---

name: interview-summary language: en description: Generates structured summaries of witness or subject interviews for criminal defense investigations. Distills key facts, verbatim statements, credibility indicators, and follow-up leads. Use when summarizing defense interviews, witness debriefs, subject interrogations, or investigative interview notes.

Interview Summary

Produces a structured memorandum distilling a witness or subject interview into actionable intelligence for defense teams and investigators.

Prerequisites

1. Interview materials — transcript, audio transcription, investigator notes, or preliminary report
2. Matter reference — case name/number and investigation context
3. 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.

---