What do you have?
1 offence confirmedRobbery · F.S. 812.13(2)(c) ↗
Property taken directly from a person, using force or fear.
It's something else — pick the charge yourself
The machine reads; you classify. Every confirmation and correction is kept in the case record.
Robbery
2/4 elements proven| Element | Key evidence | Status | Gap / conflict | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taking of property from the person | ✓ Proven single source — Victim Interview 1 | — | — | |
| Use of force or fear | ✓ Proven single source — Victim Interview 1 | — | — | |
| Intent to deprive | ✕ Not on the board | This element appears in F.S. 812.13(2)(c) and nobody has addressed it. | — | |
| Identity of the perpetrator | C4 qualified ID | ⚠ At risk | Single qualified eyewitness vs. timecard conflict — see Devil's Advocate |
How strong is the identification?
weakArray selection #4 — identified by a single eyewitness. One witness, a one-to-two second view at dusk from about forty feet, across races, and qualified confidence at the array. These conditions match the recognised misidentification risk factors. The lineup itself was run correctly — the procedure is not the weakness; the observation is.
| Condition | What the record says | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| How long the witness saw the face | One to two seconds | high |
| Light | Dusk — streetlights just coming on; witness later said it was "pretty dark already" | high |
| Distance | About 40 feet, across the street | high |
| Cross-racial identification | Yes — witness and the selected man are of different races | high |
| How sure the witness was | Qualified — "I think it's number four. Pretty sure." | high |
| How the lineup was run | Double-blind administrator, admonition read, sequential presentation | low |
What supports this ID besides the victim?
Nothing outside the victim supports this identification today. No video, no forensics, no second witness.
What would corroborate it:
Transit CCTV from the bus stop — expires 07/13
Cell-site records for selection #4, 19:30–20:30
Devil's Advocate — competing hypotheses (ACH). Runs on every case; the misidentification theory is mandatory and cannot be deleted.
⚠ Confirmation-bias alarm
Working theory H1 is the LEAST supported on the board (3 conflicts). The ID conditions panel rates this identification weak (duration 1–2s, dusk, cross-racial, qualified confidence). Recommend treating H1 as unproven pending transit CCTV.
| Claim | Array selection #4 committed the robbery | Different actor from the bus-stop side | 🛡 Honest misidentification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Robbery occurred when the streetlights came on (~19:50). | S | S | · |
| Robbery occurred at 8:00–8:15 PM. | C | S | S |
| Identified suspect clocked out at 20:12, 4.6 miles from the scene. | C | S | S |
| Witness confidence was qualified at the array ("I think… pretty sure"). | C | S | S |
S supports · C conflicts · "·" neutral · ? unknown — the least-contradicted theory is not always the working theory, and this board says so plainly.
The defense's cross — generated before trial does it
“Your only witness gave two different times — and the later one puts my client four miles away on a badge clock. Explain that.”
“"I think it's number four. Pretty sure." Is that your department's standard for beyond a reasonable doubt?”
“One to two seconds, at dusk, across the street. What corroborates this identification? Anything?”
Evidence that would separate the theories
Transit CCTV (expires 07/13) — places or excludes selection #4
Cell records for selection #4, 19:30–20:30