What do you have?
1 offence confirmedBurglary of a dwelling · F.S. 810.02(3) ↗ · Second-degree felony
Someone entered a home without permission intending to commit an offense — nobody was home.
It's something else — pick the charge yourself
The machine reads; you classify. Every confirmation and correction is kept in the case record.
Burglary of a dwelling (training scenario)
2/5 elements proven| Element | Key evidence | Status | Gap / conflict | Next action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entering a dwelling | ✕ Not on the board | This element appears in F.S. 810.02(3) and nobody has addressed it. | — | |
| Owned or possessed by another | ✕ Not on the board | This element appears in F.S. 810.02(3) and nobody has addressed it. | — | |
| Intent to commit an offense within | ✓ Proven single source — Incident Report | — | — | |
| Identity of the perpetrator | ✕ Gap | Practice: link evidence here as it arrives. | — | |
| Entry into the structure | ✓ Proven single source — Incident Report | — | — |
Devil's Advocate — competing hypotheses (ACH). Runs on every case; the misidentification theory is mandatory and cannot be deleted.
| Claim | Opportunist entry via unlocked door | 🛡 Timeline error, forced entry elsewhere |
|---|---|---|
| Victim locked the garage just after 10:00 PM. | C | S |
| Victim arrived home at 23:41 by rideshare. | 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 victim says 10 PM. Her own receipt says 11:41. Did anyone on your team notice?”
Evidence that would separate the theories
Re-interview: basis of the "10 o'clock news" memory