Admissions & Key Testimony Extractor
Pull every admission, damaging concession, and 'I don't know' on your key issues out of a transcript — with verbatim Q&A and page:line cites.
What is an AI admissions & key testimony extractor prompt?
It is a CITE prompt that asks an AI tool to extract specific items from deposition transcripts or trial transcripts. Pull every admission, damaging concession, and 'I don't know' on your key issues out of a transcript — with verbatim Q&A and page:line cites. You fill in five fields; the Evidence block requires a page:line cite for every finding so a person can check each one against the record.
Sample prompt
Synthetic data
Synthetic example: The names, dates, case details, and issues below are fictional CasePrompts sample values, not client data or evidence from a real matter. They demonstrate the prompt format, not the accuracy of any AI model's output.
Preview the complete sample prompt
CONTEXT: You are a litigation support analyst assisting defense counsel in a trucking liability matter. The attached document is the certified deposition transcript of Marcus Webb, plaintiff and driver of the passenger vehicle. The issues that matter in this case are: speed at impact; cell phone use; seatbelt use. INSTRUCTIONS: Review the entire transcript and extract every instance of the following, organized by issue: 1. Admissions against interest and factual concessions, however qualified. 2. Agreements with propositions put by examining counsel ("That's fair," "Correct," "I agree"). 3. Claimed lack of knowledge or memory ("I don't know," "I don't recall") on any of the key issues. 4. Statements that limit, hedge, or walk back earlier testimony in the same transcript. Capture the full question-and-answer exchange for each item, not the answer alone. Include enough surrounding Q&A that the exchange cannot be accused of being taken out of context. TEMPLATE — format your output exactly as follows: For each key issue, produce a section in this format: ## Issue: [issue] | # | Type (admission / agreement / no-recall / walk-back) | Verbatim Q&A | Cite | Why it matters (one sentence) | |---|---|---|---|---| Close with a section titled "Top 5 most significant exchanges" ranking the five most consequential items across all issues, each with its cite. EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS: For every finding, cite page and line in the form `page:line` (e.g., 47:12–48:3) and quote the operative testimony verbatim. Reproduce testimony exactly as transcribed, including objections lodged within the exchange. If you find no qualifying testimony on an issue, write "not found in the record" for that issue. Do not infer admissions from silence or characterize testimony beyond what the words support. List any ambiguous exchanges you excluded, with cites, under a final heading "Borderline — attorney review." Unless a section above specifies its own marker, write "not found in the record" wherever the provided record does not support a requested finding. Do not infer or fill gaps from outside knowledge. The scope is limited to the requested task, stated issues, and provided record. Do not introduce outside subjects or sources. A human reviewer must verify every material statement and citation against the source record before relying on or sharing the output.
Through the Civil / insurance defense lens
Prioritize plaintiff admissions bearing on comparative fault, prior injuries or claims, gaps and lapses in treatment, activities inconsistent with claimed limitations, and mitigation.
Through the Commercial litigation lens
Prioritize admissions about contract formation, performance and non-performance, notice given or not given, and damages quantification — anchored to the documents the witness was shown.
Through the Criminal defense lens
Prioritize inconsistencies among State witnesses, statements bearing on identification reliability and observation conditions, language suggesting suggestive procedures, and references to evidence or recordings not found in the production.
Through the Employment litigation lens
Prioritize testimony establishing decision-maker knowledge and timing, the stated reasons for each employment action, comparator treatment, and departures from written policy.
Through the Family law lens
Prioritize admissions about income, assets, and liabilities, statements about parenting time and conduct, and — where the record preserves it — tone: how something was said to a co-parent often matters as much as what was said.
Through the Medical malpractice — defense lens
Prioritize chart language documenting clinical reasoning and judgment calls, informed-consent discussions, patient non-compliance, and comorbidities bearing on outcome.
Through the Medical malpractice — plaintiff lens
Prioritize testimony and chart language bearing on the applicable standard of care, departures from protocols or orders, and admissions about what should have been done differently.
Through the Personal injury — plaintiff lens
Prioritize testimony establishing notice and fault, admissions about the mechanism of injury, and the human impact of the injuries — pain, limitations, and life disruption in the witness's own words.
Through the Probate & estate litigation lens
Prioritize statements about the decedent's intent, capacity, and dependence; who was present at execution; and how the fiduciary handled the assets — admissions about access and control often decide these cases.
Through the Prosecution lens
Prioritize corroboration across independent sources, spontaneous statements, and testimony establishing each element — and separately flag anything arguably favorable to the defense for disclosure review.
Through the Workers' compensation — claimant lens
Prioritize testimony establishing the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, prompt reporting, and employer knowledge — plus every statement about restrictions and ability to work.
Through the Workers' compensation — employer/carrier lens
Prioritize claimant admissions bearing on course and scope, late or inconsistent reporting, prior injuries or claims to the same body parts, and activities inconsistent with claimed restrictions.
AI output is a starting point, not work product. Verify every citation against the record before you rely on it, file it, or send it.
What you'll fill in
- 01Your role
- 02Case typee.g., "trucking liability," "first-party property," "medical malpractice"
- 03Witness / deponent namee.g., "Witness A" or "the treating physician"
- 04Their role in the casee.g., "plaintiff's accident reconstructionist"
- 05Key issue(s) — 1 to 3e.g., "vehicle speed at impact; brake maintenance; visibility"
Verification checklist
- Deposition transcript: open each cited page:line location and confirm it supports the finding. The prompt asks: “For every finding, cite page and line in the form page:line (e.g., 47:12–48:3) and quote the operative testimony verbatim.”
- Re-check every item labelled “not found in the record” or “Borderline — attorney review” against the full source; these labels flag gaps or judgment calls for a person to resolve, not proof of absence.
- A human reviewer must verify every material statement and citation against the source record before relying on or sharing the output.
Pro tip Run this immediately on receipt of the transcript, then hand the 'Top 5' section to the attorney who took the depo for a same-day gut check.
Related verification workflow
Related templates
Contract Obligations Extractor
Inventory every obligation, deadline, notice requirement, and condition precedent in the contract — who owes what, triggered by what, with section cites.
Discovery Gap Finder
Flag every evasive, incomplete, or boilerplate-objection answer against what was actually asked — and walk away with your meet-and-confer list drafted.
Privilege Log Builder
Turn a set of withheld documents into a privilege log — date, author, recipients, type, and a non-waiving basis for each — with the doubtful calls flagged for review.