Los Angeles, 1956. An ambitious prosecutor’s investigation into the suspicious death of a wealthy businessman uncovers the murder of a young prostitute twenty years earlier. His suspects in both crimes: the mother of the girl he loves and his father, the Chief of the LAPD.

And I think it's always a good thing when the protagonist starts breaking rules, trespassing in other peoples' domain. And he must: the plot is a conspiracy against the protagonist. The rules, the "No trespassing" signs are designed to maintain the status quo, to stop him from achieving his objective goal.

And I think it's always a good thing when the protagonist starts breaking rules, trespassing in other peoples' domain. And he must: the plot is a conspiracy against the protagonist. The rules, the "No trespassing" signs are designed to maintain the status quo, to stop him from achieving his objective goal.

This draft of the logline seems to outline a situation in which the MC makes a discovery then the logline makes a statement about the MCs opinion of the discovery.

It doesn't outline what the main action will be that the MC will take.

Will the MC go after the mother of the girl he loves how soon after the discovery of the murder? Will the MC go after his father and how soon after the discovery? Will he search for other suspects because he refuses to accept his current suspicions?

From the way the logline reads now, the inciting incident is the discovery of the murder not the murder itself. As such his main action would be to investigate who killed her but if he already has suspects at the beginning then the "who dun it" element is diluted. Better to shroud the killer in mystery and let the reader wonder who could have killed.

Part of the fun is watching Poirot figure out the mystery than know the solution ourselves...

According to the currant draft of the logline "...the suspicious death of a wealthy businessman ..." is not relevant to the prostitute's death and his subsequent suspicions. Best to remove this from the logline and save on word count.

The location and period are also un related to the story in the logline so better not to mention them all together.

Hope this helps.

I just wrote a reply to this, but I'm not sure it posted, so I'll try it again.

Thanks for the crit, dpg. It's funny you should bring up the roles of prosecutor vis a vie the police. I have an exchange of dialogue about that in the script. The prosecutor does indeed investigate on his own, but that's obviously not being revealed in the logline. The points in your last paragraph are extremely helpful and they'll be helping to shape the next version of my logline.

Thanks for the crit, dpg. It's funny you discuss the duties of the prosecutor vis a vie the police. I have an exchange of dialogue about that. The prosecutor does indeed investigate on his own in the story, but obviously that isn't being addressed in the logline. Your last paragraph is just the kind of thing I've been hoping I could get advice on. Well, back to work.

One problem with this logline seems to be the comingling of official roles and responsibilities. Detectives investigate, collect evidence, file charges. Prosecutors try cases based on the evidence the detectives present. Prosecutors don't investigate -- it's not their job. They're lawyers; they don't have the experience, training or writ. Just as detectives don't try cases.

Prosecutors may also present evidence to a grand jury. Evidence collected by detectives.

Then there is the job of district attorney (who has prosecutors working for him); he may investigate crimes -- with the assistance of the police or sheriff.

The prosecutor can snoop around on as own, outside his job, of course. But then he's doing so as a private citizen.

So maybe your main character is an "ambitious district attorney".

Call it nit-picking if you want, but the devil is in the details and it's important to get them right in order to establish credibility and prevent readers from getting distracted from the story itself. (Like I obviously have!)

So about the story: what is the plot about? Is it about what he does after discovering these skeletons? OR: does the discovery of the real culprits (his father, the girl friend's mother) constitute the Big Reveal that solves the mystery. If it is the latter then the logline seems to be giving away the ending. Which a logline should not do.

fwiw