| name | deposition-impeachment-builder |
| title | Deposition Impeachment Builder |
| description | Drafts deposition-ready impeachment sequences using the Commit–Credit–Confront (CCC) method. Use this skill when the user mentions impeachment preparation, prior inconsistent statements, Commit-Credit-Confront, CCC method, deposition cross-examination, FRE 613, witness contradictions, impeachment scripts, prior testimony conflicts, or asks for help building impeachment sequences. Also trigger when the user references creating transcript clips for summary judgment, preparing confrontation questions, or analyzing contradictions between deposition testimony and prior documents. Even if the user just says "this witness changed their story" or "build me an impeachment sequence," use this skill. |
| author | CaseMark |
| author_url | https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/deposition-impeachment-builder |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| execution_mode | open |
| jurisdiction | us |
| practice | litigation |
| language | en |
| tags | ["analysis","checklist","drafting","summary"] |
Deposition Impeachment Builder
Why This Skill Exists
Impeachment at deposition is the highest-skill questioning technique in civil litigation — and the most commonly botched. Attorneys either confront too early (before locking the witness in), skip the credit phase (weakening the contradiction's impact), or ask open-ended follow-ups after confrontation (giving the witness an escape). A poorly executed impeachment is worse than none at all, because it educates the witness and inoculates them for trial.
This skill produces a controlled Commit–Credit–Confront script, a deployment memo with timing recommendations, and a checklist of missing information — grounded in FRE 613, FRE 801(d)(1)(A)/(d)(2), and FRCP 30 guardrails.
Checkpoint A: Pre-Draft Intake (Mandatory)
Ask every time unless the user says "use defaults" or "just draft." Gather:
- Current testimony — verbatim transcript excerpt (Q&A with page/line) or exact anticipated answer; paraphrases require attorney confirmation of precise phrasing
- Prior statement — full text (not snippet), statement type, date, author/speaker, recipients, and pin-cite (page:line for transcripts; paragraph/section for documents)
- Witness's connection — how the witness authored, signed, verified, sent, or adopted the prior statement
- Case context — forum (federal/state), posture (fact discovery/MSJ/pretrial), claims/defenses, witness role (party, 30(b)(6) designee, percipient, expert)
- Strategic intent — impeachment only vs. substantive use; video deposition; protective order applicability
If the user doesn't respond, apply and clearly label these defaults: federal court; impeachment-only use; conservative confrontation variant; deposition (not trial).
If any required input is missing, pause and ask targeted follow-up questions. Never fabricate quotes, dates, page numbers, or document attributes.
Step 1: Assess Materiality
Before drafting, tie the contradiction to a claim element, defense element, damages component, or credibility theme in one sentence. If you cannot, flag the impeachment as a candidate for trial cross-examination rather than deposition use.
Step 2: Draft the Commit Phase
Goal: Eliminate every escape hatch before the witness knows a contradiction is coming.
Rules:
- Use the witness's own vocabulary
- Single factual proposition per question
- No compound questions
- Define ambiguous terms neutrally before committing
- Confirm certainty; fork hedged answers into a second committed proposition
