skills/legal/motion-new-trial/SKILL.md
Drafts a post-verdict Motion for New Trial in criminal defense cases. Structures arguments around recognized grounds (weight-of-evidence, newly discovered evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, juror misconduct, IAC, judicial error) with record citations. Use when filing a motion for new trial, post-conviction motion, or requesting the court set aside a criminal verdict.
npx skillsauth add casemark/skills motion-new-trialInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Drafts a motion asking the trial court to set aside a jury verdict and order a new trial, with ground-by-ground legal and factual support from the trial record.
Standard jurisdiction-format caption. Include court name, case number, defendant's full legal name. Title: "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL."
| Element | Content | |---|---| | Procedural authority | Specific rule and statutory basis | | Verdict date & charges | Conviction counts identified | | Relief sought | New trial; evidentiary hearing if applicable | | Thesis | One sentence on why the verdict should be set aside |
Draft each ground as a separate labeled section. Include only grounds supported by the record.
Per-ground structure:
Grounds checklist (assert only those supported):
| Ground | Key Elements | Standard | |---|---|---| | Weight of evidence | Miscarriage of justice despite jury deference | Unconscionable to let verdict stand | | Newly discovered evidence | (1) Post-trial discovery, (2) due diligence, (3) material/not cumulative, (4) probably different result | All four prongs required | | Prosecutorial misconduct | Specific acts depriving defendant of fair trial | Conduct undermined fundamental fairness | | Juror misconduct | Extraneous info, improper communications, undisclosed bias | Reasonable possibility misconduct influenced verdict | | IAC | (1) Below professional standards, (2) prejudice | Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) | | Judicial/legal error | Erroneous rulings affecting substantial rights | Abuse of discretion; not harmless beyond reasonable doubt |
For each ground: legal standard → controlling authority → application to facts. Bluebook citation format. Distinguish unfavorable precedent explicitly.
development
name: automated-contract-summary language: en description: Generates structured executive summaries of contracts using ML — captures key terms, party obligations, risk allocations, and compliance requirements in a standardized format. Optimized for high-volume review where speed and consistency matter. tags: - summarization - agreement - corporate --- # Automated Contract Summarization Produces standardized executive summaries of contracts using machine learning, capturing essential term
tools
Extracts regulatory obligations from dense regulations across jurisdictions. Breaks down multi-level regulations into clear article-level obligations, classifies applicability to a business, and prioritizes by risk level. Use when translating regulations into actionable compliance requirements.
development
Continuously monitors regulatory landscapes for changes relevant to a specific business. Ingests global regulatory updates, filters by relevance, summarizes impact, and produces an actionable change advisory. Use when tracking regulatory developments affecting a particular product or market.
testing
Compares an organization's existing compliance controls, policies, and procedures against extracted regulatory obligations to identify coverage gaps. Produces a remediation plan with prioritized actions. Use when assessing compliance maturity or preparing for regulatory audits.