Review workflow
Criminal discovery review handoff: a working template
Give the next reviewer the source, the work already done, and the decision still needed. Keep an unanswered question from disappearing inside “review complete.”
On this page
A useful criminal discovery handoff tells the next reviewer what was checked, where to reopen it, and what still needs a decision. Put those details beside each finding, with a named owner and next action, rather than sending a summary marked “done.”
This working method is for an attorney and authorized staff sharing review. It also works for a solo lawyer returning to a file after several days. The template and example below are original workflow aids, not a court form or a rule about legal duties.
Agree on the task before review starts
Define a bounded question: “Compare the report’s description of the gate with the available interview,” for example. Identify the assigned files and versions, expected output, who will review it, and an internal check-in time. Keep an internal target separate from any court deadline.
The National Litigation Support Team’s 2021 discussion of paralegal support describes discovery organization and review as work that depends on the case, tools and staff experience. The Defender Services Office’s electronic-data guidance starts with an inventory and a planned team workflow. These federal-defense resources support the operational context; they are not Florida-specific legal instructions.
If the files are not yet mapped, start with the discovery folder and source index. This guide addresses the next step: transferring responsibility for a specific review question.
Copyable handoff template
Keep one row per question in the firm’s approved workspace. Give the receiving reviewer access through the normal firm process. Avoid placing confidential notes in public forms or shared marketing tools.
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Task and scope | The question; assigned files; pages or recording ranges actually reviewed; anything excluded or unavailable. |
| Source trail | Stable file reference, production/version, original location and exact page or elapsed time range. Keep displayed clock time separate. |
| Working observation | Exact quotation, labeled paraphrase or reviewer observation. Preserve uncertainty and identify AI-drafted text that still needs checking. |
| Current state | Unreviewed, located, source-checked, decision pending, blocked, or closed for this task. Add reviewer and date. |
| Open question | What remains unresolved, including another source that may change the observation. |
| Next action and owner | A concrete check, the responsible person and their acknowledgement; an internal target if agreed. |
| Closure or reopening | The decision/action recorded, by whom and when, or the new source/version that reopened it. |
Fictional example: one handoff, four different states
| Item and reviewed scope | Working note | State and next owner |
|---|---|---|
| H-01 · R-01 v1, PDF p. 3; I-01 v1, elapsed 04:10–04:28 plus surrounding exchange | Report says east gate; interview passage says west gate. The passages refer to the same departure, but the map labels have not been checked. | Source-checked; decision pending. Attorney to compare map labels and decide the next inquiry. Remaining interview not reviewed under this task. |
| H-02 · I-01 v1, elapsed 06:02–06:20 | A transcript draft assigns an answer to the witness; overlapping voices prevent the reviewer from confirming the speaker. | Blocked. Assigned reviewer to inspect available alternate audio; keep attribution uncertain until resolved. |
| H-03 · R-01 v2 received after the first handoff | A new report version adds a paragraph about the gate. The previous H-01 note covers v1 only. | Reopened. Staff reviewer to compare the added passage and return the change to the attorney; preserve the earlier note. |
| H-04 · R-01 v1, PDF p. 2 | The receiving reviewer opened the cited page and confirmed the note identifies the correct file and location. | Closed for the source-location check only. No finding about credibility, legal significance or full discovery coverage. |
H-01 can be source-checked while still awaiting a decision. H-04 can be closed for its narrow task while the case remains under review. Those distinctions disappear if every row has only a “complete” checkbox.
Make receipt an actual handoff
The receiving reviewer should confirm the assignment and open the cited source. If the link fails, record an access problem and the person resolving it. If the task is unclear, return the specific question instead of silently expanding the assignment.
For an important comparison, reopen both passages and their surrounding context. The report and witness-statement comparison guide explains how to keep an omission, uncertain answer and apparent conflict distinct. Use the AI source-verification workflow when a machine drafted the finding.
Close the action, preserve the question
Record what happened: source corrected, question sent for attorney review, missing file still awaited, or bounded task completed. “Nothing found” needs the search/review scope beside it. It should not imply every file was examined.
When supplemental discovery arrives, identify which existing rows depend on the changed material. Preserve the earlier observation and record the new version and reason for reopening it. The supplemental-production workflow covers that change check.
Where DiscoRev fits
DiscoRev helps criminal-defense firms review supported documents and recordings and follow findings back to source pages or timestamps. Those source references can inform a team’s working notes; the template above is a separate suggested workflow, not a claim that DiscoRev automates assignments or approvals. See how the Florida beta works. Your team checks the evidence and makes the legal decisions.
Common questions
What should a criminal discovery review handoff include?
Include the task and reviewed scope, source identifiers and versions, page or recording ranges, labeled observations, unresolved questions, next action, responsible reviewer and status. Keep the coverage limits with the finding.
Does source-checked mean attorney-approved?
No. Source-checked records that a reviewer compared the note with the identified material. It does not establish a legal conclusion, complete case coverage or approval for external use. Record those decisions separately.
What if the receiving attorney cannot open a source?
Keep the item open and identify the access or file problem. Use the firm’s approved access process; a handoff is not complete merely because a link was sent.
Can AI draft the handoff?
AI can help prepare a working summary, but its output does not establish what a person reviewed. A reviewer must check the cited material, retain gaps and uncertainty, and confirm the next action.