In Summation - The Final Word

OJ Simpson's arrest and trial captivated the country.  Dubbed the "trial of the century," the 1995 spectacle grabbed eyeballs with gavel to gavel coverage for approximately 10 months.  The trial was packed with celebrity, DNA evidence, grusome crime scene photos, a massive fall from grace, racial tensions, devastating cross-examinations, jury field trips, and more.Since I couldn't possibly cover this massive case all on my own, I bring in special guest and attorney friend Anna Gorisch to help parse through the issues and cultural import of the moment.  Thanks Anna!Enjoy!

Lawyers, like other professionals, tend to use a lot of industry terms which don't make sense to the average person.  Sometimes, those terms pop up in artcles and media describing a case, without explanation (often because the journalists themselves do not fully understand what they mean).Today, we discuss the term collateral estoppel, and what it means in a legal context.  Enjoy.

Welcome back.  In this brief episode, Paul digs into the difference between the terms decriminalization and legalization.  They are frequently used interchangeably by people who do not fully appreciate the difference.At the end of this In Summation Explains episode, you will come away with a deeper understanding of just what it means when the government decriminalizes, or legalizes, certain behaviors.Enjoy.

In the second installment of In Summation Explains, Paul explains what happens when someone undoes the wrong they caused before they get caught, and whether that is a defense to any potential liability after the fact.If you like this new format, write in and make your voice heard.  Paul hopes you enjoy it and write in with more questions to answer.

What does habeus corpus mean? how does it work? what does it actually do?  In this new segment of In Summation, Paul explains specific legal terms and areas of law which confuse people.  This is going be based mostly on listener feedback, so if you are curious about a legal latin phrase, or legal theory, write in and Paul may explain it for you.Please leave feedback if you like this particular type of episode.  Paul is trying to expand content and answer some listener questions and this seemed like the best way to accomplish both of those things.  If you enjoy it, let us know.

In this episode, recurring guest Adam Uris and I discuss the recent New York prosecution of Daniel Penny, the 24 year old marine corps veteran who killed Jordan Neely on the subway after Neely was aggressive and threatening to other passengers. Was this done in defense of subway riders?  Did Penny go too far?  Was the homicide justified or criminal?  Adam and Paul discuss the culteral and legal aspects of the case and trade ideas on whether this case ever should've been brought, how the missteps of certain parties affected the outcome, and why the jury ultimately came to the decision they did.

Hello All,At the end of October there was a whirlwind of activity in the Young Thug trial down in Fulton County Georgia.  All of a sudden, in the span of one week, multiple defendants opted to take a plea after nearly two years at trial.Listen to the breakdown of how the circus put on by the Fulton County DA came to an end, the contours of the plea, and make the decision for yourself whether it was the right way for Jeffery Williams to end his involvement in this proceeding.Since the recording of the episode, the remaining two defendants still on trial finally got their verdicts.  One was convicted of a single crime, the other was acquitted.  Paul still holds to the belief that Williams would have been convicted of at least something, which would likely have landed him with some additional jail time.Paul hopes this brings some clarity to a commonly misunderstood area of criminal practice.

The wait is over and In Summation - The Final Word is back.At the request of a listener (thanks Ben!), in this episode we tackle a case which has really become THE case that people bring up when discussing how litigious American people are.  We've all heard the story of the woman who spilled McDonald's hot coffee on herself and sued the company for millions.But as you'll see, the narrative of what really happened to Stella Liebeck, the plaintiff in that suit, has dramatically changed over time.  She has gone from being the victim to a greedy opporuntist who manipulated a broken court system for her own personal gains.Before you make any judgments, listen to what really happened, and how Liebeck's life changed as a result of this case.As this is a civil case and I do not frequently litigate in the civil courts, Paul asks for a bit of understanding if you have additional questions.  He will, as always, respond, but if it requires additional research on his end it may not be as quick as listeners are accustomed to.Sit back and enjoy.

Hello Loyal Listeners,In Summation returns with a thorough explanation of one of the most truly absurd cases to take place in recent memory.  Rapper/Hip Hop artist Young Thug burst into the music industry around 2013 and quickly became one of the most fresh and innovate voices in the genre.  He did several collaborations with world famous talent and his star was rising.  After his first studio album went platinum, it seemed as though he was solidying himself with serious potential for a long career.He had his own Atlanta based rap label, "YSL," which also showcased several of his friends and associates who also rapped and produced albums and mixtapes.  YSL expanded to create and promote a very popular clothing line in the fashion industry.  Young Thug went from growing up in abject poverty, to being wildly successful.But not everyone believed this meteoric rise to fame and prominence was done within the confines of the law.  Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and the Atlanta PD accused YSL of being a violent street gang, and claim Young Thug is the leader.  He was arrested in May 2022 and, as of September 2024, is still in custody.Listen as Paul describes the absolute farce of a trial put on in Fulton County.  This episode contains a thorough explanation of RICO, ethics, misconduct, overtrying a case, and the intersection of free speech and expression, specifically in the music industry, with criminal prosecutions.  There are times when no hollywood screenwriter could ever capture the absurdity of real life, and the trial of Jeffery Williams is one of those times.  Strap in and get ready, you will not believe what is happening in Georgia.

At this point, it's become difficult to keep track of all the different places that former (and possibly future) President Donald Trump has been indicted.  To recap: he has been indicted in New York County by District Attorney Alvin Bragg.  That case has already gone to trial and he was convicted of nearly three dozen counts of falsifying business records in an attempt to cover up another crime.  That is NOT the case we discuss today.He's also been indicted in Fulton County, Georgia, on state RICO charges.  That office appears to be in a bit of a shamble as 7 months into a different RICO trial, against Young Thug, the wheels have fallen off, 2 judges have been on-and-off the case, and a mistrial seems pretty likely at this point.  This is also NOT the case covered by today's episode.There is also the case in the Middle District of Florida Federal Court regarding Trump's possession of, and refusal to return, certain classified documents.  That case was recently dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon.  That is also NOT the case we are discussing.Today's case concern's allegations that Donald Trump attempted to use various unlawful means to subvert the election, prevent the peaceful transfer of power, and deprive ordinary citizens in several states of their right to make their voice heard in our government through voting.Chances are you are at least somewhat familiar with this indictment, but do you really know what Trump is accused of doing?  In this episode, Paul breaks down the indictment so you can understand what the Government has claimed Trump actually did to break the law, and Paul also discusses the recent decision on Presidential Immunity from the Supreme Court, as neither Trump, nor the Government, got the decision they wanted.  But if Trump lost in that hearing, why are so many commentators losing their mind over the decision?  Listen and find out.This will be part 1, as there was a lot to cover and the case is now set to go to trial, so stay tuned as (maybe) a trial episode will be coming later on!Hope you enjoy.

Hello everyone, I've missed you.Due to a confluence of factors which I won't waste time or energy going into here, we had a slightly longer hiatus than I expected, but we are back and I expect the content to be a little more regular going forward.This episode is meaningful for a number of reasons.  First, I bring on my law partner, Bob Gottlieb of Robert C. Gottlieb and Associates, to discuss the issues surrounding the Crumbley case.  Second, while we agree on some of the guideline principles, we do not see perfectly eye to eye on this prosecution.  You asked for more viewpoint diversity and variety.  I deliver.  Third, this is truly a fascinating case because it revisits some of the topics we've discussed in previous episodes, but in a new way.In late November 2021, James and Jennifer Crumbley bought their 15 year old son, Ethan, a Sig Sauer pistol as an early Christmas present.  In Oxford, Michigan, where they lived, this was not uncommon or out of the ordinary.  Ethan took the requisite safety courses, went to the gun range with his mother, had no history of violence, and was not a problem at school.Regardless, a few days after the pistol was given to him as a gift (though still supposed to be locked in a safe by his parents), Ethan brought both the gun and ammunition to his high school, and killed four people.Ethan pleaded guilty in October 2022 to all the charges and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole as a 16 year old.  But the county prosecutor went on and charged his parents, Jennifer and James Crumbley with manslaughter for their role in facilitating the shooting.  The prosecution argued that the parents knew, or at least should have known, that giving their mentally disturbed 15 year old a gun would result in a school shooting.We tackle the question of when a parent can be liable for the acts of their child, especially if the child has already been found fully liable for those acts themselves, and to what degree a parent needs to be fully aware of what is going on their child's life.  When does negligent parenting become accessory to homicide?Paul and Bob hope you enjoy the conversation.

Welcome Back Listeners!In this episode of In Summation, Paul discusses a horror movie turned real life.  Inspired by the 1996 horror classic, Scream, Brian Draper and Torey Adamcik donned ghostface masks, black robes, and hunting knives to murder their high school classmate and friend, Cassie Jo Stoddart.  Not only did they stab her 30 times while she was alone, house sitting for relatives, but they filmed themselves talking about the act before, and after, the crime.We look how two teenagers can sink to such moral depravity.  We talk through interrogation techniques, and how good investigators narrow their focus on leads and ask the right questions.  We discuss how and when a judge might decide to hold two trials, trying each defendant separately, instead of at the same time.  And we answer one of the most common, and difficult, questions about being a defense attorney, "how can you defend awful people who have done such awful things?"Strap in Slasher Flick fans, because this installment shows how real life puts Hollywood to shame.  Enjoy!

Remember Full House?  Remember how wholesome and family-friendly it was?  Remember Aunt Becky?  She was married to Uncle Jesse.  She was part of that wave of television which instilled good family values and strong moral character while still being funny and entertaining...life before the OC.But despite Lori Loughlin's fairly robust acting career, she found herself on the wrong side of the law.  In this episode, Paul breaks down the largest college admissions scandal in US history.  The "Varsity Blues" case showcased everything wrong with how rich, entitled people could manipulate and cheat the system to get their kids into the higher education programs of their choice.  There was no trial here, everyone in the case pleaded guilty, so this episode is a little different.  But most cases don't go to trial, the vast majority of prosecutions end up in guilty pleas.  Without getting into the weeds on whether that, in and of itself, is an issue we need to remedy, this case presents a look at the common situation of what you do when you have one legal argument to make, and it doesn't work.  When a defense lawyer sees one avenue to getting a case dismissed, and the judge disagrees, sometimes the best advice you can give to a client is, know when to take a deal and reduce your punishment.This case is also interesting because of the unique nature of the deal that Loughlin got.  Listen and enjoy!

The 1990's were filled with high profile criminal trials for some of the most famous entertainers in the world.  Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson headlined a list of extremely public trials, mostly centered in California.One case which seems to be getting lost amidst this glut of criminal prosecutions is the murder charge brought against a young up-and-coming gangster rap artist named Calvin Broadus, who adopted the stage name Snoop Doggy Dogg.A few months prior to the release of his first studio album, Broadus was arrested for the murder of rival gang member Philip Woldemariam.  He, along with his bodyguard Malik Lee, argued that Woldemariam was shot and killed in self-defense during an altercation in a public park in Los Angeles. In this episode we discuss affirmative defenses, stand your ground laws, and what happens when a jury deadlocks on only some charges, but arrives at a verdict on others.Paul hopes you enjoy this throwback!

Hello again friends and family,Bucking a recent trend of recent cases, today we head back roughly 140 years to Chicago in the 1880s.  This is another case where a person or group's personal ideology was put on trial instead of the men and their individual actions themselves.  It's a cautionary tale on what our justice system could become if we aren't vigilant in preventing it.  Chicago during the industrial revolution was a tense time.  The working class was always looking for more from the captains of industry who owned the factories they worked in.  Sometimes, if they felt that the pay or benefits they received was so substandard they couldn't take it anymore, they would go on strike.This case tells the story of one such strike.  A group of socialist anarchists were asked to come in and give speeches to rally the striking workers.  When they did so, a minor clash ensued between the striking men and the replacement labor the owners had brought in to try to break the strike.  During the skirmish, police opened fire on the strikers, killing several men.  The following day a protest was organized to shed light on the brutality of the Chicago PD.  At the very conclusion of the protest, despite its peaceful nature, the police descended on the men and ordered them to disperse.  At that point, a bomb was thrown at the line of police officers, killing one man.  Chaos and a riot ensued with the police opening fire and many men getting killed.In response, the police arrested the organizers of the event, despite no evidence they threw the bomb or even advocated for any violence that day.  This is the story of their show trial, and why it's so important to make sure we uphold the rights of people with whom we disagree.Enjoy!

Greetings friends of In Summation - The Final Word.Today's episode explores the unusual trial of Jamell Demons, aka YNW Melly, who was charged with the double murder of his close friends in what prosecutors claimed was staged to look like a drive-by shooting.This case has it all: gang members, rap stars, lyrics about murder, unusual crime scene forensics, GPS location evidence, petty thin-skinned lawyers, and a lot of question marks left over at the end.Listen and get a little perspective on the lives of Florida gang members, rap collectives, the failure to conduct a thorough investigation, and how free expression through rap lyrics can find their way into criminal cases.

Welcome back one and all.  In this installment of In Summation - The Final Word, Paul breaks down one of the elements of the 6th Amendment confrontation clause.  Generally speaking, a criminal defendant has the right to confront an accuser, or someone producing evidence or testimony against them.  This is the basis for the rule against using hearsay at trials.In our case today, Mark Jensen was accused of murdering his wife, Julie.  Julie had become increasingly suspicious of Mark in the time period leading up to her death and had given her neighbors a letter, which she instructed them to give to the police if anything happened to her.  When she was found dead, the neighbors gave the police the letter which strongly indicated that law enforcement should investigate Mark should anything happen to her.Listen to the breakdown of how these issues played out, as several Supreme Court decisions altered the legal landscape while this case was pending.Additionally, Paul goes into the logistical issues for a prosecutor who has to retry a case 15 years after the initial trial.

Greetings and welcome back to In Summation - The Final Word.  In this episode, Paul explores one of the select carve outs to the 1st Amendment's guarantee to free speech.  With several very high profile cases on this topic in the last few years, it felt worthwhile for Paul to go through what defamation is, how it works, and why this particular brand of speech can be regulated.To really explore this topic, we examine one of the most heartbreaking series of events in recent memory.  On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza went on a horrific and destructive killing spree at an elementary school in Newton, Connecticut.  He ultimately killed 26 people, and ruined the lives of hundreds more.  The country mourned the senseless loss of life and the event was front and center on national media for weeks.But then, a whisper of dissent began.  A voice started to challenge the narrative.  One person began to loudly assert that what we all thought we knew about the Newton Elementary School shooting was wrong.  He started claiming that the whole event was a staged government production intended to spur support for gun control regulation.  He said no one actually died and the people interviewed were actually "crisis actors."That man was Alex Jones.  Jones launched a years-long assault through his growing media empire against the people who lost their children, and his supporters heard him and took some of the most offensive actions you can imagine.  The parents of murdered children were harassed, followed, doxxed, threatened, and basically made to relive the worst moments of their life in despicable ways.  Finally,  the parents of 6 year old Jesse Lewis had had enough.  Neil Heslin and Scarlet Lewis filed a defamation suit against Jones in what would set off a cascade of defamation lawsuits and would cripple Jones' "InfoWars" radio and internet show.  Listen to how it all unfolded here.

The long hiatus is over.  Paul's trial in upstate New York is over and there are many cases to discuss on the horizon.  For the grand return after an exhausting and stressful fight over a murder case, Paul is back discussing the two seminal cases on one of American culture's biggest lightning rods.  We're going to discuss the arguments for and against a constitutional right to an abortion.First we will discuss the case that really started it all, Roe v. Wade.  We are going to dive deep into the decision, what does it actually say, and what doesn't it say.  What was the justification used to develop a right to an abortion, and were those arguments grounded on solid constitutional jurisprudence.Then we fast forward the clock roughly 50 years and look at the case which undid it all, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.  We're going to examine why the Supreme Court did a complete about face, how significant it was to overrule the precedent set, and how the Supreme Court felt about the legal reasoning from the 1970s.  We'll also examine whether the dissent makes valid points about how this ruling might open the door to a lot of other challenges which may cause people some great concern.Paul hopes that if nothing else, after this episode you'll be able to fully comprehend why the decisions went the way they did, even if you don't agree with the legal reasoning behind them.

Greetings one and all!  Thank you so much to the fans and supporters of this fine program as we hit the milestone 50th episode.  Paul cannot thank you enough for the comments, the engagement, and the interest.  It keeps him going.This episode is special to Paul.  He wanted to do something a little more robust for the occasion.  Here, we are going to be examining a truly remarkable trial.  It's interesting not just for the legal issues which came up, and many fascinating legal issues did arise, but moreso because in this trial, the Commonwealth of Virginia sought to try not only a man, but an idea, abolitionism.  Virginia was so incensed by the actions of one man John Brown, who raided Harper's Ferry in what was then still a part of Virginia, that they wanted to crush not only his physical body, but also the ideology which led him to do it.In this episode, Paul looks at what happens when prosecutors attempt to put an idea on trial, as well as what drives a man to actions which he is reasonably certain will lead to his own execution.John Brown was a prominent abolitionist, he came from a fairly wealthy and respectable family initially, but through sickness and the death of his wife, he fell on hard times.  Regardless, from a young age he worked tirelessly to end the scourge of slavery in the United States.  Disgusted by the inaction of the federal government on the issue, he elected to take matters into his own hands and spart a slave revolution which he hoped would lead to a moses-like exodus of slaves from southern states into a new paradise he would create for them.To accomplish this, he and 21 other men raided the armory at Harper's Ferry, Virginia, with the intention to send the arms there to grassroots rebellions throughout the south.  His plan did not succeed in the literal sense, but in putting him on trial, Virginia made him a martyr and spread his message farther than Brown himself ever could have hoped.Paul really hopes you enjoy this episode, if you do, please subscribe and leave a positive comment or send feedback.  Thank you all again for the continuing support!

This episode needs very little introduction.  The trial of Alex Murdaugh in the South Carolina Lowcountry was a national phenomenon.  All major news outlets covered the story and the trial.  Alex Murdaugh came from an incredibly prestigious legal family in South Carolina.  His father's family had held solicitor (prosecutor) positions in their judicial circuit court for 87 years.  He inherited a profitable personal injury law firm on top of that.  He had a blond socialite wife, two perfect sons, and seemed to living the American dream.  He was rich, famous, powerful, and influential.But Murdaugh had a secret.  Followinga knee injury in the early 2000's he became seriously addicted to opioid pain killers.  His addiction cost him everything.  he stole from his clients, lost his law license, his wife and youngest son are killed, and he is he target of a failed murder attempt himself.Hear how this titan of the South Carolina legal scene fell from the highest high to the lowest low.  In this episode, Paul breaks down how a defendant's motive fits into a criminal trial, he also explains how attorneys view the bond created by taking on the representation of an individual, and he tries to explain why it's not terribly surprising that after a 6 week trial, the jury deliberated for under 3 hours.Listen and enjoy! 

What is "fraud?"  How does it work?  What are the recourses of someone who has been defrauded?  Is fraud always criminal?In today's episode, Paul dives into healthcare fraud.  Philip Esformes set up an elaborate scheme which triggered federal agencies like Medicare and Medicaid to pay his companies, and so, him, vast amounts of money.  But the money wasn't actually going to treatment or services, Esformes was just making up fake billing reports, and then making/taking kickbacks to/from other vendors for other services that were either unnecessarily expensive or simply never happened to sweeten the deal even further.Listen as we discuss the arguments made at trial, why our federal government takes theft from its own coffers so seriously, and what happens when prosecutors abuse their significant powers and seize information which should be protected by a legal privilege.But then there is more.  This case presents a unique opportunity for us to really explore the distinction between a presidential pardon as opposed to when the president commutes a person's sentence.  To further make this case fascinating, we will look at the unique set of events which is leading the federal government to attempt to put Esformes back on trial after former President Trump let him out of jail.Listen and enjoy!  

Friend of the show Adam Uris returns to discuss the Waukesha, Wisconsin Christmas Parade Tragedy and ensuing prosecution of Darrell Brooks, the man who drove his red Ford Escape right through the parade.  Brooks killed 6 people and injured over 60 more.This episode touches on a number of really fascinating legal topics.  Paul and Adam discuss the difference between competency to stand trial and the legal definition of insanity, what a defendant has to establish to show insanity, and what a defense attorney can do when a defendant does not want to go along with an insanity defense.Brooks also chose to represent himself, so there is an interesting intersection explored between mental illness and self-representation.There is also a more global discussion about faith in the institution of the judiciary, whether it's eroding, and if so, why that's happening.  Adam and Paul each give their opinions on how culture affects the criminal justice system and what improvements can be made to achieve a more just institution.Hope you enjoy!

In the 1950's and 60's, Lenny Bruce was a transformative figure in the world of comedy.  He was hip, brash, unfiltered, and...obscene?  His biting social commentary made some people uncomfortable, and many felt that the words he used violated certain laws which regulated speech which may have the tendency to corrupt or degrade morals.In this episode, Paul breaks down governmental intervention in the realm of free speech.  He explains the progression of speech protections over the past several decades, and examines how the attempted regulation of speech has migrated from topic to topic based on the changing mores of society.The prosecution of Lenny Bruce in many ways draws eerie parallels to attempts to silence opponents today, and it was no less offensive.  The idea that a person can be criminally prosecuted and potentially sentenced to jail for making jokes at a venue people have to pay to attend simply because the humor is graphic in nature, or discusses certain taboo topics, is unconscionable.In today's world, it seems evident that nobody should be arrested for profane comedy.  But let's all keep in mind that those same feelings should extend to all other areas of speech as well, and that profanity doesn't lose its protection simply because we no longer find it funny. Enjoy!

A lot of listeners have asked In Summation to publish an episode on impeachment.  Paul thought it only fitting that episode 45 be the one to cover impeachment seeing as how our 45th president has the dubious distinction of being the most impeached president in American history.In this episode, Paul explains the historical background of impeachment, the circumstances in which it arises, why it has never actually removed a sitting president, and why the apparent use of impeachment as nothing more than a political tool is setting the trajectory towards places we should not go.As always, this podcast does not seek to take sides in any political battles.  To the extent that anything said in the episode comes off as supporting one party, or the impeachment of any particular president, it was not meant to convey such a feeling.If you enjoy, please rate and subscribe. 

Does the death penalty work?  Does the threat of the death penalty work?  Is it a deterrent to murder or other serious crimes?  When and how does a person get put on death row?In this episode, Paul breaks down the unique case of Nikolas Cruz, the teenager who killed 17 people on Valentine's Day, 2018, at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.  There was no question that Cruz was the individual responsible for the most egregious school shooting massacre to date in the United States.  But did he deserve to be executed for it?  Prosecutors and family members of the victims thought so.In this episode, Paul explains the special process by which the state attempts to execute someone, what showings have to be made and how the prosecution and defense teams in Cruz's case pushed their narratives and argued their cases.Enjoy. 

This is a unique episode for a number of reasons.First, this is the first case Paul has covered which is technically still ongoing.  There is hope that it may be brought to a just resolution in early 2023, but there is no way to know for certain just yet.Second, the fact pattern and procedural history of this case is more absurd than anything coming out of Hollywood.This is a longer monologue episode, and that is after much time was spent determining the most salient and important points to make for the purposes of this podcast.  Paul believes the content of this episode speaks for itself, and encourages anyone who is interested in learning more or helping seek justice for Keith Davis, Jr. to reach out to Campaign Zero by going to https://campaignzero.org/#vision.Paul hopes that this case brings to light not only the plight of Keith Davis, Jr. and the corruption of Baltimore County State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby, but also highlights that situations like this do exist, we just don't hear about them because they don't make for good primetime news.  But they deserve to be shared, and the public deserves to know, because sunlight is the best disinfectant, and only by showing things as they actually are can we take the necessary steps to make them better.

Special Guest Adam Uris is back!  In this episode, Adam and Paul discuss The Preppy Murder, one of the most notorious trials in American history.In 1986 the body of recent high school graduate Jennifer Levin was found in Central Park. There was evidence that she had recently had intercourse and that she had been strangled.  The investigation quickly narrowed in on Robert Chambers, a 19 year old upper east sider.  Chambers was tall, handsome, put together, and quite possibly a sociopath.Listen as Adam and Paul break down the most sensational case in the United States until the OJ Simpson trial, laying out how the defense strategy of using the media worked to Chamber's advantage and how the prosecution's hands were tied perhaps a bit more than would be considered fair by a judge's routinely questionable rulings.  This case has it all, high society, sex, drugs, murder, media sensationalism, and Dorrians Red Hand , an upper east side staple for underage alcohol abuse for decades.

No matter how successful someone becomes, there is always the chance of flying a little too close to the sun and having the heat melt the wax holding your makeshift wings together.  The same fate that befell Icarus happened to superstar celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti.Avenatti rose to national fame by representing some of the biggest names in celebrity.  Athletes, entertainers (adult and otherwise), major corporations, you name it, Avenatti aggressively pursued their interests.When someone who fueds publicly with a sitting President and goes toe to toe with Supreme Court nominees falls from grace, the resulting splash is spectacular.  In the case of Michael Avenatti, nearly everyone knows that he has been convicted of federal crimes, but a lot of people are unable to really fully explain what he did.This case digs into Avenatti's federal prosecution for charges that he attempted to extort Nike using compromising information which he received from a client.  Further, Avenatti was convicted of essentially agreeing to represent that client, taking that information, and then trying to use it for his own personal financial gain as opposed to his client's best interest.Listen as Paul breaks down extortion, honest services fraud, conspiracies and substantive crimes while looping in the Interstate Commerce Clause to explain federal jurisdiction. As always, please send any and all feedback, Paul responds to every message he gets as quickly as possible!

Hello Listeners,In this installment of In Summation, Paul brings on special guest host Andrew Heaton of the Political Orphanage podcast to discuss the recent Supreme Court decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton.What ensues is a great conversation about the First Amendment, specifically the negative and positive rights associated with religious liberty in America.  Where is the line between accommodating the free exercise of religion by a state actor and condoning a state-sanctioned religion?  Joseph Kennedy was an assistant high school football coach for the Bremerton School District in Washington State.  A devoutly religious man, he would kneel in prayer at the 50-yard line after football games while the students were singing the school fight song, speaking with their friends/family, or heading back to the locker room.  This practice became a problem for the school district, who felt that Kennedy's actions were likely violating the establishment clause.  When he refused to cease, or change the time or manner in which he prayed, he was ultimately fired, and this law suit resulted.The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, who had to grapple with the lines between an individuals right to freely exercise their religious practices and the prohibition of any sort of state-sanctioned religion.We hope you enjoy this deep dive into the legal arguments and merits of the ultimate decision!

In Summation is back!!!!  After a lengthy hiatus caused by a complex murder trial in New York we have finally returned to provide you with more insights into current legal issues, allowing you to amaze your friends and family with keen insights and deep knowledge.In this episode, we consider the case(s) of Merle Denezpi.  This was a Supreme Court case decided in the October 2021 term, so alongside the likes of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health and Kennedy v. Bremerton.  Accordingly, it got very little media attention because of the other blockbuster decisions.But I think the Denezpi case is truly significant, and here is why.  Most Americans have a passing understanding of the concept of double jeopardy.  If for no other reason than there was a 1999 movie with Ashley Judd and Tommie Lee Jones of that name which loosely touched upon the issue...But the basic concept is that the government (be it state or federal) cannot prosecute the same individual multiple times for the same criminal act.  The district attorney cannot bring you to trial, lose, and turn around and charge you again to start the process over.Denezpi is a Native American, and while on Native American land, he was accused of sexually assaulting a traveling companion.  He was tried in a tribal court, established by the federal government.  He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 140 days jail.  After his sentence was up, he was re-arrested for the exact same actions and put on trial in federal court, where he was then sentenced to 30 years.  That's right 140 days to 30 years.The question is, was it wrong for the Department of Justice to re-arrest and re-prosecute Denezpi after he had already been convicted and served time for this crime?Listen to the as Paul explains the legal history of double jeopardy, when does it apply and when has the Supreme Court determined a second prosecution is permissible.Also a special thanks to Eric Stipe, who has come to take over responsibilities as audio engineer for the show!  Much appreciated.

Sometimes, when we fulfill our commitment to abiding by the bill of rights, it means we end up protecting the rights of people to say or do things that make us uncomfortable.  Perhaps the greatest example of this is free speech.  It is incumbent on all citizens to ensure that speech remains free, but in doing that, it necessarily requires the average person to affirm the rights of people to say things that we, as a society, do not necessarily like.In this episode, Paul breaks down the case of Eugene Debs.  Debs was a nationally renowned socialist agitator.  He spoke out in the early 20th century against WWI and advocated for peaceful government change to a populist/socialist order.  President Woodrow Wilson's department of justice had instituted the Espionage Act, which criminalized speaking out publicly against the war or the draft.Join the discussion about why free speech matters, why it is not a partisan issue, and why it is so fundamentally important for people to be able to speak their mind and conscience without fear that a government agency will jail them for it.  The Espionage Act represents one of the most unamerican pieces of legislation we have ever passed, and it is still on the books.  Listen to why it was so dangerous, how Eugene Debs stood up for the right to speak his mind, and why we should all encourage an open and robust marketplace of ideas rather than government approved speech.

Special Guest Episode!In this episode, Paul brings on seasoned sex crimes prosecutor and dynamic defense attorney (and wife) Sarena Townsend to discuss the RICO prosecution of R&B superstar R. Kelly.Wait...RICO?  Yes, RICO.  R. Kelly was accused of committing sex abuse and sex crimes in several states a in time period spanning roughly 20 years.  But rather than charge Kelly with the individual sex offenses in state court, Kelly was charged in Brooklyn federal court with RICO under the theory that he and his entourage were a criminal enterprise created for the purpose of grooming and abusing young women.Paul and Sarena break down the allegations and specific charges, and then discuss the propriety of the federal RICO charge and how fame and notoriety may have affected the prosecution decisions.  So often on this show, we discuss how narratives are presented, and who has a better, more compelling, story for the jury.  Listen to the arguments that were made, and why the defense was ultimately not as persuasive as the prosecution.Thanks so much for listening, and if you have any feedback for the show, please send any thoughts to Paul at insummationpodcast@gmail.com, @insummationpod on twitter, or insummation on instagram.  Paul does his best to respond to all messages as quickly as possible and genuinely loves it when listeners reach out.Enjoy!

Welcome back, friends of the show.  In this episode, we look at the Breonna Taylor raid in Jefferson County, Kentucky.  We are NOT examining the officer who fired the shot which ultimately killed Taylor, that officer was never indicted.  However, another officer at the scene, Brett Hankison, discharged his firearm approximately 10 times through Taylors living room wall, into her neighbor's apartment, where a couple and their young child were sleeping.As a result, Officer Hankison was arrested and charged with three counts of Wanton and Reckless Endangerment.This episode had so much to talk about I had to bring in a special guest.  My former colleague at the DA's office and friend, Adam Uris, comes on the show to talk search warrants, trial strategy, and the effect of national attention on juror's sensibilities.  It's a really great discussion and I encourage you to rate and share if you enjoy it.Thanks for listening!

Hello friends of the show!This episode comes as a recommendation from my wife, Sarena, who thought it would be interesting to take a look at the first case in American history where the prosecutor used DNA evidence.  It turns out this was a fascinating case which took place in Florida (of course it did).  It involved the same prosecutor who tried the Casey Anthony case, and the defense attorney was actually involved in the George Zimmerman trial, so there is a lot of crossover.Here, we look at serial rapist Tommie Lee Andrews, who terrorized women around the Orlando area in 1986.  Andrews left his biological material at approximately 20 different rape or attempted sexual assault scenes.  The trial we focus on today concerns his first victim, where Andrews was a little sloppy, leaving a fingerprint and not thinking to wear a mask in addition to leaving his DNA behind.What follows is a creative prosecutor who serendipitously sees a magazine advertisement for a lab-conducted paternity test, and wonders whether that technology could be applied to comparing evidence samples.A brief warning, because we are talking DNA in this episode, there is a few minutes of explaining the DNA extraction and profile creation process as it existed in 1986.  I thought it would be interesting to include, but I'm not a scientist, I am a lawyer, so I tried to keep it brief and focus on what I know.Please keep the feedback coming!  Thanks for listening.

In this episode, we look at whether words can kill someone in a very literal sense.  17 year old Michelle Carter encouraged her 18 year old boyfriend, Conrad Roy, to kill himself.  When Roy's body was discovered in his truck filled with toxic fumes, the investigation uncovered that Carter had been pushing Roy to kill himself for weeks, and was ordering Roy to end his own life as he was potentially changing his mind about doing so.But Carter was nowhere near Roy when this happened.  She was 35 miles away, speaking to him on the phone.  So the question in this case, when it finally crystalized, was whether Carter committed involuntary manslaughter by advocating for Roy to commit suicide, knowing that he was suicidal and had already attempted to kill himself before.This case made national headlines in 2014 and sparked a lot of controversy over whether instructing someone to do something means that the person caused it to happen.  What is role of free will if a person's commands are considered so obligatory as to result in criminal liability if they're followed?Listen as Paul breaks down the arguments for and against imposing liability, explains the role of precedent and how judge's rely on past cases, and gives his thoughts on whether the outcome of this case was actually justice.  If you enjoy the show, subscribe, and check out our website at www.insummation.com.  

Virtually  every adult in the United States is familiar with their Miranda rights.  Our culture is obsessed with crime, we love movies and television shows about law enforcement and shady organizations which spar against federal agents.As a result, we have all become familiar with variations of the lines "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can - and will - be used against you in a court of law.  You have the right to an attorney.  If you cannot afford an attorney, once will be provided to you at no cost."In America, before any law enforcement officer can conduct a custodial interrogation of a suspect, whether they're under arrest or not, they are required to inform that individual of these rights and secure a voluntary waiver, indicating that the individual understands his or her rights and is willing to speak to law enforcement under the current conditions.But have you ever stopped to think about why law enforcement is required to affirmatively tell you about the rights you have?  It's actually quite counter-intuitive.  The police or the FBI is required to tell you that you can refuse to answer any questions before they are permitted to ask you anything.  Shouldn't it be an individual's responsibility to know, and assert, their own rights?In this episode, we look at the origins of the requirement that law enforcement inform suspects and defendants of their rights to remain silent and right to counsel.  Listen to the story of Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested for kidnapping and rape, voluntary answered questions and ended up confessing without ever knowing that the had the right to refuse to answer or the right to have a lawyer there with him.  His appeal became the catalyst for one of the most transformative Supreme Court opinions of all time.With the episode, the goal is to provide some insights into  the origins of one of the most sacred and cherished rights for American criminal law.  And show how close it was to never existing.

WE ARE BACK!!!!!Apologies to all for the delay in episode publishing, I was on trial in federal court in a complex white-collar fraud and narcotics case.   But that's all over now and we are picking up right where we left off, discussing some of the biggest headlines in trial work and explaining a bit about who argued what and how effective it was.In this episode, we tackle the recent prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, the woman accused of conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to sexually abuse  a series of young girls.  Around the time of his July 20109 arrest, the media was saturated with details of Epstein's life, his associates, his history, and the name of his famous airplane.  But the same ubiquity of information wasn't plastered over every tv screen and smartphone for his partner, Ghislaine Maxwell.  Who was she?  How did she come to America?  What was the exact nature of her relationship with Epstein?  How much did she know, and how involved was she in his illegal activities?Paul gives not only the background leading to why Maxwell was arrested and put on trial, but explains what evidence the prosecution team used to convince a jury she was criminally liable, as well as what her lawyers argued for why she should be acquitted.  He hopes you enjoy getting a little light shined into this dark mysterious trial.

Recently, two very significant verdicts came down in trials that captured national attention.First, Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with multiple counts of murder for killing two people (and seriously injuring a third) during the Kenosha, Wisconsin protests following the police shooting of Jacob Blake.  Rittenhouse, a 17 year old armed with an AR-15 assault rifle, was with a local "militia," until he got separated and ultimately ended up firing his gun into three separate people.Second, Travis McMichael, his father Gregory McMichael, and their neighbor William "Roddy" Bryan were put on trial for the murder of Ahmaud Arbery in Glynn County, Georgia.  The three men claimed that Arbery had been burglarizing a construction site in their neighborhood, and attempted to stop him.  The encounter ended up with three shotgun shots being fired, and Arbery dying in the middle of the road.Both Kyle Rittenhouse and Travis McMichael (the individual who actually shot Arbery) claimed self-defense.  In this episode, we examine the evidence in both of these cases through the lens of what the requirements are to argue self-defense in each particular state.  Paul provides his thoughts on why one claim was accepted by the jury, and one claim was not.If you enjoy the show, check out our website at insummation.com!  Thanks!

The bombing of the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was a watershed event of the mid 1990s.  It put an end to a national feeling of optimism and relief and served to remind the public at large that there were some people who were so vehemently opposed to the federal government, that they would become domestic terrorists.  Timothy McVeigh went from a decorated veteran to the man who nearly single handedly resurrected a national state of fear.In this episode, Paul explains what is (or isn't) a domestic terrorist, and why the flippant use of such terminology is problematic as it makes it much harder to identify true ideologically driven acts of political violence from acts done by people who hold moral views which are disfavored.Paul also explains how a terrorism trial is prosecuted, and the complexities of defending it, and how sometimes a defense attorney is actually barred from introducing the defense he or she wants to argue to the jury.  If you enjoy the episode, please subscribe, and listen to the rest of the catalogue!

Hi listeners, so many people have reached out regarding the Korematsu episode commenting about how much they enjoyed having a co-host on to discuss the episode that we've done it again! Forensic death investigator Joseph Scott Morgan joins Paul to discuss the California trial of Robert Durst.  Durst, a member of one of the richest New York City families was put on trial in California in the summer of 2021 for the murder of his best friend, Susan Berman, which occurred on Christmas Eve, 2000.The trial, however, seemed to be only marginally about Susan Berman, and the prosecution team spent months eliciting testimony regarding the disappearance of Durst's wife, Kathy, back in 1982 and the homicide of Morris Black in 2003.  Durst had already been arrested and put on trial for the murder of Black and was acquitted by a jury back in 2004.This trial had no shortage of odd strategy decisions, dramatic courtroom recreations, and egos.  Listen as Joe and Paul dive into the litigation and bring their unique perspectives.

We typically think of Central and South American cartel leaders as men.  We're familiar with such infamous characters as El Chapo, Pablo Escobar, and more recently, El Mencho.  But if we take a serious look through history, we would see that it wasn't always a man's world.  While we tend to believe that the world of the Colombian cartels importing huge quantities of drugs into the United States started with Escobar, the reality is he was following the lead of Griselda Blanco, perhaps the most ruthless female narcotics trafficker who ever lived.This was a particularly interesting case to research, as Paul had heard Blanco's name before, but knew next to nothing about her.  Her legal issues were fascinating.  Unlike any other cartel leader, she ran her criminal organization from the United States while still keeping strict control over all operations in Colombia.  This naturally subjected her to intense pressure from law enforcement, resulting in her flight from Queens, New York back to Colombia, only to return years later to Miami, Florida to pick up where she left off.  In this case, we look at a topic which comes up in most narco-trafficking federal criminal cases, cooperating witnesses.  That there is a lot of confusion as to what actually goes into turning a criminal into a cooperator, what the obligations of each side are, and ultimately who makes the decision about what ultimately happens to them.  Paul discusses this topic in depth so listeners will get a full understanding of the process.Additionally, this case presents the opportunity to discuss an often overlooked aspect of criminal practice, speedy trial.  The 6th Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant a speedy trial, and every jurisdiction has their own set of rules as to what exactly that means and how they define "speedy."  The Supreme Court has even weighed in on it.  Blanco's trial for drug trafficking took place 10 years after she was indicted.  The law provides that once an indictment is filed, the prosecutor only has 70 days of chargeable time to bring a case to trial, or else the charges have to be dismissed.Naturally, Blanco's attorneys brought this up to the federal court overseeing her case.  Hear how the court addressed the issue and get insight into the argument between a policy position and a stance based on the strict text of a statute.If you enjoy this episode, please subscribe and listen to the rest of the catalogue.

In 2018 Bill Cosby was convicted of sexual assault for drugging and molesting Andrea Constand in 2004.  In the summer of 2021, the Pennsylvania Court of Appeals not only reversed the conviction, but instructed the trial court and the Montgomery County DA that they were barred from brining this case to trial again.Typically, when an appeal results in the reversal of a conviction, it means that something pretty significant was done inappropriately during the trial.   So what went wrong here?  Why did the court of appeals not simply remand for a new trial.  Barring any further prosecution is an extreme remedy, but one the highest Pennsylvania court felt was appropriate here.The reason that Cosby cannot be prosecuted ever again for his 2004 actions with Andrea Constand is that the Montgomery County District Attorney at the time promised that he wouldn't, but his successor broke that promise after Cosby relied on his word and suffered in a civil lawsuit as a result.This episode looks at whether a DA can, should or must be held to their word when they make affirmative promises.  We also discuss what a DA will consider when making a decision as to whether or not there is enough evidence to pursue a prosecution and how the statute of limitations works.Because this episode had a lot of complex issues, it runs a bit long because Paul did not want to cut any explanations too short.  If, as a listener, you're okay with extending these episodes a bit, please write Paul at insummationpodcast@gmail.com or contact him via his website insummation.com and let him know if you want the episodes to run 45-50 minutes or if you'd prefer they were kept to the 35 minutes or so they typically run now.Thanks for listening! Subscribe and enjoy!

Hello friends of the show!One my earliest and most consistent listeners, Yossi, has asked for a show on organized crime.  So naturally I dropped all the research I was doing on very interesting topics and decided to dedicate an episode to what he wanted to hear about.I can think of no better prototype for organized crime in the recent era than the Dapper Don himself, John Gotti.  Gotti embodied everything we think about contemporary mobsters.  He had a flashy lifestyle and routinely thumbed his nose at law enforcement.  He operated for years and federal prosecutors could not seem to convict him of anything...until they did.Federal organized crime prosecutions are all about RICO.  In this episode, Paul explains, in layman's terms, just what RICO is, and what it allows prosecutors to do.  RICO represents a complete change in the way that prosecutors were able to tie certain actors into criminal organizations, and made it illegal to simply be the boss of an enterprise which was run through racketeering methods.If you like the show, please subscribe and rate it, as this will make it easier for other inquisitive minds to find it and explore these cases with us.  Thanks again!

Political assassinations are an unfortunately  frequent occurrence in American history.  Fanatics and ideologues have felt compelled to kill public servants based on what they believed was required by their personal philosophical views at an alarming rate.In this episode, we examine the strange trial of Sirhan Sirhan, the man who murdered Senator Robert Kennedy at the Los Angeles Ambassador Hotel on June 5, 1968 over his vocal support of the state of Israel.Sirhan was born in Jerusalem to Arab parents, who moved to California, ironically, to escape the violence of the Middle East.  As a devoutly religious man, Sirhan became enmeshed in a mystical religious group who taught that sacrifice could bring him closer to unity with the divine.  An aimless youth outside of his theological belief structure, he became increasingly anti-Zionist and anti-Israel.  After the Six Day War took place in 1967, Sirhan became consumed with opposing anything and anyone who supported Israel, and that included Robert Kennedy.  In response, Sirhan gunned down Kennedy in a room full of witnesses and made incriminating statements both at the scene and to law enforcement while recorded shortly thereafter.Listen as Paul describes how Sirhan's attorneys attempted to claim that Sirhan was insane at the time of the shooting.  Paul breaks down the insanity defense to explain what it does and does not cover, and what the protocols and procedures are which need to be exhibited to assert it.  Paul also discusses plea bargaining, what the role of the judge is when the prosecutor and defense agree to resolve the case a certain way.  Additionally, Paul examines both premeditation and motive, which one needs to be proven to a jury, and why both are still important.Thanks for listening, if you enjoy the show please subscribe and leave a review.

Listener Feedback Episode!In this episode, Paul responds to a request from a listener who requested an analysis of a commerce clause case.  After giving the idea some thought, Paul began researching the curious case of Alfonso Lopez.Many of the Supreme Court cases which concern the commerce clause are civil in nature, but there have been a few criminal cases, and the federal prosecution of Alfonso Lopez is particularly interesting because it represents it really focuses on how federal legislation has to be grounded to be considered constitutional by the federal courts.on March 10, 1992, a high school student in San Antonio, Texas brought a firearm to school.  He was caught via anonymous tip to school officials and he quickly admitted that he had the gun in his backpack.  He was initially charged with violating a Texas state statute which prohibited the unlawful carrying of weapons.  But the day after being charged by the state, those charges were dropped and Lopez found himself charged with violating a federal felony, the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.The Act made it a federal crime to bring a firearm to school, and Lopez was facing up to five years in federal prison.  His lawyer, an appointed federal defender, argued all the way up to the Supreme Court that the Act was unconstitutional because it was based in the commerce clause and that guns in schools, which something which everyone opposes, was simply not closely enough rather to interstate commerce that the Act could be justified in setting the prohibition.Listen as Paul explains how federal laws are created and challenged, how they have to be justified through the constitution, and why it was so surprising when the Supreme Court ruled in Lopez's favor.  This episode also examines the standard for searching a student at a public school and how the Supreme Court decides which cases to hear and decide.If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and listen to the other episodes in the library!

If you are new to the program, please go listen to Episode 11 before playing this one.  This is Part 2 of the saga of Steven Donziger.For those of you who already listened to Episode 11/Part 1 and need a quick refresher: Donziger is the human rights attorney who sued Texaco/Chevron Oil on behalf of the indigenous people of the Ecuadorian Amazon and ultimately won a judgment of roughly $8.6 BILLION in 2011.  That judgment has still never been paid, and in response Chevron Oil sued Donziger for civil RICO in federal court in New York and won.  Donziger was ordered, as a result of his civil judgment, to submit his electronic devices to Chevron to locate his assets for seizure, and Donziger refused citing constitutional issues.  Judge Kaplan, who presided over the trial and issued the judgment and order, ultimately charged Donziger with 6 counts of criminal contempt for his steadfast refusals to comply.  Donziger was placed on house arrest while awaiting his contempt trial.So here we are!  The five day contempt trial has taken place in front of Judge Loretta Preska and the verdict is in.  Listen as Paul breaks down the prosecution of Donziger based on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42, a very infrequently asserted anti-corruption measure likely never contemplated to be wielded in this capacity.Paul also looks at Judge Preska's precise role in this litigation, the arguments Donziger made as to why he had not turned things over, and the posture of the private prosecutor who left a big law firm who had previously represented Chevron as recently as 2018.  Part 2 continues the wild ride of the life of Steven Donziger, if you enjoy the show please check out all the episodes in the catalogue and subscribe.  Thanks for listening!

America has a fascination with serial killers, and Ted Bundy is perhaps the most famous in American history.  Before his execution, he confessed to the murder of 30 women, all women, almost all attractive and college-aged.  Many true crime historians estimate the number to be several times higher.While we may  never know if Bundy was born a killer or was a factor of the unique experiences of his environment, we can learn a few things from his capture and prosecution(s).In this episode, Paul explains the complex nature of states each having to prosecute the individual crimes that serial killers commit and why the federal government cannot simply roll them all up into one massive case.  He also goes into some detail about searches and what is required to contest incriminating evidence found when law enforcement conducts a search with or without a warrant.  Finally, Paul explains why a serial killer's obsessive need for control does not make for a good litigation strategy.Bundy is undoubtedly a fascinating cultural fixture.  His charm and charisma was only  matched by the absolutely brutal acts he committed.  Despite the ubiquity of books, movies and TV shows about him already out there, Paul hopes that this episode brings a different perspective and helps you learn a little something different about one of history's more outrageous courtroom trials.If you enjoy, please subscribe to the show and leave a rating!  Paul is grateful for all the listener support. 

Listeners and followers of the show, I have heard your repeated attempts to spice up the In Summation library by bringing on a co-host to discuss legal issues and topics, and I am giving you what you want.  In this episode I brought on Robert Gottlieb of Robert C. Gottlieb and Associates, my law firm, to discuss the sensitive topic of the delicate balance between civil rights/civil liberties and national security and safety.  I think subscribers of the show will be pleased with the results.For those unfamiliar with the name Fred Korematsu, he became the face of one of the greatest conflicts between civil liberties and national security in the history of America.After the Japanese bombed the U.S. military base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, the United States was thrust into World War II.  Almost immediately after the attack, there was wide-ranging hysteria about the approximately 112,000 people of Japanese descent living on the west coast (a very large population of which were American citizens).  Prominent figures in the military and government, supported by the media, advocated for the expulsion of all Japanese from California, Oregon, Washington and parts of Nevada and Arizona.Ultimately, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the exclusion order relocating the Japanese to interment camps in the middle of the country, where they would be prevented from supporting Japan's war effort, despite not a single instance of even attempted sabotage or harm to the United States from any Japanese person.Fred Korematsu was living in San Francisco when the order was signed.  He refused to leave.  Fred was not a political activist, he was not attempting to take a bold stand against injustice, he was a patriotic 21 year old, in love with his Italian-American girlfriend, who would not leave California.  He actually attempted several times to help the United States war effort, but was rebuffed at every turn.Fred was arrested, convicted of violating the order and his case was appealed to the 9th Circuit and then all the way to the Supreme Court, who were forced to confront the issue of whether the government could intern a whole class of people in the name of national security.The result was one of the most disturbing Supreme Court opinions ever written, one which many justices in the 6-3 majority later said was their greatest regret while serving on the highest court in the country.I hope you enjoy this unique co-hosted episode and my conversation with Robert Gottlieb.  If you are new to the show, please subscribe and listen to the other episodes. Leave me feedback at insummationpodcast@gmail.com, tweet me @insummationpod or find me on our law firm's website www.robertcgottlieblaw.com.Thanks for listening!

Scott Peterson met Laci Rocha in 1994 while Peterson was working in the Pacific Cafe in Morro Bay, California.  They began dating and were married in 1997.  To the outside world, they had a picture perfect marriage.  Scott got a good job with an agricultural products sales company and Laci worked as a substitute teacher.  They bought a house, and in 2002 Laci announced that they would be welcoming their first child in February 2003.But under the surface, Scott was coming apart.  He had extramarital affairs, including one which began in November 2002, while his wife was several months pregnant.  He told the woman that he was a widower.  Less than two months later, on Christmas Eve 2002, Laci Peterson went missing.The bodies of Laci and the developed fetus were found in April 2003.  Within a week, Scott Peterson was arrested and charged with murder.In this episode, Paul explains the confusing process of jury selection, how the process of whittling down an entire jury panel to the people who actually hear the case takes place.Additionally, we look at the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence.  Paul explains what the difference is, that there is no inherent hierarchy of credibility between the two, and how an entire prosecution can be built solely on circumstantial evidence and yet be every bit as convincing as if there were direct witnesses to the event.Thanks for listening!  If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and rate it on whatever platform you stream on.

Aaron Hernandez had a difficult upbringing.  He has a strained family life combined with losing his father at an early age which set him on a path of rebellion.  He was brash, quick-tempered and took offense at even the most benign gestures.  He was also a very talented football player, the one aspect of his life where he excelled and gave him a future.It was the love of football which connected him to Odin Lloyd, the man who was dating the sister of Hernandez's fiancé.  Lloyd was a semi-professional football player himself, and became close friends with the NFL star.  Then, for reasons nobody fully understands, Lloyd was shot dead on June 17, 2013 approximately a mile from Hernandez's residence.  Hernandez was arrested shortly thereafter and the rest is history.In this episode, Paul provides some insight into the New England Patriot's most infamous Tight End, how he lived and how he died.  We examine one the biggest issues which will come up in a trial...what was the defendant's motive?While a prosecutor is typically  not required to prove motive as an element of a crime, jurors are always curious as to why a person would commit murder.  In this case, we see how even when a prosecutor is well versed in the facts of his or her case, it is still difficult to paint a convincing picture for a jury when you can't give any reasonable explanation for why the defendant did what he is alleged to have done.We also discuss the complicated issue of how much a defense attorney should concede to maintain credibility with a jury.  It's a fine line that good lawyers have to continuously walk, and knowing what you can fight and what you have to just accept is often a difficult task in the moment.  In the Hernandez case, Paul explains why he felt the defense attorney conceded too much and ultimately gave away the case.If you enjoy the episode, please subscribe to the show and send me any feedback you have.