计算
• 保险协议

质询书（向对方当事人提出的问题）：

1. Identify all officers present at scene on [date]
2. Describe all use-of-force policies in effect on [date]
3. Detail training received by Officer [Name] on [topic]
4. Identify all internal affairs investigations of Officer [Name]
5. [Additional interrogatories - maximum 25 under FRCP]

文件请求：

### Request 1: Incident Reports
All police reports, incident reports, and supplemental reports related to incident on [date]

### Request 2: Video Evidence
All body camera, dashboard camera, and surveillance footage from [time range]

### Request 3: Personnel Files
Complete personnel file for Officer [Name] including:
- Training records (use of force, de-escalation)
- Disciplinary history
- Prior complaints
- Performance evaluations

### Request 4: Policies and Procedures
All use-of-force policies in effect on [date]

### Request 5: Internal Investigations
All internal affairs investigations related to Officer [Name]

证言录取（宣誓后作出的口头证言）：

Priority Order:
1. **Defendant Officer(s)** - 7 hour deposition
   - Training and experience
   - Incident reconstruction
   - Force decision-making process

2. **Supervisor(s)** - 4 hour deposition
   - Oversight and training
   - Policy enforcement

3. **Eyewitnesses** - 2-3 hours each
   - What they observed
   - Credibility assessment

4. **Plaintiff** - 6 hours (prepare thoroughly)
   - Incident narrative
   - Injuries and damages
   - Medical treatment

所需专家证人：

1. **Use of Force Expert**
   - Credentials: Former police chief, trainer
   - Purpose: Opine on reasonableness of force
   - Cost: $10,000 - $25,000

2. **Medical Expert**
   - Credentials: Orthopedic surgeon
   - Purpose: Causation of injuries, permanence
   - Cost: $5,000 - $15,000

3. **Economic Expert** (if wage loss)
   - Credentials: Economist, CPA
   - Purpose: Calculate economic damages
   - Cost: $5,000 - $10,000

输出：按类别整理的全面证据开示计划

---

步骤 5：评估积极抗辩和弱点

目的：预判对方论点并制定反制策略

流程：

查看 references/defenses.md，了解常见抗辩：

合格豁免（§ 1983 案件）

抗辩理由： “事件发生时，该宪法权利尚未得到明确确立”

两步测试：

1. 被告是否侵犯了宪法权利？
2. 该权利是否已得到明确确立？

我方应对策略：

### Defeating Qualified Immunity

**Prong 1: Constitutional Violation**
- Video evidence shows clear excessive force
- No resistance, no threat = constitutional violation

**Prong 2: Clearly Established Law**
- **Case 1**: [Circuit Case Name] (20XX)
  - Holding: Force against compliant suspect unreasonable
  - Similarity: [Explain how facts parallel our case]

- **Case 2**: [Supreme Court Case]
  - Holding: Graham factors analysis
  - Application: All factors support plaintiff

**Conclusion**: Right was clearly established. QI should be denied.

风险评估：[低 | 中 | 高] 缓解措施：围绕巡回法院判例开展彻底的法律研究

政府豁免（州侵权索赔）

抗辩理由： “市政府对酌情行为享有政府豁免权”

分析：

**Immunity Type**: [Sovereign | Qualified | Discretionary]

**Exceptions Available**:
- Ministerial act exception
- Dangerous condition of public property
- [Jurisdiction-specific exceptions]

**Our Strategy**:
- Focus on federal § 1983 claim (no immunity)
- State claims as alternative/backup
- Identify applicable immunity exceptions

与有过失

抗辩理由： “原告自身的行为促成了伤害”

分析：

**Defendant's Likely Arguments**:
- Plaintiff was jaywalking (crime)
- Plaintiff didn't immediately comply

**Our Counters**:
- Jaywalking is minor infraction, doesn't justify force
- Video shows compliance
- Contributory negligence not applicable to § 1983 excessive force

**Risk**: Low - Strong video evidence of compliance

需要处理的案件弱点

如实指出：

### Weakness 1: [Description]
**Issue**: Only plaintiff's testimony for initial contact
**Impact**: Credibility battle
**Mitigation**:
- Obtain body camera footage
- Depose witnesses
- Medical records corroborate injuries

### Weakness 2: [Description]
**Issue**: Minor physical injuries (no hospitalization)
**Impact**: Lower damages
**Mitigation**:
- Emphasize constitutional violation (nominal + punitive damages available)
- Emotional distress damages
- Focus on deterrence value of verdict

### Weakness 3: [Description]
**Issue**: [Specific weakness]
**Impact**: [How it affects case]
**Mitigation**: [Strategy to address]

输出：包含反制策略的全面抗辩分析

---

步骤 6：生成案件分析报告

目的：为案件档案创建完整的书面分析报告

流程：

将此前所有步骤的内容整合为结构化的 CASE_ANALYSIS.md：

# Case Analysis: [Case Name]

**Generated**: [ISO Timestamp]
**Analyst**: case-analyzer skill v1.0.0
**Jurisdiction**: [Court]

---

## Executive Summary

[2-3 paragraph summary of case viability and recommended strategy]

**Recommended Primary Strategy**: [e.g., Federal § 1983 claim in U.S. District Court]

**Estimated Likelihood of Success**: [Percentage or qualitative assessment]

**Estimated Settlement Range**: $[Low] - $[High]

**Statute of Limitations**: [Date] ([X] days remaining)

**Urgency**: [CRITICAL <30 days | URGENT <90 days | MODERATE <180 days | ROUTINE]

---

## Case Facts

### Incident Summary
[Chronological narrative - 3-5 paragraphs]

### Parties
- **Plaintiff**: [Name], [Age], [Occupation]
- **Defendant**: [Name/Entity], [Role]
- **Witnesses**: [List with brief descriptions]

### Evidence Inventory
| Evidence Type | Description | Status | Location |
|---------------|-------------|--------|----------|
| Body camera | Officer #1234 footage | Requested | City PD |
| Medical records | ER visit 12/15/25 | ✓ Obtained | Case file |
| Witness statements | 3 civilian witnesses | Pending | To be deposed |

---

## Legal Analysis

### Identified Claims

#### Primary Claim: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Excessive Force

**Legal Basis**: Fourth Amendment via § 1983

**Elements Analysis**:

| Element | Support | Strength | Evidence |
|---------|---------|----------|----------|
| Color of state law | Officer on duty | ★★★★★ | Badge, uniform |
| Constitutional violation | Force unreasonable | ★★★★☆ | Video, witnesses |
| Injury | Physical harm | ★★★★★ | Medical records |

**Overall Viability**: ★★★★☆ (STRONG)

**Estimated Damages**: $75,000 - $200,000
- Compensatory: $25,000 - $75,000
- Punitive: $50,000 - $125,000 (if malice/recklessness shown)
- Attorney's fees: Recoverable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988

#### Alternative Claim: State Assault and Battery

**Legal Basis**: [State] Common Law Tort

**Elements Analysis**:
[Similar format as above]

**Overall Viability**: ★★★☆☆ (MODERATE)

**Challenges**:
- Governmental immunity may apply
- Lower damages than § 1983
- Purpose: Backup if federal claim fails

---

## Discovery Plan

### Phase 1: Initial Disclosures (Due: [Date])
- [ ] Witness list
- [ ] Document list
- [ ] Damages computation
- [ ] Insurance disclosure

### Phase 2: Written Discovery (Serve by: [Date])

**Interrogatories** (25 maximum):
1. [Question 1]
2. [Question 2]
...

**Document Requests** (50 recommended):
1. All police reports re: incident
2. All body/dashboard camera footage
3. Personnel files for Officer [Name]
...

### Phase 3: Depositions (Complete by: [Date])

| Deponent | Role | Priority | Duration | Topics |
|----------|------|----------|----------|--------|
| Officer Smith | Defendant | HIGH | 7 hours | Force decision, training |
| Witness Jones | Eyewitness | MEDIUM | 2 hours | Observations |
| Plaintiff | Party | HIGH | 6 hours | Incident, injuries, damages |

### Phase 4: Expert Witnesses

| Expert Type | Name | Purpose | Cost Est | Deadline |
|-------------|------|---------|----------|----------|
| Use of force | [TBD] | Opine on reasonableness | $15K | Discovery close |
| Medical | [TBD] | Injury causation | $10K | Discovery close |

---

## Affirmative Defenses & Counter-Strategies

### Defense 1: Qualified Immunity

**Defendant's Argument**:
"Right not clearly established; officer entitled to immunity"

**Our Counter-Strategy**:
1. Identify circuit precedents with similar facts
2. Emphasize obviousness of constitutional violation
3. Cite: [Case 1], [Case 2], [Case 3]

**Risk Level**: MEDIUM
**Likelihood of Success in Defeating**: 70%

### Defense 2: [Additional Defense]
[Similar format]

---

## Case Strengths and Weaknesses

### Strengths ✓
1. **Video Evidence**: Body camera shows clear lack of resistance
2. **Injury Documentation**: Medical records well-documented
3. **Precedent**: Strong circuit law on excessive force
4. **Credible Plaintiff**: No criminal history, steady employment

### Weaknesses ⚠️
1. **Minor Crime**: Jaywalking is low-level infraction
   - **Mitigation**: Emphasize this strengthens our case (force disproportionate)

2. **Limited Physical Injury**: No hospitalization
   - **Mitigation**: Focus on constitutional violation + emotional distress

3. **Witness Credibility**: Only 1 witness to initial contact
   - **Mitigation**: Obtain body camera, depose all witnesses early

---

## Recommended Strategy

### Forum Selection
**Primary**: U.S. District Court, [District]
- **Rationale**: Federal jurisdiction via § 1983, federal judges experienced in civil rights

**Alternative**: State Superior Court
- **Use if**: Federal court dismisses on qualified immunity (unlikely)

### Claim Prioritization
1. **Primary**: § 1983 excessive force (strongest claim)
2. **Alternative**: State assault/battery (backup)
3. **Omit**: [Weaker claims with high risk]

### Settlement Posture
**Pre-Suit Demand**: $150,000
**Post-Suit Settlement Range**: $100,000 - $175,000
**Trial Verdict Estimate**: $150,000 - $250,000

**Timing**:
- Demand letter: Immediate (preserve SOL)
- Mediation: Post-discovery (6-9 months)
- Trial: 12-18 months if no settlement

---

## Next Steps

### Immediate (Week 1)
- [ ] Calculate exact SOL deadline (scripts/statute_of_limitations.py)
- [ ] Draft and send demand letter to defendant
- [ ] Preserve evidence (send preservation letter)

### Short-term (Weeks 2-4)
- [ ] Conduct legal research on qualified immunity
- [ ] Draft federal complaint (use legal-document-drafter skill)
- [ ] Identify and retain expert witnesses

### Medium-term (Months 1-3)
- [ ] File complaint
- [ ] Serve defendants
- [ ] Initiate discovery process

### Long-term (Months 4-12)
- [ ] Complete discovery
- [ ] Prepare for trial or mediation
- [ ] Archive case documents to Arweave (arweave-case-archiver skill)

---

## Statute of Limitations Tracker

**Incident Date**: 2025-06-15
**Claim Type**: § 1983 (uses state personal injury SOL)
**Jurisdiction**: California (2-year SOL)
**Filing Deadline**: 2027-06-15
**Days Remaining**: 547 days
**Urgency**: ROUTINE (adequate time)

**Calculated by**: scripts/statute_of_limitations.py
**Last Checked**: [ISO Timestamp]

---

## Archive Information

**Case ID**: [UUID]
**Arweave TX IDs**: [To be populated after archival]
**Last Updated**: [ISO Timestamp]
**Next Review**: [Date + 30 days]

---

**END OF CASE ANALYSIS**

质量检查：

• 所有部分均已完成
• 法律引文准确
• 证据已对应到构成要件
• 证据开示计划全面
• 抗辩分析详尽
• 后续步骤可执行
• 已计算并核实 SOL

---

错误处理

场景：提供的事实不足

症状：用户提供了模糊的描述，例如“警察虐待了我”

响应：

I notice we need more detailed facts to conduct thorough analysis. Let me ask some targeted questions:

1. What specifically did the officer(s) do? (describe physical actions)
2. When did this occur? (exact date and time if possible)
3. Where did this take place? (city, state, specific location)
4. What injuries did you sustain? (physical, emotional, economic)
5. Do you have any documentation? (reports, medical records, video)

Once we have these details, I can identify viable legal claims and assess case strength.

升级处理：如果用户无法提供基本事实，建议：

• 获取警察报告
• 收集医疗记录
• 询问证人
• 待事实记录得更充分后再回来

---

场景：新颖的法律问题

症状：事实与已知诉因并不明确吻合

响应：

## Novel Legal Issue Identified

**Issue**: [Description of novel issue]

**Why Novel**: [Explanation - e.g., "No binding precedent in this circuit"]

**Recommended Approach**:
1. Flag for legal research (use legal-research-assistant skill)
2. Research analogous cases in other circuits
3. Consult with senior attorney specializing in [area]
4. Consider test case strategy if issue important

**Risk**: [HIGH - outcome uncertain]
**Recommendation**: Proceed with caution; may require expert consultation

---

场景：诉讼时效已届满

症状：诉讼时效计算器显示剩余天数为负数

响应：

⚠️ **CRITICAL ISSUE: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED**

**Incident Date**: [Date]
**SOL Deadline**: [Date - in past]
**Days Overdue**: [X] days

**Implications**:
- Case likely barred from filing
- Exceptions are rare and narrow

**Possible Exceptions to Explore**:
1. **Tolling**: Was plaintiff minor, incapacitated, or fraudulently concealed?
2. **Discovery Rule**: Did plaintiff reasonably discover injury later?
3. **Continuing Violation**: Is conduct ongoing?
4. **Equitable Tolling**: Extraordinary circumstances?

**URGENT ACTION REQUIRED**:
Consult experienced attorney immediately to assess exception applicability.
Do NOT proceed with case analysis until SOL issue resolved.

---

场景：管辖权复杂

症状：存在多个潜在审理法院（联邦、多个州、部落等）

响应：

## Jurisdictional Analysis Required

**Complexity Detected**: [e.g., "Incident spans multiple states"]

**Potential Forums**:
1. **U.S. District Court - [District]**
   - Pros: [Federal question jurisdiction, experienced judges]
   - Cons: [Qualified immunity more common]

2. **[State] Superior Court**
   - Pros: [Jury pool favorable, state law claims easier]
   - Cons: [Slower docket, less civil rights experience]

3. **[Other Forum]**
   - Pros: [...]
   - Cons: [...]

**Recommendation**: Analyze forum selection as separate task
**Tools**: Use jurisdiction_analyzer.py script (if available)
**Consult**: Attorney licensed in all relevant jurisdictions

---

质量标准

输出质量检查清单

在将案件分析标记为完成之前，请确认：

• 完整性：已执行全部 6 个工作流步骤
• 准确性：法律引文正确（案件名称、法规）
• 要件对应：已结合证据分析每项要件
• 风险评估：如实评估优势和劣势
• 可执行性：后续步骤具体且有明确时限
• 诉讼时效已核实：已计算并标记截止日期；如情况紧急，已予以提示
• 专业语气：客观、分析性、不带评判
• 结构清晰：结构明确，包含标题和表格
• 已归档：可永久存储至 Arweave

警示信号（请勿继续）

• ❌ 诉讼时效剩余不足 30 天，且没有立即行动计划
• ❌ 缺少关键事实（谁、什么、何时、何地）
• ❌ 管辖权问题尚未解决
• ❌ 法律问题超出分析器的专业范围（复杂的宪法法律、新颖的法律理论）
• ❌ 发现利益冲突

如果发现警示信号：升级至负责监督的律师

---

资源

参考文件

分析期间按需加载以下文件：

• references/causes-of-action.md - 联邦／州诉求的综合列表
• references/federal-civil-rights.md - § 1983、ADA、《公平住房法》的详细内容
• references/state-tort-law.md - 各司法管辖区的州侵权诉求
• references/elements-checklists/ - 逐项要件分析模板
• references/defenses.md - 常见积极抗辩及反驳
• references/qualified-immunity.md - 合格豁免原则及应对策略

自动化脚本

• scripts/statute_of_limitations.py - 计算提交截止日期

  python3 scripts/statute_of_limitations.py \
    --incident-date="2025-06-15" \
    --claim-type="1983" \
    --jurisdiction="california"
  

• scripts/jurisdiction_analyzer.py - 确定适当审理地点（可选）

• scripts/damages_estimator.py - 估算和解范围（可选）

模板

• assets/intake-questionnaire.md - 客户信息收集表
• assets/case-analysis-template.md - 空白分析模板

---

与 MISJustice 平台集成

相关技能

• legal-research-assistant：在步骤 2 后使用，研究已确定的诉求
• legal-document-drafter：在步骤 6 后使用，起草起诉状
• arweave-case-archiver：在步骤 6 后使用，永久归档分析

相关命令

• /case-plan：编排此技能、研究和文书起草
• /legal-session-start：在案件分析前加载法律背景

MCP 依赖项

目前没有。未来：法律数据库 MCP（Westlaw、LexisNexis）

编排

可与其他技能串联：

case-analyzer → legal-research-assistant → legal-document-drafter → arweave-case-archiver

---

示例

示例 1：§ 1983 过度使用武力案件

输入（用户）：

I was arrested for jaywalking on December 15, 2025. The officer tackled me to the ground even though I wasn't resisting. I suffered a broken arm and needed surgery. I have body camera footage showing I had my hands up. This happened in Oakland, California.

输出（case-analyzer）：

# Case Analysis: [Plaintiff] v. Oakland Police Department

## Executive Summary

Strong § 1983 excessive force claim against arresting officer. Video evidence shows plaintiff compliant with hands up when tackled, resulting in significant physical injury (broken arm requiring surgery). Incident occurred 17 days ago, SOL deadline is December 15, 2027 (729 days remaining).

**Recommended Strategy**: File federal § 1983 claim in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Estimated settlement value: $100,000 - $250,000.

**Urgency**: MODERATE (adequate time but act promptly to preserve evidence)

## Identified Claims

### Primary: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Fourth Amendment Excessive Force

**Elements Analysis**:
| Element | Support | Strength | Evidence |
|---------|---------|----------|----------|
| Color of law | Oakland PD officer on duty | ★★★★★ | Body camera, badge |
| Objectively unreasonable force | Tackling compliant suspect for jaywalking | ★★★★★ | Body camera, medical records |
| Injury | Broken arm requiring surgery | ★★★★★ | Medical records, X-rays, surgical notes |

**Graham v. Connor Analysis**:
1. Severity of crime: Jaywalking (infraction) - MINIMAL
2. Immediate threat: Hands up, compliant - NONE
3. Active resistance/flight: No resistance shown on video - NONE

**Conclusion**: All Graham factors favor plaintiff. Force objectively unreasonable.

**Viability**: ★★★★★ (VERY STRONG)

[... continues with full analysis ...]

---

示例 2：ADA 残障歧视

输入（用户）：

I use a wheelchair. Last month, the county courthouse had no elevator working and staff refused to help me access the courtroom on the second floor. I missed my hearing because of this. This was in Tampa, Florida on January 5, 2026.

输出（case-analyzer）：

# Case Analysis: [Plaintiff] v. [County] Courthouse

## Executive Summary

Strong ADA Title II claim against county for failure to provide access to government services. Plaintiff, wheelchair user, denied access to second-floor courtroom due to broken elevator and staff refusal to assist, causing missed court hearing.

**Recommended Strategy**: Federal ADA Title II claim + potential § 1983 claim (deprivation of court access). Settlement range: $25,000 - $75,000 + injunctive relief.

## Identified Claims

### Primary: ADA Title II - Denial of Access to Government Services

**Elements Analysis**:
| Element | Support | Strength | Evidence |
|---------|---------|----------|----------|
| Plaintiff has disability | Wheelchair user (physical impairment) | ★★★★★ | Medical documentation needed |
| Otherwise qualified | Had court hearing scheduled | ★★★★★ | Court docket |
| Excluded from services | Denied courtroom access | ★★★★★ | Witness testimony, court records |
| Because of disability | Inaccessible second floor | ★★★★★ | Physical inspection, photos |

**Viability**: ★★★★★ (VERY STRONG)

**Estimated Damages**:
- Compensatory: $25,000 - $50,000 (emotional distress, legal consequences of missed hearing)
- Injunctive relief: Elevator repair, accessibility plan
- Attorney's fees: Recoverable under ADA

### Alternative: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 - Access to Courts

[... continues with full analysis ...]

---

示例 3：证据薄弱的案件（如实评估）

输入（用户）：

I got a speeding ticket last week and the cop was really rude to me. Can I sue for civil rights violations?

输出（case-analyzer）：

# Case Analysis: Speeding Stop

## Executive Summary

**Case Viability**: ★☆☆☆☆ (VERY WEAK - NOT RECOMMENDED)

After analyzing the facts, this case does not present a viable civil rights claim. While the officer's rudeness was unprofessional, it does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

## Analysis

### Potential Claim: § 1983 Violation

**Why This Fails**:
1. **No Constitutional Right Violated**: Rudeness alone does not violate the Constitution
2. **No Physical Force**: Traffic stop without excessive force is lawful
3. **No Unlawful Detention**: Speeding provides probable cause for stop
4. **No Actionable Harm**: Emotional distress from rudeness insufficient

**Supreme Court Precedent**:
"The Fourth Amendment does not forbid officers from being rude" - controlling case law

### Alternative Options

1. **Traffic Court**: Challenge the ticket on its merits
2. **Police Complaint**: File internal affairs complaint about officer conduct
3. **Not Recommended**: Federal civil rights lawsuit (likely dismissed, waste of resources)

## Recommendation

**Do NOT pursue civil rights litigation**. This case does not meet the threshold for federal constitutional claims.

**Alternative Actions**:
- Contest ticket in traffic court if factual disputes
- File police complaint if officer conduct warrants discipline
- Accept outcome and move forward

**Consultation**: If you believe there are additional facts not disclosed (physical force, discriminatory statements, unlawful search), please provide those details for re-analysis.

---

版本历史

• 1.0.0（2026-01-01）：首次发布
  • 全面的 6 步工作流
  • 侧重联邦民权法（§ 1983、ADA）
  • 集成州侵权法
  • 证据开示规划模块
  • 抗辩分析框架
  • 集成诉讼时效自动化

---

故障排除

问题：技能对案件的评估过于乐观

解决方案：

• 重新审查第 5 步（肯定性抗辩）
• 确保如实指出薄弱之处
• 运用“红队”思维——反驳自己的案件
• 查阅 qualified-immunity.md，对 QI 进行现实评估

---

问题：法律引文已过时或不正确

解决方案：

• 确认 references/ 文件中的引文是最新的
• 每年更新参考文件
• 如果不确定引文是否正确，请标记并进行法律研究
• 使用 legal-research-assistant 技能进行核实

---

问题：未涵盖特定司法管辖区的规则

解决方案：

• 确保 references/state-tort-law.md 涵盖你的司法管辖区
• 根据需要添加特定司法管辖区的参考文件
• 咨询当地律师，了解州内特殊规则
• 在分析中注明司法管辖区方面的限制

---

技能文档结束