North Dakota charge guide
Sexual Extortion in North Dakota
North Dakota sexual-extortion cases cannot be analyzed from the label “sextortion” alone. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-12.3 separates a communication made with a prohibited coercive intent from conduct that knowingly causes a listed result. It also separates a class A misdemeanor from a class B felony according to the theory proved and, on the completed-result theory, whether the victim is a minor or vulnerable adult. The words used, the requested or caused result, the identity behind an account, the full conversation, and the victim-status evidence all matter.
You will work directly with me.
If you hire me, I will match the complaint to the exact statutory alternatives, obtain the complete communications and device evidence, test identity and authorship separately, and explain the penalty and registration consequences that actually follow from the charged subdivision. A screenshot or accusation is a starting point, not a substitute for the complete evidentiary record.
The State must identify what was intended or what was caused
Section 12.1-20-12.3 uses long lists. A defensible analysis breaks them into separate propositions rather than treating any unpleasant online exchange as sexual extortion.
- theory 1 — communication with intent
- An individual, with intent to coerce a listed outcome, communicates in person or electronically a qualifying threat or an enticement to delete a qualifying image or video.
- theory 2 — knowingly causing a result
- An individual knowingly causes a victim to perform a listed act or produce, provide, or distribute listed content—or the statute’s stated money-demand outcome—by a qualifying threat or enticement.
- Qualifying threat
- A threat to the victim’s or another person’s person, property, or reputation, or a threat to distribute an intimate image or video of the victim or another.
- Qualifying enticement
- An enticement to delete an intimate image or video of the victim or another. The words, context, proposed exchange, and speaker’s purpose require proof.
One message can raise several different questions
A message may show that words were sent without proving who sent them, what the sender intended, whether the words were a statutory threat or enticement, whether the demanded subject fit a statutory definition, or whether the communication caused a completed result. Each link needs its own evidence.
Official starting points
- N.D.C.C. § 12.1-20-12.3 — theories, classifications, and incorporated definitions.
- N.D.C.C. § 12.1-17-07.2(1) — intimate-image and sexually-explicit-conduct definitions.
- N.D.C.C. chapter 12.1-32 — penalty, probation, and registration provisions.
Offense date matters: the law took effect through 2019 S.B. 2273. The version governing the alleged conduct, later amendments, the complaint, and any incorporated definition must be checked before giving case-specific advice.
Exact statutory wording: subdivision 1(a) applies when the individual “communicates in person or by electronic means” a qualifying communication, including a “threat to the victim’s or another’s person, property, or reputation.” Quoting the text prevents a summary from narrowing or expanding the charged theory.
Who communicated?
Account access, device possession, subscriber data, and IP evidence do not always establish the author or that person’s purpose.
What was threatened?
The State must connect the actual words and context to person, property, reputation, distribution, or the deletion-enticement language.
What outcome was sought?
The alleged objective must fit sexual contact, defined conduct, specified content, an intimate image, or the statute’s money language.
Was an outcome caused?
The felony theory requires more than an attempted communication: it requires a completed statutory result and qualifying victim status.
The everyday meaning of an image is not enough
Section 12.1-20-12.3 borrows four definitions. “Sexual contact” comes from § 12.1-20-02. “Intimate image,” “sexually explicit conduct,” and “simulated sexually explicit conduct” come from § 12.1-17-07.2(1). That drafting choice matters because a prosecutor must prove the statutory category alleged, not merely that a photograph or conversation was private, embarrassing, romantic, or sexual in a broad conversational sense.
Sexual contact
The incorporated definition covers specified touching, whether or not through clothing or another covering, or specified bodily emissions upon a person, when done for the purpose of arousing or satisfying sexual or aggressive desires. A demand for ordinary contact, a nonsexual photograph, or an ambiguous statement should not be relabeled without testing the defined conduct and purpose. Conversely, the definition is broader than penetration and does not require injury.
Intimate image
Section 12.1-17-07.2 describes a visual depiction, photograph, film, video, recording, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture depicting specified exposed anatomy or sexually explicit conduct. Whether an alleged file actually depicts one of those subjects is a content question. Whether it depicts the person the State claims, whether it is authentic, altered, generated, or mislabeled, and whether the accused possessed or threatened to distribute it are different questions.
Sexually explicit and simulated conduct
The incorporated list includes actual or simulated intercourse, masturbation, bestiality, sadistic or masochistic activity, specified exhibition or touching, nudity or partial nudity, and explicit depiction of defecation or urination. Simulated conduct means a feigned or pretended act that duplicates, in an average person’s perception, the appearance of actual sexually explicit conduct. The State should identify the precise listed category rather than rely on a conclusory label.
Minor and vulnerable-adult status
Current § 14-10-01 defines minors as persons under eighteen unless otherwise specified. Reliable date-of-birth records therefore matter to the class B felony theory. Section 12.1-20-12.3 uses “vulnerable adult” but does not itself define the phrase or include an express cross-reference. Section 50-25.2-01 separately defines a vulnerable adult for that chapter as an adult with a substantial mental or functional impairment. The charging theory, proposed instruction, statutory construction, medical or functional evidence, and controlling authority must be examined before assuming that a label, diagnosis, age, guardianship, or receipt of services proves the enhancement.
A person may need assistance without meeting the governing legal standard; a diagnosis may exist without establishing its functional effect at the relevant time. Conversely, the absence of a guardianship or formal placement does not necessarily resolve capacity or impairment. Records should be interpreted by qualified witnesses and tied to the exact legal definition the court determines applies.
The complete conversation is often the central exhibit
Sexual-extortion accusations commonly begin with a screenshot, forwarded image, complaint summary, or selective export. Those formats can omit what preceded a statement, what followed it, who initiated an exchange, whether a message was edited or deleted, whether another account participated, and whether the displayed time reflects local time, server time, export time, or a device setting. A sound review seeks the native source and the complete thread.
Identity, access, and authorship are not interchangeable
A phone number registered to one person does not prove that person held the device at the relevant moment. A login from an address associated with a household does not identify the typist. Saved credentials, shared devices, linked tablets, cloud synchronization, remote sessions, account compromise, spoofed profiles, and forwarded material can complicate attribution. The investigation should compare device identifiers, login and session history, recovery records, multi-factor events, IP information, carrier and provider returns, location evidence, and the language and knowledge shown in the communication.
Authorship also matters to mental state. Even if the State can connect an account to a device, it still must prove the accused supplied the charged words and possessed the required intent or knowledge. Drafts, deleted-item artifacts, copied text, reply structure, message status, and the sequence of demands and responses can support or undermine that inference.
A threat depends on words, target, and context
The statute specifies threats to person, property, or reputation and threats to distribute an intimate image or video. A witness’s fear may be relevant context, but it does not replace the need to identify what the accused allegedly communicated. Conditional language, prediction, warning, quotation, sarcasm, negotiation, bluff, hyperbole, and a demand can carry different meanings. The analysis should not strip a phrase from the exchange or assume that every demand is itself a threat.
The statute also refers to another person’s person, property, reputation, or intimate image. A threat aimed at a family member, employer, partner, or other person may therefore fit the text, but the State still must prove the communication, statutory object, and coercive intent or completed causation. The identity of the threatened person and the accused’s knowledge about that relationship can affect context.
Enticement to delete is its own statutory language
The provision does not mention only threats to publish. It also names an enticement to delete an intimate image or video. That language can produce disputes over what was offered, whether deletion was represented as contingent on compliance, whether any image existed, whether the referenced content met the incorporated definition, and whether the statement was intended to induce one of the listed outcomes. A promise to delete, a request to exchange files, a discussion of removal, and a coercive bargain should not be treated as identical without the full record.
How the two theories change the defense
Subdivision 1(a): intent plus communication
This theory is complete when the State proves the prohibited intent and qualifying communication; it does not require proof that the recipient produced an image, engaged in conduct, paid money, or otherwise complied. That does not make intent automatic. The content, sequence, relationship, prior communications, knowledge, reactions, and objective corroboration may support competing explanations. The fact finder must decide purpose from admissible evidence rather than from the stigma of the allegation.
The subdivision expressly covers communication “in person or by electronic means.” An in-person allegation may depend heavily on witness accounts, contemporaneous reports, recordings, location, and context. An electronic allegation adds authentication, authorship, completeness, and technical questions. In either form, the State must connect the actual communication to one of the listed threats or the deletion enticement and to one of the listed objectives.
Subdivision 1(b): knowledge, result, and causal means
The second theory requires proof that the accused knowingly caused the victim to do a listed thing by means of a qualifying threat or enticement. Evidence that a result occurred does not by itself establish who caused it, what communication caused it, or the accused’s knowledge. Timing can be important: the recipient may have acted before the alleged message, for another reason, at another person’s request, or without the accused knowing the action occurred. The State’s causal narrative should be tested against the full chronology and original records.
The statute’s final “or a demand for money” wording should be quoted and matched to the charging document rather than silently rewritten. The parties should identify exactly what the State alleges the phrase modifies, what conduct constitutes the alleged result, and what threat or enticement caused it. A careful guide should flag the issue, not invent an interpretation that the statutory text or a controlling opinion has not supplied.
The class B felony enhancement is not a free-standing accusation
Class B treatment requires subdivision 1(b) conduct and a victim who is a minor or vulnerable adult. A minor victim does not turn subdivision 1(a) into a felony under the current classification text. Likewise, a completed result involving an adult who does not satisfy the vulnerable-adult standard remains a class A misdemeanor under the offense statute, although registration and other consequences may still depend on the exact theory.
Age is ordinarily documented, but identity and date records still must relate to the person alleged to be the victim. Vulnerable-adult status may require a more detailed record: the proposed legal definition, medical or functional evidence, observations close to the alleged event, the person’s actual abilities, and expert testimony where appropriate. Labels copied from service records should not substitute for the legal element.
Whether an image exists can matter without resolving the whole case
A theory involving a threat to distribute or enticement to delete content raises questions about existence, possession, access, authenticity, and the accused’s belief. The statute’s language must be applied carefully when the referenced image is fictitious, altered, synthetic, misidentified, no longer exists, or was possessed by someone else. Those facts may bear on statutory meaning, intent, impossibility, credibility, and the precise charge, but their legal effect requires offense-date authority and case-specific analysis.
Money-only allegations require special precision
Money can appear in several ways: a demand paired with a threat, an alleged payment, a refund, a fraudulent transaction, or a claimed completed outcome. Financial records can corroborate dates and account ownership, but a transfer alone does not prove the message, author, prohibited purpose, or causal link. The current registration statute separately excludes subdivision 1(b) when the offense involves only a demand for money. That makes the judgment’s factual and statutory basis important; it is not enough to call every money-related allegation either registrable or exempt.
Other charges must remain separate
The same episode may prompt allegations of criminal coercion, harassment, stalking, distribution of intimate images, exploitation, child-related offenses, theft, or federal conduct. Each has its own elements, defenses, penalties, jurisdictional rules, and potential merger questions. Evidence relevant to one count cannot automatically fill a missing element in another. Plea negotiations also need to account for registration, probation, immigration, licensing, and public-record consequences of the exact count—not merely the nominal sentence.
A screenshot is demonstrative evidence, not automatic proof of origin
N.D.R.Ev. 901 requires sufficient evidence that an item is what its proponent claims. Authentication may come from a witness with knowledge, distinctive characteristics, technical evidence, or another permitted method. It does not necessarily establish the truth of every statement, the identity of every participant, or the mental state behind the message. Those remain separate evidentiary and fact questions.
Rule 1001 recognizes electronically stored information and defines an “original” in that setting. Native data may expose information absent from a screenshot: message IDs, sender and recipient fields, creation and modification timestamps, delivery status, attachment references, edit indicators, reply relationships, and export metadata. A forensic examiner should explain what a tool actually extracted, what it did not obtain, whether timestamps were normalized, and whether deleted or synchronized content changes the apparent sequence.
Rule 106 can require related parts of a statement to be considered at the same time when fairness requires completeness. That does not make every surrounding message admissible or accurate, but it warns against presenting a cropped threat without language that explains the subject, speaker, condition, or response. The defense should identify missing periods, omitted attachments, changed usernames, alternate threads, and references that cannot be understood from a single screen.
Expert testimony under Rule 702 should be tied to a reliable method and to the limits of the available data. An examiner may be able to say a file resided on a device without determining who placed it there, viewed it, or sent it. A provider record may show an account login without proving the user at the keyboard. Image analysis may detect manipulation or generative artifacts but not identify an author. The report, underlying data, software version, settings, validation information, and reproducible steps should be obtained in discovery.
Rule 404 restricts using alleged other acts merely to prove character and action in conformity, while allowing specified noncharacter purposes subject to other rules. Similar messages, prior disputes, account history, and other images therefore require a purpose-specific analysis rather than the assumption that inflammatory content proves the charged act. Rule 412 can also restrict evidence offered about an alleged victim’s other sexual behavior or predisposition in a criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct. Its exceptions, notice, and sealed-hearing process should be addressed before disclosure or trial use.
N.D.R.Crim.P. 16 governs discovery and continuing disclosure. Requests should reach the original recordings and exports behind reports, warrants and returns, provider productions, forensic images and extraction reports, audit logs, examiner notes, payment-platform records, preservation requests, interview media, translations, and expert materials. A police summary may help locate evidence, but it is not the evidence itself.
Searches and statements can define what the jury sees
Device, cloud, and account searches require attention to the warrant language, incorporated affidavit, place or account authorized, dates and data categories, execution, return, later forensic review, and any consent or emergency theory. A technical collection may sweep far beyond the charged conversation; the constitutional and remedial issues depend on the actual documents and facts.
Statements require an equally exact chronology: custody, interrogation, Miranda warnings where required, invocation, voluntariness, promises or pressure, recording completeness, translation, and whether officers confronted the speaker with accurate or misleading technical claims. An ambiguous answer or adoption of an investigator’s wording should not be detached from the full exchange.
Authentication gate: Rule 901 governs whether the proponent has introduced enough evidence to support a finding that the message, account record, image, export, or other item is what the proponent claims.
The theory—not the “sextortion” label—controls exposure
| Proved theory | Current classification | Current statutory ceiling | Registration under current § 12.1-32-15(1)(g) |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 12.1-20-12.3(1)(a): intent plus qualifying communication | Class A misdemeanor | 360 days and $3,000, or both | Expressly excluded from the listed sexual-offender definition |
| § 12.1-20-12.3(1)(b): completed result; adult victim not proved vulnerable | Class A misdemeanor | 360 days and $3,000, or both | Included unless the offense involves only a demand for money; exact judgment and offense date control |
| § 12.1-20-12.3(1)(b): completed result; victim is a minor or vulnerable adult | Class B felony | 10 years and $20,000, or both | Included unless the offense involves only a demand for money; exact judgment and offense date control |
No offense-specific mandatory minimum appears in § 12.1-20-12.3
The offense section does not impose a single mandatory jail or prison term. That does not establish a likely sentence or eliminate another applicable statute. Criminal history, companion counts, armed-offender provisions if factually applicable, restitution, registration, victim impact, aggravating and mitigating facts, plea terms, and offense-date sentencing law must be reviewed separately.
Probation differs sharply between felony and misdemeanor theories
For a felony sexual offense under chapter 12.1-20, current § 12.1-32-06.1(4) requires at least five and not more than ten years of supervised probation after sentencing or incarceration. For a misdemeanor sexual offense under the chapter, that subsection permits additional periods of probation not exceeding two years for each additional period; subsection 6 caps total misdemeanor probation at three years. The judgment and offense-date version control.
Current § 12.1-32-07.4 generally begins with presumptive probation for a class A misdemeanor, but it excludes offenses subject to registration and allows imprisonment on specified aggravating findings, including the use of threats or coercion. A class A misdemeanor label therefore does not guarantee probation in a sexual-extortion case. Subdivision 1(a), money-only subdivision 1(b), and other subdivision 1(b) allegations may occupy different registration and sentencing positions.
Collateral consequences must be tied to an authority
A conviction may affect employment, professional licensing, caregiving eligibility, housing, education, immigration, travel, firearm rights if another disqualifying basis applies, family proceedings, protective conditions, digital access, and reputation. The precise consequence depends on the conviction, disposition, facts, governing program or license, and offense date; none should be promised or asserted as automatic without checking its source.
Current § 12.1-34-02.1, created in 2025, expressly includes a victim of § 12.1-20-12.3 within “sexual violence survivor” and supplies additional rights involving an advocate, privately retained counsel in specified law-enforcement communications, report access, and a rights document. Those victim-rights provisions do not change the offense elements or independently prove an allegation, but they can affect investigation procedure and counsel’s handling of discovery and contact.
The statute is comparatively recent
The 2019 Legislative Assembly enacted the offense through S.B. 2273. The enrolled act created the same communication and completed-result theories, class A misdemeanor and class B felony classifications, and incorporated-definition structure reflected in current § 12.1-20-12.3. It simultaneously amended § 12.1-32-15 so registration was theory-specific and amended the child-abuse definition. Conduct alleged before the enactment cannot be prosecuted under a statute that did not yet exist; conduct after enactment requires the version effective on the alleged date.
The current text remains materially aligned with the enrolled offense, but later law can change procedure and consequences without amending § 12.1-20-12.3 itself. In 2025, the Legislature created § 12.1-34-02.1 and expressly included § 12.1-20-12.3 in the sexual-violence-survivor definition. That later victim-rights provision should not be backdated or confused with an element, classification, registration rule, or evidentiary presumption.
An official North Dakota Supreme Court opinion search rechecked through October 30, 2026 did not locate a published merits decision directly construing § 12.1-20-12.3. That is a disclosed research limitation, not a representation that no unpublished order, district-court decision, analogous case, later opinion, or relevant federal authority exists. Before filing or advising, counsel should rerun the official search, review annotations, and research the particular dispute—such as threat meaning, causation, vulnerable-adult status, authentication, or registration—under controlling law.
The lack of a directly on-point published construction makes disciplined wording more important. A guide should quote the unusual statutory phrasing, distinguish what the code expressly says from inference, and avoid importing definitions from adjacent provisions whose stated scope does not reach § 12.1-20-12.3.
Frequently asked questions
Does the recipient have to comply for sexual extortion to be charged?
Not under subdivision 1(a). That theory requires the prohibited intent and qualifying communication, not a completed result. Subdivision 1(b) separately requires knowingly causing a listed result by a qualifying threat or enticement.
Is every threat for an intimate image a felony?
No. The current statute classifies subdivision 1(a) as a class A misdemeanor. Subdivision 1(b) becomes a class B felony only when the completed-result theory is proved and the victim is a minor or vulnerable adult.
What age is a minor for this enhancement?
Current § 14-10-01 states that minors are persons under eighteen unless otherwise specified. The alleged offense date, identity, and reliable date-of-birth evidence still must be checked.
Does the statute define “vulnerable adult”?
Section 12.1-20-12.3 uses the phrase but does not itself supply a definition or express cross-reference. Section 50-25.2-01 contains a definition for its own chapter. The applicable construction and evidence require legal review rather than assumption.
Does every conviction require sex-offender registration?
No. Current § 12.1-32-15(1)(g) excludes subdivision 1(a) and excludes subdivision 1(b) when the offense involves only a demand for money. Other subdivision 1(b) convictions are listed. Offense-date law and the judgment control.
Can a screenshot prove the charge?
A screenshot may be evidence, but it does not automatically prove completeness, authenticity, authorship, intent, knowledge, causation, or image status. Native data, provider records, devices, and the entire exchange may materially change the analysis.
What are the current maximum penalties?
A class B felony carries up to ten years and a $20,000 fine; a class A misdemeanor carries up to 360 days and a $3,000 fine. Section 12.1-20-12.3 states no offense-specific mandatory minimum.
What should be preserved?
Preserve the complaint, full native conversations, attachments, original devices, account and security records, payment data, referenced media, witness information, warrants, interview recordings, and victim-status records lawfully available to you. Do not alter, delete, publish, or solicit evidence.
A lawyer’s file review of Sexual Extortion in North Dakota
A useful defense analysis starts by slowing the case down. The title of the charge is not an element, and the largest number in a penalty provision is not a prediction. I read the count, the incorporated definitions, and the alleged facts side by side before I tell a client what I think.
Read the count as a set of propositions the State must prove
The right starting point for Sexual Extortion in North Dakota is N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-20-12.3, 12.1-17-07.2, and 12.1-32-15, read as it existed when the conduct allegedly occurred. I break the charge into the facts the law truly requires instead of treating the offense name as proof. Any fact that raises the degree or punishment gets its own question: who says it happened, what record supports it, and does the evidence satisfy the definition the statute uses?
I then place those answers on a timeline and test them against the complete record. A police summary may describe a witness, video, message, test, or prior conviction, but the underlying source matters more than the summary. Gaps, inconsistencies, and legal objections should be evaluated separately so that a real weakness is not confused with a technical complaint that has no remedy.
The evidence I would ask for first
For Sexual Extortion in North Dakota, I would not begin with a canned list of defenses. I would begin with the source file: every recorded interview, complete message and social-media exports, device-extraction reports and underlying data, provider records, medical or forensic records, location information, witness timelines, prior statements, and the material needed to evaluate consent, age, authority, force, coercion, identification, and the scope of any search. A police summary can identify what an officer or witness says happened, but it cannot substitute for the recording, photograph, data, or document being summarized. The same is true of a complaint. It identifies the prosecution’s theory at the start of the case; it does not prove the theory.
I put those materials on one chronology. That lets me see what was known at each decision point, which account was contemporaneous, what appeared only after people spoke with one another, and where the record is silent. It also keeps an admissibility question separate from a factual one. A fact can be disputed even if the evidence was lawfully obtained. Evidence can also be accurate yet inadmissible for a particular purpose. Those are different arguments and should not be blurred together.
Read the charging document against the offense date
The alleged date matters because statutes, penalty thresholds, definitions, sentencing rules, and published decisions change. I save the version in force on that date and read the session-law history when the current online text is different. I also check whether a later amendment was merely clarifying or made a substantive change; that is a legal question, not an assumption. The same discipline applies to prior convictions and administrative events. A prior must fit the definition the charged statute actually uses, fall within any stated lookback period, and be proved by a reliable record.
I then compare the formal count with the probable-cause narrative and the discovery. If the prosecution’s theory shifts, I want the amended pleading and enough detail to prepare. If several factual alternatives are alleged, I identify whether they are separate elements, alternative means, enhancement facts, or merely evidentiary details. That distinction affects notice, motions, jury instructions, unanimity arguments, and how a verdict form should be read.
Separate an evidentiary weakness from a suppression issue
Not every troubling fact produces a motion to suppress. Suppression ordinarily requires a constitutional, statutory, or rule-based violation with a remedy that reaches the evidence at issue. A weak identification, an incomplete investigation, or a witness inconsistency may be powerful at trial without making evidence inadmissible. By contrast, a stop, search, interrogation, identification procedure, warrant, or test can raise a legal issue even when the resulting evidence appears incriminating. I analyze both tracks and do not promise dismissal simply because one problem exists.
For a search issue, I reconstruct what officers knew before each intrusion and what authority they claimed. For a statement, I examine custody, questioning, warnings, voluntariness, recording, and the complete context. For scientific or technical evidence, I request the method, underlying data, quality-control material, uncertainty information, and chain of custody. For hearsay or confrontation questions, I identify the actual statement, its purpose, the declarant, and the proposed foundation. Specificity matters; “the evidence is bad” is not a motion.
Prepare negotiation and trial at the same time
A plea decision should be compared with the case the State could present at trial, not with the complaint’s maximum penalty in isolation. I want to know the strongest admissible proof, the weakest required element, the realistic motion practice, the likely instructions, and the consequences of every proposed disposition. That includes custody, probation, treatment, restitution, driving, firearm restrictions, registration, employment or licensing, immigration consultation, family-court effects, and record consequences when they are actually triggered. I avoid telling a client that every collateral consequence applies to every conviction.
Trial preparation gives negotiation its credibility. Witness interviews, exhibit review, motions in limine, expert consultation, demonstrative evidence, jury instructions, and a clean theory of the case force both sides to confront what can be proved. Negotiation can continue while that work is underway. The two tracks are not opposites.
A case-law point worth keeping in its proper place
Appellate decisions matter, but a quotation should not be detached from the issue the court was deciding. In State v. Hartson, 2024 ND 78, ¶ 26, the North Dakota Supreme Court explained that, on a sufficiency challenge, “we do not weigh conflicting evidence, or judge the credibility of witnesses.” That is an appellate-review rule, not a reduction of the State’s burden at trial. At trial, the prosecution still must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. I cite the case for the point it actually decided and then return to the charged statute, the instructions, and the admissible evidence in the present file.
What I would want you to understand before choosing an outcome
You should be able to identify the exact charge, the facts that set its level, the disputed elements, the evidence that matters most, the motions that have a legal basis, the realistic trial issues, and the concrete effect of each proposed resolution. If an answer depends on a missing report, recording, expert opinion, or certified record, I will say so. An honest answer about what remains unknown is more useful than a confident guess.