Help reentry attorneys and paralegals pull a client's complete criminal court records from across counties, structure the data, flag warrants and risk items, and produce a cost-and-fee analysis report that supports case strategy.
This page is the shared target for this situation. Any court, legal aid office, or builder working on it in their own region can take the vision, the blueprints, and the standards here instead of starting over, and set the parts that are local to them. The point is that the same work is not designed from scratch in every county.
Does this match how it goes where you are? Leave a note on this workflow.
Here is where each shared asset stands for Criminal Records Data Assembly and Analysis. The reference architecture and the evaluation protocol are the furthest along, drawn from an active implementation with a legal aid partner. The step-by-step agenda is open for comment now, and the remaining assets get drafted as the cohort forms.
The first round of what a tool here has to do, written as the work in order and in plain words, with the question the cohort wants answered about each part. Start here if you pull records for reentry clients and want to say what a tool needs.
Read the step-by-step agenda →What a criminal records assembly system needs to do, from searching court databases and resolving a client's identity across counties through extracting case data, classifying warrants and fees, and producing a structured report. Written so a team can scope a build, evaluate a vendor, or write requirements for a grant proposal.
Coming soonThe quality bar a system must clear before it should be trusted with real client records. Covers whether it finds all cases for the right person, whether it correctly classifies warrant types and risk levels, whether financial totals are accurate, and whether it flags what it could not retrieve rather than guessing.
Coming soonA structured review process for scoring a records assembly report against the actual court data. The protocol walks a reviewer through emergency flag checks, a review of every case found, probation and deferment verification, and source-of-truth comparison for cases, warrants, and payment amounts. Includes a guided review form and auto-fail conditions for safety-critical errors.
Join the cohort to contribute →How to build a system that searches court records databases, extracts structured facts from HTML docket pages, analyzes fees and warrants per case, and produces a report an attorney can use. Describes a two-phase pipeline: a lightweight model parses raw court pages into structured data, then a heavier model reasons over those facts to produce case-level analysis and cross-county summaries.
Join the cohort to contribute →The Court Wrangler, built by a university research team with a legal aid partner, assembles criminal court records from the statewide court record systems for reentry clients facing outstanding fines, fees, and warrants. The case study covers what the team chose, how the tool was tested, what the attorneys needed from the reports, and what changed across 10 months of biweekly iteration.
Join the cohort to contribute →A guided review application that walks a QA reviewer through each step of scoring a records report, with inline reference guides for warrant classification, probation terminology, and payment verification. Also includes an Airtable-based scoring form for collecting structured evaluation data across reviewers and testing rounds.
Join the cohort to contribute →The resources build on each other. The functional agenda defines what the system must do. The conformance standards define how well. The test suite provides the cases to verify it. The reference architecture shows one way to build a system that meets the specification. The case study shows how one team did it in Oklahoma.
You do not need all of them. Pick the resources that match your role.
A person with a criminal record in Oklahoma may have cases spread across dozens of counties, each with its own docket, its own fee structure, and its own warrant status. A reentry attorney preparing to help that person needs to know the full picture: every case, every outstanding balance, every active warrant, every probation status. Today that means hours of manual searching across court websites, clicking through case after case, copying numbers into a spreadsheet, and cross-referencing payment records.
Criminal records data assembly is a system that searches court records databases for a given client, pulls all their cases across all counties, extracts structured data from each case (charges, dispositions, fees, payments, warrants, probation), and produces a report the attorney can use to make decisions. The system handles the data gathering and structuring. The attorney handles the strategy, the judgment, and the client relationship.
The workflow applies to any jurisdiction where criminal court records are published online and where attorneys, paralegals, or legal aid staff spend significant time manually pulling and organizing that data. The Court Wrangler, built with a legal aid partner, is the first implementation. It pulls from the two statewide court record systems and produces a Word document report organized by county, with an executive summary, warrant flags, payment history, and a list of follow-up items for the attorney.
The analysis layer goes beyond assembly. The system classifies warrants by risk level (distinguishing an Order for Arrest from a Cite and Release), identifies probation and deferred sentence status, computes per-case and cross-county financial totals, and flags items that need manual follow-up (such as DA fees, supervision fees, and pre-2005 records that are not available online). The attorney uses the report to answer these questions: Can we bring this person before a judge safely? Can we represent them or do they need a public defender? What is the strategy for reducing their debt?
Who this serves: Reentry attorneys, paralegals, and law students at legal aid organizations, public defender offices, and pro bono clinics that help people with criminal records address outstanding fines, fees, warrants, and eligibility for expungement or record sealing.
The reentry cohort is developing the shared assets on this page. A build is under way with a legal aid reentry practice, and the cohort shapes the standards and the resources so that other jurisdictions can take what that build learns instead of starting over.