Officer Lookup searches Chicago CPD complaint records, Florida FDLE/CJSTC certification discipline plus use-of-force incident rows, Texas TCOLE certification + employment history, NYC CCRB complaint history, Georgia POST certification + employment history, Arizona AZPOST certification + employment history, and California POST + CDCR certification + employment history — free preview live now, every row cited to the underlying public record; the full source-backed report is $147. Built for suppression motions, cross-exam prep, and disclosure requests in state court.
The NACDL's police-misconduct guide puts it plainly: "no single data source will give you the full picture of an officer's conduct." That is the problem — the records are public but scattered across portals, complaint datasets, and certification exports. Officer Lookup runs them in one search.
Coverage today: Florida — statewide FDLE/CJSTC certification discipline + use-of-force incident ledger · Chicago — CPD complaint records · Texas — TCOLE certification + employment history · NYC — CCRB complaint history · Georgia — POST certification + employment history · Arizona — AZPOST certification + employment history· California — POST + CDCR certification + employment history
Florida defenders also get the Jury Instruction Brief: the verbatim Florida Standard Jury Instruction text for your charge, flagged when it was amended in the last twenty-four months, with the Rule 3.390 preservation language for the charge conference.
A complaint record is not a finding of misconduct. County internal-affairs files are not yet indexed — coverage expands jurisdiction by jurisdiction. All data is drawn from the named public source.
Run an officer search →JSIN — the judiciary's own sentencing tool, used in roughly a third of presentence reports — deletes the lightest real outcomes (probation, cooperators) while keeping the non-discretionary mandatory-minimum cases. The published number runs above what judges actually impose. BenchRecon re-runs that filter honestly against the same public USSC data and shows the gap — every figure cited to the datafile it came from.
Those 342 cases JSIN drops from your client's cell — non-imprisonment sentences, cooperation departures, and cases older than five years — are exactly the ones that pull a median down.
JSIN hands the court a single median. Every BenchRecon brief plots your client's cell against the full spread of sentences judges actually imposed — so you can show, on the record, how often the court went below the range for a defendant like yours under § 3553(a)(6). Below: an illustrative mock-up of the chart format (placeholder numbers, not USSC data) — your brief renders your client's actual cell.
ILLUSTRATIVE SAMPLE · your brief renders your client's actual cell
Your client's sentencing is in three weeks. The PSR cites a JSIN median that's inflated by design. The AUSA's office has a sentencing analyst on staff. You don't. Your options: burn 4 hours pulling dockets from PACER and hand the court an uncited spreadsheet, or walk in with the AUSA's recommendation as the only number on the table. BenchRecon is the third option.
JSIN — the judiciary's own tool — suppresses cells when fewer than 3 cases match and excludes non-imprisonment sentences, 5K1.1 cooperators, and mandatory-minimum-controlled cases from the published figures. The omissions systematically inflate the range your client sees in the PSR.
BenchRecon pulls from the full 690K-case USSC dataset, restored and charge-conditioned, every claim cited to the datafile vintage it was drawn from. The brief is an exhibit — not a summary, not an opinion, not LLM-generated prose.
Walk into your AUSA negotiation tomorrow with the printed sentencing distribution, departure-rate table, and Booker-variance benchmark. Hand a copy to your client. Bill it as a line item.
CJA panel rate cited: $177/hr (2026 non-capital schedule, effective 2026-01-01). Source: uscourts.gov.
Hand the comparables table to the probation officer. Anchor the §5K1.1 cooperator restoration against the PSR's inflated range before the recommended guideline locks in.
Quote the restored median against JSIN’s published median. Cite the USSC vintage on every figure — the AUSA cannot object to internet sourcing.
Cite the departure rate to support § 3553(a)(6) parity. Show the court your district sentences above the national median for this cell — the disparity argument that rarely makes it into the written memorandum.
Suppression hearing Thursday and you've never seen the arresting officer's file.
You're 2 hours from filing a sentencing memo and JSIN's median is killing your variance argument.
Your client is asking what other people got and you don't have time to pull PACER.
The AUSA's office has a sentencing analyst on staff. You don't.
“The most important numbers that JSIN reports — the average and median sentences for a particular position on the sentencing table — are inflated by a series of choices to exclude large chunks of the commission's own dataset.”
Brian D. Roth, Carlton Fields (2021) — source
“The fact that lower sentences are omitted, and the data only goes back five years shows that any judge who is utilizing this tool is receiving inaccurate data.”
Interrogating Justice (2021) — source
“No one has put together a reliable comparison of the convictions and acquittals in all of the country's judicial districts before and after the establishment of defender offices.”
David Patton, former Federal Defender SDNY/EDNY — source
“What's your error rate? Well, we don't have one. What's your measurement error? We don't have any.”
Barry Scheck, Innocence Project co-founder (on cross-examining ballistics experts) — source
“Crushing caseloads and too few resources made it impossible for public defenders to provide adequate representation.”
Jonathan Rapping, Gideon's Promise founder; 2014 MacArthur Fellow — source
Active now — choose your forum
Built by a federal-criminal-data engineer and pressure-tested with CJA-panel attorneys before launch. Every figure in a brief traces to the named public record — never to LLM prose.
State court — defender in Florida, Chicago, Texas, NYC, Georgia, Arizona, or California? Officer Lookup is live now: free search preview, $147 full source-backed report. No waitlist.
Federal — CD attorney in N.D. Cal., W.D. Wash., or D. Or.? Reach out for a free pilot brief in exchange for feedback: support@benchrecon.com
The Sentencing Snapshot is in private beta — the terms below are launch terms. Pilot briefs are free via the waitlist.
In state court? The Officer Lookup preview — officer records across seven jurisdictions, Chicago and Florida through Texas, NYC, Georgia, Arizona, and California — is free today; the full source-backed report is $147.
Sentencing comparables, Daubert challenges, suppression, Brady/Giglio discovery, witness impeachment, and pretrial templates — each a citable work product you can attach as an exhibit. Sentencing Snapshot and the motion, discovery, and forensic packs are the paid briefs; officer lookup pairs a free search preview with a full report ordered on its own page; the judge, prosecutor, district, and watch tools are free previews.
Single-case federal sentencing-comparables brief, USSC-grounded, every claim cited to the USSC public datafile.
Walk into your AUSA negotiation tomorrow with the printed sentencing distribution, departure-rate table, and Booker-variance benchmark. Hand a copy to your client. Bill it as a line item.
What JSIN drops from the cell that controls your client's sentence — non-imprisonment, 5K1.1, mandatory-minimum inflation, >5-year-old data — restored and quantified.
Attach the brief as an exhibit to your § 3553(a) sentencing memorandum. Use the included § 3006A motion language to request expert funds. Cite the restored slices when the PSR leans on JSIN's inflated median.
Pre-structured sentencing memorandum with § 3553(a) factor walkthrough, departure/variance framing, Gall / Pepper / Kimbrough authority, recommendation math, and reply-brief framework.
File the sentencing memo with all seven § 3553(a) factors already structured, the parsimony anchor cited in the lead, the variance argument grounded in Gall and Kimbrough, the within-guideline rebuttal grounded in Rita, and the recommendation math pre-populated as a delta from the calculated range. The reply-brief framework anticipates the government's eight most common objections.
10 per-discipline Daubert challenge templates grounded in PCAST 2016, NAS 2009, FBI 2015, and NRC 2003. $997 for the bundle.
Run the discipline at issue, file the FRE 702 motion with PCAST + NAS citations already organized, and walk into the Daubert hearing with a 10-15 question cross-examination bank ready.
8 Fourth Amendment suppression motion templates: Terry stop, pretextual traffic stop, consent search, warrant falsity, staleness, cell-site warrant, good-faith exception, fruit of the poisonous tree. $497 for the bundle.
Run the suppression theory at issue, file the motion with controlling authority already organized, and walk into the hearing with a cross-examination bank ready for the testifying officer.
Brady + Giglio + FRCP 16 + Henthorn demand templates with reply-brief frameworks. $297 for the bundle.
Serve all four discovery demands on Day 1 of the case file with the reply-brief framework already drafted for the inevitable government opposition. Bill the prep as a one-time line item across every federal case you take.
Pre-drafted cooperator cross-examination framework: Giglio bias foundation, § 5K1.1 / Rule 35 sentencing-bargain quantification, Singleton circuit-split overlay, and reply-brief points against rehabilitation. $147.
Walk into the cooperator cross with the inducement quantified, the Giglio bias foundation pre-drafted, and the § 5K1.1 / Rule 35 sentencing math already in a form the jury can follow. Use the reply-brief framework to preempt the government's prior-consistent-statement rehabilitation.
Bruton redaction-fail severance + Zafiro spillover-prejudice severance. $147 for the bundle (saves $47 vs. buying singly).
Cover both severance theories in one purchase. File Bruton when the co-defendant confession can't be redacted. File Zafiro when the joint-trial prejudice comes from antagonistic defenses or mass-conspiracy spillover.
Pre-drafted Speedy Trial Act audit with § 3161 clock math, excludable-time framework, and § 3162(a)(2) dismissal motion. Bloate + Tinklenberg + Barker grounded.
Run the indictment-to-trial clock against the docket, identify the excludable-time categories the government will invoke, and file the § 3162(a)(2) motion to dismiss with the clock math, attaching-precedent record, and reply-brief framework already drafted.
Pre-drafted plea colloquy checklist with FRCP 11 core inquiry, Boykin v. Alabama knowing/voluntary canvas, Padilla collateral-consequences audit, factual-basis inquiry, cooperation/departure math, and reply-brief framework.
Walk into the Rule 11 hearing with the Boykin three-rights canvas pre-structured, the Padilla collateral-consequences audit completed against the government's proffer, the Henderson factual-basis matchup checked element-by-element, and a reply-brief framework ready for plea-validity attacks on direct appeal or § 2255.
Pre-drafted pretrial detention motion with § 3142 four-factor analysis, risk-of-flight and danger-to-community rebuttal, conditions-of-release proposal, and Salerno constitutional framework. Stack v. Boyle excessive-bail anchor included.
Walk into the detention hearing with the § 3142(g) four-factor frame pre-populated against the record, the rebuttable-presumption rebuttal pre-drafted, and a least-restrictive condition stack — location monitoring, third-party custodian, surety bond, treatment compliance — ready for the magistrate's consideration. Salerno's 'liberty is the norm' floor and Stack v. Boyle's excessive-bail anchor are quoted verbatim with citation.
Complaint history, certification-discipline records, and source-backed use-of-force incident rows for the officer testifying against your client — Chicago CPD, Florida (FDLE/CJSTC plus the Florida incident ledger), Texas (TCOLE certification history via the National Police Index), New York City (NYPD complaint history via the CCRB database), Georgia (POST certification history via the National Police Index), Arizona (AZPOST certification history via the National Police Index), and California (POST + CDCR certification history via the National Police Index) covered today, every row cited to the underlying public record.
Before you cross the officer who stopped your client, see their public complaint history and certification-discipline record — the credibility material you'd otherwise only get if the government chose to disclose it. The paid brief then turns the rows into motion: a records-demand roadmap naming agencies that hold the full files (Florida: FDLE/CJSTC plus major county IA units and circuit state-attorney Brady/Giglio custodians; Chicago: CPD FOIA and COPA; Texas: TCOLE certification history via the National Police Index plus major-city PD records units and county DA Brady/Giglio custodians; New York City: NYPD complaint history via the CCRB database plus CCRB/NYPD FOIL custodians and the five borough DA Brady/Giglio custodians; Georgia: POST certification history via the National Police Index plus Atlanta-metro PD records units and county DA Brady/Giglio custodians; Arizona: AZPOST certification history via the National Police Index plus Phoenix/Tucson-metro PD and sheriff records units and county Attorney Brady/Giglio custodians; California: POST + CDCR certification history via the National Police Index plus LA and San Francisco SB 1421/16 personnel-record custodians, CA POST, and county DA Brady/Giglio custodians), a drafted public-records request letter pre-filled with the officer's identifiers — statute-cited for Florida, Chicago, Texas, NYC, Georgia, Arizona, and California, source-routed for national-ledger results — and an identity-verification checklist, delivered as PDF plus an editable DOCX you can send the same day. And where an officer's record carries a row bearing on truthfulness — in Florida, an FDLE/CJSTC certification record for a crimen-falsi matter (perjury, a false official statement, falsifying records); in New York City, a substantiated CCRB untruthfulness allegation — the brief flags it as impeachment going to the officer's character for truthfulness and cites the underlying record, with identity verification required before you rely on it.
Before you file, see how this judge has handled your charge type — sentencing fingerprint and docket-sourced motion outcomes, with the sample size shown on every row.
Walk into your next appearance knowing your judge's sentencing fingerprint for your charge family, their docket-sourced motion-outcome record for the theory you're about to file, and any conflict or recusal flags on the record. Every row shows its source and its sample size, so you know whether a pattern rests on 90 cases or 4 — and where the record is thin, the brief says so instead of guessing.
Research query pack for judges, prosecutors, officers, forensic witnesses, experts, informants, and civilian witnesses — every finding sourced or flagged as a gap for your review.
Before a suppression hearing, run the officer-diligence query. Before a Daubert hearing, run the forensic-expert query. Before trial, run the cooperator-bias query. Each query is built for its witness role — the judge query pulls sentencing and motion data, the officer query pulls complaint and certification-discipline records, the cooperator query pulls inducement history. Every finding carries a source record or is flagged as a gap for your review.
Motion-family authority maps for suppression, Brady/Giglio, Daubert, speedy trial, severance, detention, and outcome patterns.
Select the motion family, jurisdiction, and factual posture and get authority already sequenced into the motion structure — lead controlling authority, supporting authority, the government's likely response map, and jurisdiction notes — every case linked to its CourtListener opinion with quote context. The government's likely response to each authority is mapped alongside it — so you're briefing against their reply, not discovering it after they file. Weak or unverifiable authority is held back as a labeled gap, not dressed up as a finding.
Build a source-backed disclosure-gap record for the officers in your case — which Brady/Giglio record classes public data already documents, and which still need a records demand — before you draft the motion to compel.
Name the officer set in your case and get a source-backed impeachment appendix for each: certification discipline, complaint history, and use-of-force incident rows from public records, every row tied to its source URL. Around the appendices, a disclosure-gap checklist walks the record classes Brady/Giglio practice turns on — local-agency IA files, prosecutor disclosure lists, disclosure correspondence, civil litigation, arbitration records — labeling each as source-backed in this packet or still request-needed. You walk into the disclosure fight with the open gaps already named, not a generic demand template.
See how your specific judge-and-prosecutor pairing plays on your charge family — sentencing pattern, motion record, and shared-docket signals, each with its sample size shown.
Your case has one specific judge and one specific prosecutor. See how that pairing actually plays — the judge's sentencing pattern on your charge family, the prosecutor's motion record, and the signals you only get when both appear on the same docket. Every table shows its sample size; where the shared record is thin, it's labeled a gap, not inflated into a pattern.
Florida standard criminal instructions reproduced verbatim across 25 charge families — from high-volume charges like DUI and driving-while-license-suspended through homicide, sex offenses, economic crimes, and the inchoate charges (attempt, solicitation, conspiracy) — with amendment-recency flags, a verbatim what-changed diff where an archived prior version is on file, reporter citations, and the preservation rule for your forum.
Before the charge conference, get the standard instruction for your charge. Florida matters get the verbatim Florida Standard Jury Instruction text with its full adoption and amendment history — and any instruction amended in the last twenty-four months is flagged with the reporter citation. Where a prior version is on file, a 'what changed' page shows the verbatim line-by-line diff of the amendment — a mechanical comparison of the old and new instruction text, not a summary — so the exact words that moved are in front of you before you argue the charge. Federal matters get the controlling circuit pattern-instruction source index. Both paths close with the preservation rule for the forum — Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.390 or FRCrP 30 — and every line links to the source authority behind it; thin coverage is flagged, not filled in.
Know which cases in your motion are gaining ground in this circuit and which are quietly collecting negative treatment — before you cite them, not after.
Enter your charge family and jurisdiction and see the authority that matters split into two trendlines — cases gaining circuit traction versus cases starting to collect negative treatment. Each row links to the CourtListener opinion so you can read it, not just trust the label, and thin coverage is disclosed at the row level instead of averaged away.
The strongest cases on your charge theory in your circuit, sorted by how heavily they're being cited now, with quote context pulled — so you don't build the authority section from scratch.
Enter your charge family and jurisdiction and get the controlling authority for your circuit and the national fallback cases ranked by citation velocity, each with its quote context. Circuit-specific authority is kept separate from national fallback, so you can see at a glance whether you have a controlling case or you're building on persuasive authority — before you start drafting.
Look up how often your motion theory actually gets granted in your circuit — with the case count behind every number — before you decide whether to file.
Before you spend a client's hours and your motion budget, see how often your suppression, severance, or detention theory actually gets granted in your circuit — and pull the granted-motion citations you can build the brief around. Every rate shows the count behind it, so you can tell an 800-motion pattern from an 11-motion one, and judge-authored-opinion caveats are flagged where they'd shift the circuit baseline.
Disposition pattern, motion record, and judge-pairing signals for a named AUSA — every signal sourced to public court records you can pull yourself.
Before you sit down to negotiate a plea with an AUSA you've never faced, see their charge-level disposition pattern from public records — what they tend to plead down, what they take to trial — their motion record, and which judges they're consistently paired with on cases like yours. Identity confidence and sample size are shown on every row, so you know whether you're looking at 40 cases or 6, and a thin record is labeled, not dressed up as a pattern.
Weekly digest of what changed on your matter: pairing shifts, rising authority, officer trends, sentencing ranges, and penalties — every row dated and source-linked.
Between hearings there's no systematic way to know when the record moves on an active matter. The digest closes that gap: each week it flags what changed — judge-prosecutor pairing shifts on cases like yours, authority gaining or losing citation traction in your circuit, officer records with new complaint or discipline entries, and the current sentencing-range distribution for your charge family. Every row is dated and source-linked; what has no source record is listed as a gap, not blended into the findings.
Section 3582 research: USSC grant-rate data by district and ground, policy-statement posture, Amendment 821 retroactivity screening, Rule 35 boundary, and record gaps — every figure sourced to the USSC vintage.
The USSC publishes compassionate-release grant rates by district and by asserted ground — most § 3582 motions never cite them. Enter your court, judgment date, guideline posture, and asserted ground; the pack returns the district grant rate against the national baseline (with the case count behind each rate, so a 30% rate can't hide whether it's 3 grants or 300), the statutory hook for your posture (§ 3582(c)(1)(A) or the Rule 35 boundary), Amendment 821 retroactivity screening if your client is eligible, and the gaps between what the record shows and what a strong § 3582 motion needs. Every data row is sourced to the USSC vintage it came from.
One case input — sentencing comparables, judge fingerprint, officer history, and Brady/Giglio source appendix, run together for the same matter.
Enter the case posture once and the bundle runs the sentencing comparable set, the judge pattern rows, the officer public-record rows, and the Brady/Giglio source appendix for the same matter at the same time — every research task that usually means four separate tool runs. Each component shows what its source data supports and where the gaps are, so you see the full picture before you decide what to attach to the memo.
These are public findings — from the FBI, PCAST, NAS, and the manufacturers themselves. Most never make it into a Daubert motion. The Forensic Foundation Pack packages them per discipline, with the cross-exam bank already written.
contained erroneous statements — 257 of 268 reviewed trials where the examiner's testimony was used to inculpate the defendant, per the FBI/DOJ 2015 review with the Innocence Project.
sourceThe cobalt-thiocyanate kit turns positive for cocaine — and for more than 80 other compounds, from common household cleaners to acne medications. That result built the probable cause for the arrest.
sourceAn independent audit (Base One Technologies) ordered in the New Jersey Supreme Court’s State v. Chun decision found roughly 19,400 potential errors in the breath instrument’s software — the result the jury is asked to treat as conclusive.
sourceWe're finalizing the USSC data layer. Join the waitlist with your email and we'll send you a pilot Sentencing Snapshot for one of your federal cases at no charge — and a $50 credit toward your first paid brief.
Every claim in a BenchRecon brief traces to the USSC public datafile vintage from which it was drawn. Read the methodology →