Iryna Kuzina, Attorney at BARRISTERS, LLC: The “Chessboard” of Evidence in a Lawyer’s Work

How attorneys organize large volumes of evidence in criminal proceedings to identify “weak” and “strong” points in the body of evidence

I first learned about the “chess” method for processing large volumes of evidence in a criminal case not from literature on legal techniques for lawyers, nor from university lectures, but from a discussion in a lawyers’ group on one of the social networks.

Researching the topic in open online sources reinforced my impression that information and skills regarding the “chessboard” method of analyzing evidence are passed down by word of mouth—from colleague to colleague, from mentor to mentee. There is very little information available in open sources about this tool for improving the efficiency of working with evidence, and, paradoxically, what little there is is presented from the perspective of the prosecution, not the defense. Experienced attorneys also claim that the “chessboard” method is actively used by judges. So does that mean everyone except attorneys is taught this method?

In this article, I’ll explain how I personally use the “chessboard” method for evidence. And please excuse my use of the Russian term “shakhmatka” (since “shakhovnica” is probably a better Ukrainian equivalent). As far as I’m concerned, it’s more important right now to speak the way we’re used to.

The Basics of the Method

The “chessboard” method, as such, involves presenting information in the form of a two-dimensional table, which allows one to visually demonstrate both the available information and to identify gaps in the information. Both aspects are useful for a lawyer in deciding on further procedural steps or options for a legal position.

My two-dimensional table looks like this. The top row contains the column headings:

Fact/Allegation of the Prosecution (from the indictment).
Evidence of the Prosecution.
Version/Allegation of the Defense.
Evidence of the Defense/Method of Proof.

The first column (when reviewing evidence for the defense) should be extracted from the indictment, taking into account the facts of the alleged criminal offense. After all, due to the presumption of innocence, the defense is more meticulous in examining the prosecution’s facts and evidence.

In the second column, I list the evidence, citing the relevant pages of the case file and, if necessary, summarizing the key evidentiary details.

In the third column—based on the prosecution’s assertions—we record the defense’s counterarguments. If appropriate—drawing on the Supreme Court’s position regarding proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”—I may present several versions, even mutually exclusive ones, that are not refuted by the prosecution’s evidence.

In the fourth column, list the defense’s evidence, planned motions, or attorney’s inquiries.

Once the “grid” is fully completed, you may notice that some of the prosecution’s claims are not supported by evidence at all; you’ll be able to see where the “balance of evidence” tilts and in which direction the attorney should focus their efforts most intensely.

Variations of the Method 

I’ve seen colleagues use different numbers of columns in the “checkerboard” and give them different names.

You can use color to highlight important points.

In general, the columns and rows will vary for each attorney, even within the same criminal case. Perhaps in five years, I would structure the “checkerboard” differently for the same case. Use the method in whatever way is most convenient for you, tailoring it to each individual case.

For example, in cases with multiple incidents, you’ll create a table for each incident. And separately (if appropriate) for facts common to all incidents.

You may also need a separate “checkerboard” for each client if you are representing multiple clients.

The “checkerboard” method is also used for other purposes of organizing information. For example, in a case with many episodes and many defendants who were involved only in some of the episodes. To keep this information at a glance, you can create a table where the column headers list the defendants, the row headers list the incidents, and a person’s involvement in an episode (as stated in the indictment) is marked with a “cross.”

This is how I use the “checkerboard” method to assess the admissibility of evidence during a pretrial investigation when there is a large volume of evidence and the documents provided by the prosecutor are disorganized.

Other ways to use the results 

You should keep the grid in front of you throughout the entire trial. You’ll take this information into account when planning cross-examinations, filing motions, and gathering and verifying evidence.

If you adjust the “checkerboard” during the trial, you’ll already have a rough outline for your closing argument.

Finally, you can show the chart to an anxious client so they know that their attorney understands the case and knows how to proceed.

(c) Iryna Kuzina, attorney