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.
The math: $97/mo gets you 3 briefs/mo (any combo of Sentencing Snapshot, JSIN Exclusion Brief, or Forensic Foundation Pack templates). At ~$177/hr CJA rate, that’s one billable hour to recover an entire month of brief work.
CJA panel rate cited: $177/hr (2026 non-capital schedule, effective 2026-01-01). Source: uscourts.gov.
Working on the model now. Drop your email if you want first access.
A seven-section cross-examination document: cover (your case identifier + jurisdiction stamped on), the bias and inducement foundation (Giglio / Napue framework), the § 5K1.1 / Rule 35 sentencing-bargain math section quantifying the cooperator's benefit, a pre-drafted cross-examination question bank covering bias foundation, inducement quantification, and prior inconsistent statements, a reply-brief framework anticipating the government's Rule 801(d)(1)(B) rehabilitation, the Singleton circuit-split overlay, and the methods + source URLs bibliography.
No. The template is a trial-preparation aid modeled on published constitutional doctrine and sentencing-guidelines authority. Counsel of record adapts the question bank and brief language to the controlling circuit and the specific cooperation agreement and plea colloquy in the case.
A federal CD preparing a cooperator cross from scratch synthesizes the Giglio / Napue bias framework, quantifies the § 5K1.1 / Rule 35 benefit the cooperator received or expects, maps the Singleton circuit-split on the § 201(c)(2) anti-gratuity challenge, and drafts the reply-brief points against rehabilitation. That work runs 6-10 hours of preparation time. At a CJA panel rate (~$177/hr), the recovered billable is $1,062-$1,770 per witness. The template is priced under 15% of the lower bound.
Use it as soon as the witness list lands and you have the cooperation agreement, plea agreement, and § 5K1.1 letter in hand. The earlier you quantify the inducement and draft the bias foundation, the less likely the government can rehabilitate the witness on the stand before you frame the sentencing-bargain math for the jury.
No. Every citation carries a source URL stored alongside. Lead authorities are Giglio v. United States 405 U.S. 150 (1972), Napue v. Illinois 360 U.S. 264 (1959), USSG § 5K1.1, Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b), and United States v. Singleton 165 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir. 1999) (en banc). All public-domain, verified during Phase B template authorship per the no-hallucinated-legal-data rule.
The Giglio/Napue bias foundation does. Giglio v. United States (405 U.S. 150) and Napue v. Illinois (360 U.S. 264) are due-process holdings binding on every state court — the bias-and-inducement cross-examination of a cooperating witness applies in any state conspiracy, gang, or drug case where a co-defendant testifies for a charge reduction. The § 5K1.1 / Rule 35 sentencing-math section is federal-specific (Guidelines departure mechanisms with no state analogue), so a state practitioner uses the Giglio/Napue impeachment foundation and the cooperation-agreement question bank, and treats the § 5K1.1 math as the federal-only portion.
7-day full refund, no questions asked.
CJA panel rate cited: $177/hr (2026 non-capital schedule, effective 2026-01-01). Source: uscourts.gov.