# Master Inconsistency Index — State v. Matthew James McAchran

## Cross-Reference Sources
All sources verified against: TylerTech ROA (Jul 12 pull), CaseEvents API, HAR capture, source case-summary files, attorney memorandum (May 22, 2026).

---

## TIER 1: Structural Defects (Collapse the Case)

### #1 — Offense Date 04/14 is Factually Impossible
**Found in:** All 5 charges in TylerTech, all court documents
**Reality:** Cannabis was seized ~1:48 AM on **04/15/2026** (search warrant executed after 12:33 AM warrant issuance)
**Problem:** All charges list 04/14/2026 as offense date. The controlled substance didn't exist as evidence until 04/15. Charge 5 (misdemeanor possession >½-1½ oz) lists 04/14 as offense date but has no arrest date — it was added by the DA between May 22 and May 29 after the other 4 charges were already filed with the same impossible date.
**Source:** TylerTech ROA Case Summary lines 1-5, attorney memorandum (May 22) lists only 4 charges

### #2 — 24-Day TylerTech Record Void (04/14 – 05/08)
**Found in:** TylerTech CaseEvents, Case Summary
**Reality:** Zero CaseEvents before May 8. The search warrant (EWID `3LtYfsyNDy2hxf1uHfFTW5`) exists as a cross-reference but has no CaseEvent entry. The EMS response, the alleged assault, the warrant execution, the property seizure, the victim's exoneration — none are in the official court record.
**Problem:** The government simultaneously (a) uses 04/14 as the legally operative offense date for all charges, and (b) has zero system records documenting what happened between 04/14 and 05/08.
**Source:** TylerTech CaseSummary, CaseEvents API

### #3 — Search Warrant Is an Orphan Document
**Found in:** CaseSummariesSlim cross-reference numbers
**Reality:** The search warrant has EWID `3LtYfsyNDy2hxf1uHfFTW5` but NO Criminal Process Number (CPN). It exists as a cross-reference in the case summary but was never entered as a CaseEvent. Contrast: the arrest warrant (WFA-26-303408) and release order (RO-26-311095) both have CPNs and appear as Index #1-3 in CaseEvents.
**Problem:** At the moment of execution (~1:48 AM Apr 15), the search warrant was not in the court's tracking system. It was "orphaned" until the case was filed on May 8.
**Source:** TylerTech Case Summary page 1, full pull JSON

### #4 — Charge 5 Was Added Independently by DA (Between May 22-29)
**Found in:** TylerTech ChargeID segregation, attorney memorandum
**Reality:** The attorney memorandum (dated May 22, 2026) lists only **4 charges** (3 felonies + 1 misdemeanor paraphernalia). Count 5 (Possess >½-1½ oz, M1) does NOT appear. The arrest warrant (Index #1, May 8) also lists only 4 charges. TylerTech ChargeID 115101306 is in a completely different ID block than 114885220-223 (gap of +1,016,083).
**Evidence:**
- Charge 5 has NO OffenseReportControlNumber
- Charge 5 has NO FilingAgency
- Charge 5 has NO Arrest date
- Bond explicitly covers only Counts 1, 2, 3, 4
- NCFRReason: 20513 vs null for charges 1-4
- Source case-data.json was updated to include 5 charges, but source markdown files (02-timeline.md, 04-charges.md) still say "4 charges"
**Source:** TylerTech charges table, attorney memorandum (May 22)

---

## TIER 2: Procedural Anomalies

### #5 — "Dismissed w/o Leave by DA - Per Plea Agreement"
**Found in:** Disposition lines in ROA
**Meaning:** This is NOT a unilateral dismissal by the DA. The "Per Plea Agreement" language means the dismissal was part of a negotiated resolution. For the §1983 malicious prosecution claim, this is a favorable termination but with a negotiated component that the defense may need to address.
**Source:** TylerTech Case Summary page 3

### #6 — Null Timestamps on Dispositions/Pleas/Conditions Only
**Found in:** CaseEvents API, full pull
**Reality:** DispositionEvents (2 entries), Conditions, and FinancialSummary show `Created: 01/01/0001 12:00 AM`. But CaseEvents (11 entries), Hearings (4), Parties, and Charges all have real millisecond-precision timestamps.
**Problem:** The null timestamps are NOT a system-wide failure. They are limited to the minutes/disposition subsystem. This means the substantive records of the dismissals and plea cannot be independently verified as having been entered at the time they occurred.
**Source:** CaseEvents API, full pull dates analysis

### #7 — 12-Month Review Hearing: 1-Day Date Discrepancy
**Found in:** Conditions vs. Hearings section
**Conditions say:** `12 MON: 5.21.27`
**Hearings say:** `05/20/2027 Review Hearing (9:00 AM)`
**Problem:** The court's own system disagrees with itself by one day. The 6-month review agrees (11/20/2026), but the 12-month date is inconsistent.
**Source:** TylerTech ROA Conditions and Hearings sections

---

## TIER 3: Charge Classification Issues

### #8 — Charge 2 Statute is 90-108(A)(7), Not 90-95
**Found in:** TylerTech ROA, source charges doc
**Reality:** Count 2 (Maintaining Dwelling) is under GS 90-108(A)(7), NOT under 90-95. This matters because 90-108 has different elements (requires proof the dwelling was used for keeping or selling to others, not just personal possession).
**Source:** TylerTech Case Summary, 04-charges.md

### #9 — Count 4 is M3 (Marijuana-Specific Paraphernalia), Not a Controlled Substances Charge
**Found in:** TylerTech ROA, source charges doc
**Reality:** Count 4 is under GS 90-113.22A (marijuana paraphernalia only, Class 3 misdemeanor), not GS 90-113.22 (general drug paraphernalia, Class 1 misdemeanor). The distinction matters: the charged statute is specifically limited to marijuana-related items.
**Source:** TylerTech charges table, 04-charges.md

### #10 — 3 Felonies + 2 Misdemeanors, Not "4 Felonies"
**Found in:** Multiple SPA files (summary.js, arguments, people.json) — NOW CORRECTED
**Original error:** "All 4 felony charges" described counts 1-3 (FI) + count 4 (M3). Count 4 is NOT a felony; it's a Class 3 misdemeanor.
**Correct classification:** Counts 1-3 = FI (Felony I), Count 4 = M3 (Misdemeanor 3), Count 5 = M1 (Misdemeanor 1)
**Source:** TylerTech ROA charges table

---

## TIER 4: Timeline & Event Discrepancies

### #11 — Investigation Gap: 17 Days (Apr 21 → May 8)
**Found in:** TylerTech CaseEvents, source timeline
**Reality:** No documented activity between the April 21 ultimatum and May 8 charges. This is 17 days (not 16 or 23) if you count from the last known police contact (Apr 21) to the filing (May 8).
**Different gaps in different documents:**
- Apr 15 (exoneration) → May 8 (charges): 23 days
- Apr 21 (ultimatum) → May 8 (charges): 17 days
- Apr 14 (incident) → May 8 (filing): 24 days
**Source:** Timeline comparison

### #12 — Courtroom 205 vs 308
**Found in:** TylerTech hearings
**First appearance (May 12):** Courtroom 205
**Disposition (May 29):** Courtroom 308
**Source:** TylerTech Hearing entries, attorney memorandum

### #13 — Bond $7,500 Unsecured, Excludes Count 5
**Found in:** TylerTech Case Summary
**Bond #26B100065**: $7,500 unsecured, posted May 11. Explicitly covers "Counts: 1, 2, 3, 4" — NOT Count 5.
**Source:** TylerTech Case Summary page 1-2

---

## SUMMARY OF ALL INCONSISTENCIES

| # | Inconsistency | Tier | Evidence Strength |
|---|--------------|------|-------------------|
| 1 | Offense date 04/14 vs seizure 04/15 | Structural | Conclusive |
| 2 | 24-day TylerTech record void (04/14-05/08) | Structural | Conclusive |
| 3 | Search warrant orphaned (EWID but no CaseEvent) | Structural | Conclusive |
| 4 | Charge 5 added between May 22-29 by DA | Structural | Conclusive |
| 5 | "Dismissed Per Plea Agreement" — not unilateral | Procedural | Documented |
| 6 | Null timestamps on dispositions only (others real) | Procedural | Conclusive |
| 7 | 12-month review: May 20 vs May 21 (1-day gap) | Procedural | Conclusive |
| 8 | Charge 2 is 90-108(A)(7), not 90-95 | Classification | Conclusive |
| 9 | Count 4 is M3 (marijuana paraphernalia specific) | Classification | Conclusive |
| 10 | 3 felonies + 2 misdemeanors (not "4 felonies") | Classification | Conclusive (corrected) |
| 11 | 17-day investigation gap (Apr 21→May 8) | Timeline | Conclusive |
| 12 | Courtroom 205 → 308 | Timeline | Documented |
| 13 | Bond excludes Count 5 | Procedural | Conclusive |