Feature. The Dismissal Engine
The Dismissal Pathway Library. A Versioned, Structured Catalogue.
The structured, jurisdiction-specific catalogue of legal pathways that The Dismissal Engine evaluates against the reviewed record of what the State produced in discovery. Each pathway is a versioned record with explicit required findings, authorities marked for attorney review, and template variables that drive the eventual draft motion. Pathways propose. Attorneys decide. Nothing files automatically.
AI On This Page
Buddy Flags Possible Dismissal Pathways From The Canonical Record. Attorney Review Is Required.
Buddy is The IMC Machine’s AI assistant. Talk, upload, or speak – Buddy turns what you send into structured records you approve before anything moves.
Talk To Buddy
“Run Dismissal Pathway Review For Matter 2026-0419”
Buddy reads the matter record and surfaces candidates ranked by confidence and citation.
Upload A Photo
Drop A Citation PDF Buddy Has Not Seen.
Buddy weighs the new citation against existing pathway candidates and re-ranks them.
Voice Note
Voice-Reject A Pathway With Your Reasoning.
Buddy logs the attorney’s reasoning for the audit trail so the decision is preserved.
Buddy autofills are reviewable. Nothing publishes, files, or sends without a named human approval on the record.
Get Started
The Versioned Playbook For Every Motion In Your Fight.
Every dismissal-track motion your practice has filed, indexed and search-ready. Three-model consensus across OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s Gemini on every draft. Attorney Approval Ceremony before filing.
Criminal Defense
Solo Practitioner
Solo defense attorney. Full Evidence Orchestrator and Dismissal Engine. Three-model consensus across OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s Gemini on every court-facing pass.
Criminal Defense
Small Firm (2 To 5)
Defense firm, 2 to 5 attorneys. Solo features plus role-scoped access, Cross-Domain Coordination, firm-wide Distribution Ledger. Three-model consensus across OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s Gemini.
Criminal Defense
Firm (6+)
Defense firm, 6+ attorneys. Dedicated tenant, white-label subdomain, per-attorney dashboards, processing SLA. Three-model consensus across OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s Gemini.
AI-assisted drafts are proposed for human review, not finished or filed work product. Adding to cart means you agree to the Terms and the AI Policy.
Why a library, not a prompt
Pathways Are Records, Not Requests.
The easy version of a legal-AI product asks a model to “read this matter and tell me what motions to file.” The output is a paragraph that sounds correct, that no one can audit, and that the attorney has to verify against the underlying record without help. The pathway library is the rejected easy version. A pathway is a record. It has an id the firm can reference across matters. It has a title the attorney recognizes from practice. It has a status (production, pilot, retired). It has a family that groups it with related pathways. It has a version. It has a confidence floor (the minimum score the three-model consensus gate must hit). It has a summary the attorney can read in thirty seconds. It has required findings. The specific elements that must be present in the reviewed evidentiary record for the pathway to apply. It has authorities, marked for attorney review, because no AI pass replaces the attorney’s read on whether the cited authority is current and on point. It has template variables that the draft-motion render uses to fill caption, party, matter, and attorney fields. None of this is generative. It is structured.
The starter pathways
Five Entries. The Shape That All Future Entries Match.
Each was selected because the underlying issue recurs across Bexar and comparable-metro criminal-defense practice, the required findings are concrete enough to evaluate against an Evidence Orchestrator review record, and the relevant Texas and federal authorities are stable enough to template against. Pathway evaluation cites back to the source moment in the source media.
Pathway 01
Miranda Defective Waiver
Required findings address the warning’s administration, the response on the recording, the recording of the encounter, and the existence of subsequent custodial statements. The pathway reads body-camera transcripts, interview audio, and the police report for the warning’s specifics. Authorities marked for attorney review include Miranda v. Arizona and the relevant Texas Court of Criminal Appeals line.
Pathway 02
Warrantless Search
Required findings address the search’s location, the existence and scope of any consent, the existence of an asserted exception, and the recorded sequence of officer conduct relative to the search. The pathway reads body-camera footage and the report for the sequence and the consent question. Authorities include the Fourth Amendment line and the relevant Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provisions.
Pathway 03
Brady Disclosure
Required findings address material favorable to the defendant that the State possessed and did not produce in time. The pathway reads the discovery production record, the State’s representations, and the matter’s deadline history. Authorities include Brady v. Maryland and the Texas analog provisions.
Pathway 04
Article 39.14 Deadline
Required findings address the State’s compliance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 39.14 production obligations. The pathway reads the demand record (including any demand drafted through the metadata posture lane), the State’s responses, the response timing against the article’s deadlines, and the matter’s production history.
Pathway 05
Probable-Cause Deficient
Required findings address the affidavit’s factual basis, the sequence of events as recorded in body-camera footage and 911 audio, and any contradictions between the affidavit’s recital and the recording. The pathway reads the affidavit, the body-camera segments around the relevant encounter, the dispatch audio, and the witness interviews where they bear on the question.
Library posture
The Library Extends
Additional pathways are added under the same record shape. Id, title, status, family, version, confidence floor, summary, required findings, authorities, template variables. Every addition carries an attribution and a version. Retired pathways stay in the library as retired so the firm can audit what an old matter’s evaluation was reading against at the time.
A clear boundary
The Pathway Proposes. It Does Not File.
When the three-model consensus gate clears, the pathway proceeds into the motion lifecycle as a candidate. The Engine drafts a motion using the pathway’s template variables, the firm’s court-filing templates, and the matter’s caption and attorney information. Case-specific argument placeholders are left for attorney completion. From candidate, the draft moves through drafting, attorney review, attorney approval, filing-ready, and filed states only as named human action moves it. The attorney approval ceremony records the attorney’s bar number, the SHA-256 hash of the document body, the attorney’s user identity, and the approval timestamp.
- The Engine renders, drafts, and prepares. The attorney approves, edits, signs, and files.
- Nothing files automatically. The manual eFileTexas envelope ID and filed date are recorded only after the attorney files.
- This is the boundary the platform never crosses. Every pathway in the library, current and future, operates under the same rule.
How it reads the input
Pathways Read The Reviewed Evidentiary Record, Not The Prompt Of The Day.
What The Engine Reads
Pathway evaluation reads the same canonical record assembled by The Evidence Orchestrator. Accepted flags from the AI Worksheet Panel, citations from the worksheet’s per-file answers, attorney-approved recommended clips, and the matter dossier with the firm’s preferred authorities and the attorney-of-record’s bar number.
Source-Anchored Citations
Every claim the pathway evaluation makes about the matter is anchored to a source moment in the source media. A body-camera segment with a timestamp, a 911 audio second, an OCR’d handwritten supplement page, a discovery PDF line. The attorney verifies any claim by clicking into the source. Other tools recommend pathways from the police report. The Dismissal Engine reads the police report plus the body camera plus the 911 audio plus the interview transcripts plus the handwritten supplements.
The Compliance Posture
The pathway library is not legal advice and the Engine’s output is not a substitute for the attorney’s judgment. The platform is designed around attorney-controlled, staff-verified workflow. Production deployment for a new firm requires firm-specific security and legal-operations review before launch. Citations marked for attorney review must be confirmed by the attorney as current and on point.
Why This Matters Beyond The Firm That Uses It
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), established the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The well-resourced firm has the time and the bodies to run pathway analysis by hand across the full evidentiary record. The court-appointed lawyer, the public defender, and the solo attorney with the indigent caseload do not. A structured pathway library, evaluated against a reviewed multi-format record, is one of the surfaces that makes equal access to that analysis meaningful in the body-camera era.
See the library on a live matter shape
A Thirty-Minute Walkthrough Of The Pathways Against Your Matter.
Bring a Bexar or comparable-metro felony shape. We will walk through each starter pathway, show you the required findings the Engine evaluates, surface the citations the pathway draws on, and show you the draft motion that would land in attorney_review for your sign-off.
Why This Matters
Pathways Are Records, Not Requests.
The easy version of a legal-AI product asks a model to read a matter and return a paragraph naming motions to file. The output sounds correct, cannot be audited, and forces the attorney to verify against the underlying record without help. With 35 hours per felony case under the 2023 National Public Defense Workload Study1 and 156 Texas counties operating without a public defender office3, that posture is not affordable. The Dismissal Pathway Library is the rejected easy version. A pathway is a record with an id, a status, a family, a version, a confidence floor, a summary, required findings, authorities marked for attorney review, and template variables. Under Article 39.148, pathways evaluate against the reviewed evidentiary record of what the State produced, not the prompt of the day. Pathways propose; attorneys decide; nothing files automatically.
Sources
Where The Numbers Came From.
Sources and citations
- RAND / NCSC / ABA, National Public Defense Workload Study (2023). rand.org; ABA Journal coverage.
- Sixth Amendment Center, State of the Nation on Gideon’s 60th; Bureau of Justice Statistics, State Government Indigent Defense Expenditures.
- Texas Tribune, Feb. 27, 2025; SMU Dedman / Deason Center, “Country Justice in Texas.”
- Colorado Public Radio, Jan. 2, 2026; The Journal.
- National Registry of Exonerations, 2024 Annual Report. DPIC coverage; Registry homepage.
- Zealous Advocate, $156M paid to Texas exonerees since 2009.
- Three-Model Consensus aligns with the Attorney Approval Ceremony; reviewable framework. See ABA Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants.
- Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 39.14; Watkins v. State (2021) analysis; 2025 remedies update.
Learn This Product
