Docket sheet magic using AI
What if you could greatly reduce the time it takes to lay down that procedural history section? 🪄
When I write a motion or a brief for federal court and am trying to get started, a lot of the time the first thing I’ll do is lay down the procedural history. That can actually take a long time and be tedious. I’m looking at dates, typing up the case history, and, of course, deciding exactly how I want to say it. Along the way, I might accidentally transpose numbers or make typos.
What if I could use AI to make it much faster and easier?
I was playing around with this. Just for the sake of this demo, I used a case that was recently in the news: the sad lot of Judge Hannah C. Dugan. To get this ready to dump into an AI tool and pull out the bits I wanted, I did the following:
Create PDF: I went to PACER/ECF and found the case. I printed it to PDF.
Anonymize with an Alias: Let’s say I didn’t want to put the defendant’s name straight into an AI tool. My Adobe Acrobat can find and replace text. I guess I probably could have done that find/replace in Microsoft Word instead? But I used Adobe. Just for an example, Judge Dugan became Judge Dredd.
Save it and put it into a LLM: I use Gemini because I’m paying for it through my Google Workspace subscription and it claims to be more secure than free AI sites. You could use ChatGPT or Claude or something else. You be you.
So here’s how the first page looks if all I did was change Dugan to Dredd:
Shall we take it for a spin…?
Before I do so, let me state that of course I’ll check the facts over and rewrite nearly every sentence. But I’m delighted not to have to key in all these dates and rote items manually.
Anyways, below is the prompt I entered into Gemini and what I got back. Pretty cool.
My prompt: I'm an attorney summarizing the Judge Dredd case events for the procedural section of a motion for reconsideration. Write me a two-paragraph procedural history that includes the indictment and arraignment date but focuses on the procedural history of the pre-trial motions from prosecution and defense. Do not go beyond the pre-trial status hearing.
What I got back: On May 13, 2025, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Wisconsin returned an indictment against Hannah C. Dredd, charging her with one count of concealing a person from arrest (18 U.S.C. § 1071) and one count of obstruction of a proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1505). Dredd appeared for her arraignment and plea on May 15, 2025, entering a plea of not guilty to both counts. Following this, the defense filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on May 14, 2025, which prompted significant pre-trial litigation, including motions for leave to file amicus curiae briefs from third parties such as “Former State and Federal Judges” and the “Center for American Rights”. These amicus requests were ultimately granted by Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph in July 2025, concurrent with her recommendation that the motion to dismiss be denied.
Pre-trial litigation further intensified as both parties moved to shape the evidentiary landscape. On May 30, 2025, the defense filed a motion for a supplemental jury questionnaire, which the court partially granted on September 19, 2025, to address the “unique considerations” of the case. The government filed substantive motions in limine on November 7 and November 17, 2025, seeking to exclude various categories of defense evidence and specifically aiming to prohibit expert testimony regarding the interpretation of legal statutes. On November 25, 2025, Judge Adelman issued a consolidated order granting these government motions in part, while denying a defense motion in limine filed on November 7. This phase of the proceedings concluded with a final pre-trial status hearing on November 26, 2025, where the court resolved the remaining logistics for jury selection and set the parameters for the production of government witness materials.
My prompt: write me a 3 Paragraph summary of the course of the trial, the verdict, and the post-verdict status of Judge Dredd and the litigation?
What I got back: The jury trial of Hannah C. Dredd commenced on December 15, 2025, and spanned four days in the Eastern District of Wisconsin before Judge Lynn Adelman. The government presented a case involving an anticipated 25 to 28 witnesses, which included the specific testimony of Kristela Cervera on the second day of the trial. Throughout the proceedings, the court addressed critical evidentiary issues, such as the defense’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal under Rule 29(a) and the resolution of disputed jury instructions.
On December 18, 2025, the jury reached a mixed verdict, finding Dredd not guilty of Count 1 (Concealing Person from Arrest) but guilty of Count 2 (Obstruction of Proceeding Before Departments/Agencies). The deliberations occurred following a complex jury selection process that utilized a supplemental questionnaire and partial sequestration to ensure impartiality. Immediately following the verdict, the court recorded the results and managed sealed jury communications before the trial officially concluded.
As of late December 2025, Dredd remains in a post-verdict litigation phase with a formal sentencing date yet to be determined. The court has established a strict briefing schedule for post-trial motions: the defense must file its motions by January 30, 2026, with the government’s response due by February 20, 2026, and a final defense reply by March 6, 2026. Meanwhile, the proceedings have continued to draw significant media attention, as evidenced by requests from local news outlets for the disclosure of the jury list.
My prompt: Rewrite that sequentially in three paragraphs so that it explains the jury selection first, then the testimony, verdict and post-verdict procedural status of Judge Dredd's case.
What I got back:
Jury selection for the trial of Hannah C. Dredd (also referred to as Judge Dugan) was an extensive two-day process conducted on December 11 and 12, 2025. To ensure an impartial panel, the court utilized a supplemental jury questionnaire that allowed the parties to screen prospective jurors for bias before they arrived at the courthouse. This process led to a mutual agreement to strike 34 prospective jurors at the final pretrial conference and an additional 10 from a supplemental batch. During the selection, Judge Lynn Adelman ordered that the potential jurors be partially sequestered and provided with lunch due to the unique considerations and high profile of the case.
The trial officially commenced on December 15, 2025, and featured a substantial evidentiary phase where the government anticipated calling between 25 and 28 witnesses. Notable testimony included that of Kristela Cervera on December 16, while the defense notably moved for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a) following the close of evidence. After the conclusion of testimony and arguments, the jury deliberated and returned a mixed verdict on December 18, 2025. Dredd was found not guilty of Count 1, concealing a person from arrest, but was convicted and found guilty of Count 2, obstruction of a proceeding before departments or agencies.
Following the verdict, the litigation entered a post-trial phase focused on defense challenges and sentencing preparation. Judge Adelman established a briefing schedule for post-trial motions, setting a deadline of January 30, 2026, for the defense to file its motions, followed by a government response in February and a defense reply in March. As of December 21, 2025, a formal sentencing date has not yet been scheduled. Meanwhile, the case remains a subject of intense public interest, with multiple news organizations filing formal requests for the disclosure of the jury list.
My prompt: write a One-paragraph summary of the count of conviction, including The elements of that offense and the maximum potential penalty.
What I got back: Hannah C. Dredd was convicted of Count 2, Obstruction of Proceeding Before Departments/Agencies in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505. To establish a violation under this statute, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) there was a proceeding pending before a department or agency of the United States; (2) the defendant was aware of the pending proceeding; and (3) the defendant intentionally and corruptly influenced, obstructed, or impeded—or endeavored to do so—the due and proper administration of the law in that proceeding. As a felony offense, a conviction under Section 1505 generally carries a maximum potential penalty of five years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000. If the offense is found to involve international or domestic terrorism, the maximum term of imprisonment increases to eight years.
…and scene. 🎬