Case Briefing API

curl -X POST 'https://api.example.com/api/case-briefing' \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{
    "caseData": {
      "title": "Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)",
      "facts": "Ernesto Miranda was arrested and interrogated without being informed of his rights...",
      "issue": "Whether statements obtained from a defendant during custodial interrogation are admissible if the defendant was not informed of constitutional rights",
      "holding": "Statements are inadmissible unless defendant was informed of rights and waived them",
      "reasoning": "Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires warnings before custodial interrogation"
    },
    "userBrief": {
      "facts": "Miranda was arrested and questioned without being told his rights",
      "issue": "Can police use statements from interrogation without warnings?",
      "rule": "Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination",
      "application": "Miranda was not told he could remain silent or have a lawyer",
      "conclusion": "Statements should not be allowed in court"
    }
  }'

{
  "factsScore": 0.85,
  "factsFeedback": "Good summary of key facts. Consider adding more detail about the custodial nature of the interrogation.",
  "issueScore": 0.90,
  "issueFeedback": "Issue correctly identified. Could be more precise about custodial interrogation requirements.",
  "ruleScore": 0.75,
  "ruleFeedback": "Correct constitutional provision, but should state the specific warnings required.",
  "applicationScore": 0.80,
  "applicationFeedback": "Good application. Expand on why the lack of warnings violated his rights.",
  "conclusionScore": 0.85,
  "conclusionFeedback": "Correct conclusion. Could reference the exclusionary rule.",
  "suggestions": [
    "Include the specific Miranda warnings in the rule section",
    "Explain the procedural safeguards required during custodial interrogation",
    "Reference the exclusionary rule in your conclusion"
  ],
  "modelBrief": {
    "facts": "Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home and taken to a police station where he was questioned for two hours without being advised of his constitutional rights...",
    "issue": "Whether statements obtained during custodial interrogation are admissible when the suspect was not informed of Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights",
    "rule": "The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires that suspects in custody be warned of their right to remain silent and right to counsel before interrogation",
    "application": "Miranda was subjected to custodial interrogation without being informed of these rights, rendering his statements involuntary under the Fifth Amendment",
    "conclusion": "The statements are inadmissible under the exclusionary rule as they were obtained in violation of Miranda's constitutional rights"
  }
}