Podcasts about Courtroom

Attorneys representing media organizations are pushing back against Tyler Robinson's renewed effort to keep cameras out of the courtroom for the final day of his preliminary hearing on September 1. They argue that Judge Tony Graf has already rejected the defense's broader objections to electronic media coverage and that Robinson has not shown the kind of specific prejudice necessary to overcome the presumption favoring public access. The media response takes particular aim at the defense's concern that hearsay evidence discussed during closing arguments could taint a future jury pool, pointing out that the evidentiary portion of the preliminary hearing was already open to the public and livestreamed in July. Their position is that shutting cameras out now would do little to contain information that is already public and could instead fuel more speculation and distrust about what is happening in the case.The media attorneys are also opposing Robinson's attempt to keep portions of his camera-ban motion private. They argue that court filings are presumptively public and that Robinson cannot take information already circulating publicly, place it in a court filing and then transform it into confidential material. Their blunt formulation was that “what is public is public,” and they characterized the defense's predictions about the consequences of continued public access as generalized and unsupported. At the same time, Graf has imposed separate courtroom controls for the September 1 proceeding, banning cellphones and other electronic devices for most attendees while allowing attorneys and certain legal staff to use them. The dispute therefore sets up a clear confrontation between Robinson's argument that continued broadcasting risks prejudicing his eventual trial and the media's position that transparency, especially after so much of the proceeding has already been public, is itself an important safeguard.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'What is public is public': Media attorneys argue in Tyler Robinson hearing | KSL.com

Criminal defense trial attorney Bob Motta sat inside Plymouth Superior Court for every day of Lindsay Clancy's murder trial. He watched the prosecution argue choice, the defense argue psychosis, and the jury receive five verdict options for each of three children.Bob joins Tony Brueski for the full three-part conversation: how the closing arguments landed, whether the jury was moved, and what happens next — including the conspiracy blaming Patrick and the malpractice lawsuits filed by both sides.Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodDISCLAIMERThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LindsayClancy #LindsayClancyTrial #TrueCrime #PostpartumPsychosis #BobMotta #PatrickClancy #InsanityDefense #HiddenKillers #CriminalJustice #MurderTrial

This week, we're diving further in to the Lindsay Clancy case as jury deliberations begin. She is a Massachusetts mother who is on trial for killing her three children, and the case has opened up a national conversation about postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. We'll hear a listener who called in to an Audacy station about his own experience with postpartum disorders. Hosts will also share their experiences, and draw connections to past cases. We'll also hear about a bizarre development inside the courtroom this week. Featuring audio from the Adam and Jordana Show out of WCCO News Talk in the Twin Cities, the Marc Cox Morning Show out of KFTK in St. Louis, Scoot out of WWL in New Orleans and the Dana & Parks Show out of KMBZ in Kansas City.

This week, we're diving further in to the Lindsay Clancy case as jury deliberations begin. She is a Massachusetts mother who is on trial for killing her three children, and the case has opened up a national conversation about postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. We'll hear a listener who called in to an Audacy station about his own experience with postpartum disorders. Hosts will also share their experiences, and draw connections to past cases. We'll also hear about a bizarre development inside the courtroom this week. Featuring audio from the Adam and Jordana Show out of WCCO News Talk in the Twin Cities, the Marc Cox Morning Show out of KFTK in St. Louis, Scoot out of WWL in New Orleans and the Dana & Parks Show out of KMBZ in Kansas City.

This week, we're diving further in to the Lindsay Clancy case as jury deliberations begin. She is a Massachusetts mother who is on trial for killing her three children, and the case has opened up a national conversation about postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. We'll hear a listener who called in to an Audacy station about his own experience with postpartum disorders. Hosts will also share their experiences, and draw connections to past cases. We'll also hear about a bizarre development inside the courtroom this week. Featuring audio from the Adam and Jordana Show out of WCCO News Talk in the Twin Cities, the Marc Cox Morning Show out of KFTK in St. Louis, Scoot out of WWL in New Orleans and the Dana & Parks Show out of KMBZ in Kansas City.

Send us Fan MailIn this episode, we discuss the opening two episodes to Tea Leaves, our version of the Harry Potter TV show. Harry encounters old magical enemies and barely escapes intact. Enjoy!Topics/Summary:·      1:45 Set our goals. Harry is growing up, and this season must reflect that.·      4:52 We open with the Muggle news. Harry has been kept in the dark over the summer so he is forced to listen to the Muggle news to hear anything about Voldemort. He and Dudley get into some magical trouble, and Mrs. Figg and Aunt Petunia show they know more than they let on.·      30:47 Harry is rescued. The Dursleys go off to their All-England Best Kept Suburban Lawn Competition, and some Order members arrive to bring Harry off to number 12 Grimmauld Place.·      37:53 Episode two begins with the morning of the hearing. Harry is incredibly nervous. Mr. Weasley brings him into the office, but they find out that the time and location of the hearing had been changed. They rush down to the old courtrooms where the entire Wizengamot is assembled in Court Room 10.·       49:03 Off to Hogwarts! They get their badges and lists in order and head off to King's Cross, Padfoot in toe. They sit with Luna on the train and get to Hogwarts with little friction. Dumbledore begins the year with the feast and introduces Professors Grubbly-Plank and Umbridge as new staff members. Off to the races. ThePotterDiscussion@gmail.comthepotterdiscussion.comNox

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D. Baker YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/E9560lA271A  This Case Brief highlights a legal charging conference where the judge and attorneys debate and establish over 50 jury instructions. The proceedings focus on crucial, fact-based instructions including the voluntariness of the defendant's statement, corpus delicti and its relation to confession corroboration, and the law of self-defense. While the defense successfully fights for a voluntariness instruction, the corpus delicti debate culminates in a modified instruction clarifying that a defendant's confession—if believed—does not require further corroboration as long as independent evidence proves the victim's death was caused by a criminal act. Ultimately, the judge plans to pre-read these instructions to the jury before closing arguments begin on Monday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In most states, the defense has to prove insanity. In Massachusetts, the prosecution has to prove sanity. That distinction is at the center of the Lindsay Clancy trial as closing arguments approach Thursday, and it changes how everything this jury heard over 21 days of testimony gets weighed in that deliberation room.Eric Faddis, a defense attorney and former prosecutor, explains the standard the Commonwealth must meet. Under the McHoul test, prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy could appreciate the wrongfulness of strangling Cora, Dawson, and Callan and that she could have conformed her conduct to the law. Two parts. Both required. Failing on either means Clancy is not criminally responsible.The prosecution called Dr. Avram Mack as a rebuttal witness. He told the jury Clancy had a severe depressive episode. He would not call it psychosis. The defense called experts who did. The legal standard does not pick sides on the diagnosis — it asks whether a mental disease or defect deprived her of the substantial capacity to understand or control what she was doing.Faddis walks through the human side of deliberation — how holdouts operate, how twelve people with no psychiatric training evaluate dueling expert testimony, and what happens when a jury tells the judge they are deadlocked. In the Karen Read case, five days of deliberation and a Tuey-Rodriguez instruction could not break the impasse. The judge declared a mistrial.This jury must reach a unanimous verdict. That process starts after closing arguments.Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LindsayClancy #LindsayClancyTrial #HiddenKillers #PostpartumPsychosis #JuryInstructions #CriminalResponsibility #InsanityDefense #MassachusettsLaw #TrueCrimePodcast #TrueCrime

Friday's 7am hour of Mac & Cube kicked off with a look back at the first College Football games of the 2026 season; then, the guys get frustrated with more TROs making their way into CFB; later, listeners weigh in with their thoughts on the courtroom vs. the football field; and finally, Cole & Greg preview a few of the remaining Week Zero games. "McElroy & Cubelic In The Morning" airs 7am-10am weekdays on WJOX-94.5!!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 178 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Caitlin Byczko, who is partner with Marnes & Thornburg in their IP team. Ken is discussing dupe culture with her. Here is the profile of Caitlin Byczko https://btlaw.com/en/people/caitlin-byczko But before we launch into this very interesting interview, I have some news for you: On August 10th, 2026, Navitas Semiconductor filed suit against Renesas Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas, accusing Renesas of infringing four US patents on gallium nitride semiconductor technology through its SuperGaN product lines. The filing follows a countersuit Renesas brought on July 22nd, 2026, accusing Navitas and two of its employees of misappropriating trade secrets. It shows how patent disputes and trade secret claims between competitors are increasingly being fought on multiple fronts at once, and often as tit for tat. It also emerged on August 12th, 2026, that an EPO Board of Appeal had dismissed an appeal by Atlas Global Technologies and ruled that its WiFi patent, EP 3 353 901, case T 1230/25, could not be maintained in any form at all, even though the original opponents, TP-Link and Vantiva, had already withdrawn their oppositions. That knocked out the basis for several parallel infringement suits at the Unified Patent Court, which were then withdrawn. For suppliers and implementers, the takeaway is that fighting a patent held by a non-practising entity can still be worth it, even once the original opponent has thrown in the towel. On August 10th, 2026, the Unified Patent Court in The Hague fully revoked Maxell’s patent EP 2 061 230, covering technology for handing off content to a second device, and at the same time dismissed Maxell’s infringement claim against several Samsung entities, in cases UPC_CFI_251/2025 and UPC_CFI_769/2025. The judges found the patent to be nothing more than an obvious combination of routine adaptations, with no additional technical effect. And now – let's hear the interview with Ken and Caitlin! A dupe used to be a quiet, slow thing. You’d stand in the cereal aisle, notice the generic box next to the name brand, buy it, tell a friend. Word spread over months. That world is gone. On this episode of IP Fridays, Ken Suzan sat down with Caitlin Byczko, partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP in Indianapolis, to talk about what’s replaced it: a TikTok-driven economy where a single video can sell out a dupe product within hours, sometimes before the original brand’s own team even knows it exists. Byczko litigates and prosecutes trademarks across retail, fashion, luxury goods, technology, and pharmaceuticals, and she’s watched dupe culture evolve from a marketing footnote into one of the more active battlegrounds in trademark law. Here’s what she told us, and why it matters even if your brand has never heard the word “dupe” used about it. Counterfeit and Dupe Are Not the Same Thing, Legally Byczko opened with what she called the most important distinction in this entire conversation: the difference between a counterfeit and a dupe. A counterfeit uses someone else’s actual trademark. Think of a fake Chanel bag stamped with the interlocking C’s, or a fake Louis Vuitton logo. That’s straightforward infringement, and above certain thresholds, a federal crime. A dupe is different. It mimics the look, feel, or performance of a product without using the name or the logo at all. Elf Cosmetics, Zara, Costco’s Kirkland brand, and Quince have all built parts of their business on exactly this model. No one is pretending to be Chanel. They’re offering something that looks and performs similarly, at a fraction of the price, under their own name. Media and social media use “dupe” and “counterfeit” interchangeably. Legally, that’s sloppy, and it matters, because the two categories trigger completely different legal analyses. If There’s No Logo, What Are Brands Actually Suing Over? This is where trade dress comes in. Trade dress protects the overall look and feel of a product: packaging, color combinations, shape, label design. Byczko pointed out that most of us interact with trade-dress-protected products every day without realizing it. The test is likelihood of confusion. Courts look at how similar the products actually look, how sophisticated the shoppers are, and whether there’s real evidence that people were confused. Byczko flagged one case as a genuine roadmap for this area: Van Leeuwen v. Rebel Creamery, an ice cream trade dress dispute that came out of the Eastern District of New York. In her view, the strength of that case came down to how precisely the brand defined its trade dress for the packaging. That precision, she said, did a lot of the work toward the outcome. She’s also watching Lululemon v. Costco, which she expects to be significant partly because it doesn’t rely on trademark and trade dress alone. Byczko noted that brands are increasingly stacking causes of action together: trademark, patent, false advertising, all pointing at the same product. And she’s tracking Sol de Janeiro v. Macau Beauty, a case she finds notable because it pulls in influencer content and testimonials as evidence, not just packaging and trade dress claims. Macau Beauty, she noted, has already been sued multiple times across different jurisdictions. A note for readers outside the US: trade dress as a distinct doctrine doesn’t exist as such in Germany. The closest tools here are the three-dimensional trademark and, more practically, the wettbewerbsrechtlicher Nachahmungsschutz under Section 4 No. 3 of the German Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG). That provision protects product shape, packaging, and get-up against imitation when the original has wettbewerbliche Eigenart, competitive distinctiveness, and the copy creates avoidable confusion about origin, unfairly exploits the original’s reputation, or was built on dishonestly obtained know-how. It’s a narrower, more fact-specific tool than US trade dress, but the underlying logic Byczko describes, define your product’s distinctive features early and precisely, applies just as much on this side of the Atlantic. Why the Evidence Problem Changed Everything Ken asked what’s actually driving the current wave of disputes, and Byczko’s answer was simple: evidence. Ten or twenty years ago, if you sent a cease-and-desist letter or went to trial, you had almost nothing concrete to show about how consumers actually perceived two products. Now you have TikTok comment sections, influencer testimonials, and entire genres of “dupe content” documenting exactly what shoppers think, in their own words, in real time. In the Sol de Janeiro case, Byczko noted that part of the complaint isn’t just about packaging and trade dress. It’s about what influencers said, what claims they made, and what that content reveals about actual consumer confusion or the absence of it. That’s evidence litigators simply didn’t have access to a decade ago, and it cuts both ways: it can prove confusion, or it can just as easily prove there wasn’t any. Why Dupes Took Off: Economics, Status, and a Generational Shift Byczko was careful to frame this part as her personal read, not a sociologist’s conclusion, but it’s a read shaped by watching these disputes up close. Part of it is straightforward economics. Gen Z is shopping under real affordability pressure, and dupes let them participate in trend cycles without the price tag. Byczko cited a projected $12.6 trillion in Gen Z spending power by 2030, a generation too significant for brands to write off. The other part is cultural. A generation ago, owning a visible logo was the status symbol. Now, for a lot of younger shoppers, being the savvy one, the person who finds the dupe first and tells their followers about it, carries its own status. It’s less “I have the real thing” and more “I outsmarted the markup.” Byczko also pointed to growing public skepticism toward paying five or ten times more for a product purely because of the name on the packaging, particularly in beauty and fashion. The PR Trap: When Enforcement Backfires One of the sharpest points in the conversation was about what happens after a brand decides to enforce. Suing over a dupe can read very differently in public than it does in a courtroom. Byczko put it directly: going after a dupe can easily look, to the public, like a big corporation coming down on a small competitor, or worse, on its own customers, the same people who made the original brand aspirational in the first place. She’s seen this dynamic play out repeatedly in high-profile cases. Her advice: treat enforcement as a communication strategy, not just a legal one. Sometimes the smarter move isn’t a lawsuit at all. It’s a quieter cease-and-desist letter, a takedown request, or doubling down on marketing that explains what actually makes the original worth the price. Charlotte Tilbury has leaned hard into this approach, building campaigns around the idea that the original simply can’t be remade. Olaplex ran a similar play with its “OlaDupe” campaign. Legal and marketing, Byczko said, have to work together on this, not in sequence. What Brands Should Actually Do Byczko laid out three practical layers, all before litigation ever enters the picture. First: register your trademarks, and where a product design is genuinely distinctive, pursue trade dress or design patent protection early, before a dupe exists and before you know whether the product will even take off. That timing problem is real. Brands rarely know in advance which product will become the one worth copying. Her advice was to look at long-standing anchor products, the ones that have quietly carried a brand identity for years, and ask whether they’re actually protected. Second: monitor. A large share of dupe disputes start on social media, not in a courtroom. That means someone needs to be watching hashtags and influencer content, not just from direct competitors, but from adjacent or even unrelated brands that could end up duping a product without anyone noticing until it’s already trending. Third, and the one Byczko clearly considers most underused: consumer education and brand storytelling. “This is the original” is a weak pitch on its own in a market flooded with cheap alternatives. What works better is explaining, specifically, what makes a product different: its formulation, its sourcing, its performance, its longevity. Give people a real reason to pay more, not just a claim to authenticity. Where This Goes Next Byczko doesn’t think dupe culture is a passing trend. Her expectation is closer to “there will eventually be a dupe of everything,” and she’s watching an interesting generational pattern where teenage shoppers are teaching their mothers about dupes, who are in turn teaching their own mothers. On the legal side, she expects more clarity as cases like Van Leeuwen work their way through the system, giving brands a clearer formula for how to define and defend trade dress. On the brand side, she expects less reliance on litigation as the primary weapon and more investment in what’s genuinely hard to copy: real innovation, ingredient transparency, and storytelling that a dupe simply can’t replicate. One data point she raised stuck with us: search interest in the word “craftsmanship” is at its highest point in twenty years. After years of leaning into dupe culture, there are signs some consumers are swinging back toward wanting the original, the real ingredient, the real technique, the thing that can’t be copied to the same quality. For brands sitting on distinctive packaging, a signature shape, or a product identity they’ve never formally registered, that’s less a trend forecast than a to-do list. Here is the full transcript: Ken Suzan: Thank you, Ralf. Our guest today on the IP Friday’s podcast is Caitlin Byczko. Caitlin is a partner with Barnes and Thornburg LLP and is based in Indianapolis, Indiana. Caitlin crafts and defends global brand strategies, protecting intellectual property assets with creative solutions and highly tactical advocacy. She excels in trademark prosecution and litigation before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and federal district courts, safeguarding trademarks and digital properties for businesses of all sizes and at every stage of the business life cycle. From startups to Fortune 500 companies, Caitlin manages clients’ intellectual property needs across diverse industries. Her experience spans retail, fashion, luxury goods, sports, technology, agriculture, venture capital and pharmaceuticals. Beyond trademark law, Caitlin brings valuable insights from her law school experience with the National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, and her previous work serving in a technology company’s in-house legal department. Her tenacious nature and clever problem-solving skills shine through in complex matters, earning praise from clients and colleagues alike. Caitlin is co-author of “Dupe Culture Meets the Courtroom,” published in Global Cosmetic Industry on March 16, 2026. Welcome, Caitlin, to the IP Friday’s podcast. Caitlin Byczko: Hi, Ken. Thank you so much. I’m very honored to be here. Ken Suzan: Yeah, so Caitlin, today we’re talking about dupe culture, a topic that is rapidly becoming front for many brands around the world. What’s the actual difference between a dupe and a counterfeit? Caitlin Byczko: That is one of my favorite questions. This is the most important distinction to draw when we are talking legally about dupes because the difference, because media and social media often use the words interchangeably and legally they’re very different. A counterfeit is a product that uses someone else’s actual trademark. We often think of a fake Chanel bag with interlocking C’s or a fake Louis Vuitton. It’s relatively straightforward trademark infringement and generally above certain thresholds is a federal crime. A dupe, by contrast, is a product that mimics the look, feel, or performance product without actually using the name or logo. We often think of it in the beauty products, in the fashion space, some brands like Elf Cosmetics, which was in the article you just mentioned, Zara, Costco’s Kirkland brand, Quince, who are all very well known in the dupe space. Ken Suzan: What has led to the rise of dupe culture? I’m reading about it virtually every day. Caitlin Byczko: I feel very strongly about this and I’m always talking about it in my legal and non-legal worlds. It’s a very interesting societal change that I think we’ve seen over the past year. I am a lawyer, I am not a marketer, I am not a sociologist, but in my opinion, social media and influencer culture specifically has really created the kind of rise in dupes that we see today. I don’t think we can talk about modern dupe culture without talking about TikTok specifically. Dupe content is its own genre, essentially on TikTok and on Instagram. There’s a whole vocabulary that people are dupe influencers, where their whole product, everything that they’re doing and selling, all of the content they’re making is dupe related. What’s really changed is the speed, I think, around when other products or when a dupe product comes out, how it can be marketed and how people can find out about it. The speed of commerce itself has increased wildly as a result, in part because of social media. A product used to take months to build a reputation as a good alternative. When we think about things, generic cereal is one thing that I have been talking about with my parents with respect to dupe culture. It was one of the things that there used to be, you would go to the store and there would be the cereal, the name brand cereal, and then there would be the generic version of the cereal, which was usually less expensive. That in a way was a dupe. It took a long time. Your friends knew about the dupe cereal and then you knew about the dupe cereal. Then it all got around. Now a single video can send a dupe product sold out within days, within hours sometimes. Oftentimes, a brand’s own team doesn’t even know about the dupe until it’s already been wildly out. Part of it becomes this legal issue when there are claims coming around the dupe. In the Sol de Janeiro case against Macau Beauty, part of the complaint isn’t just about the trade dress and the packaging, which I think we’ll talk about. It’s about the influencer content and the testimonials and what people are saying about the dupes. There’s so much evidence now and there’s so much content and there’s so much out there regarding dupes on social media, on TikTok, and in other places. Ken Suzan: Yeah, and it’s an ever-evolving story. Every day there’s new social media content, more evidence for a potential gain, right? Caitlin Byczko: Absolutely. Ken Suzan: So if dupes aren’t using a particular brand name, how are companies suing over them at all? Caitlin Byczko: So this is really where trade dress comes in, and trade dress, as most of us know, has been around for a long time. There are a lot of very well-known things that you probably see or use every day that you don’t know are protected by trade dress, but they are. And the trade dress protects the overall kind of look and feel of a product. So if you think about things like packaging, color combinations, shape, label design, when that becomes distinctive enough, right? When consumers see that and kind of immediately understand it has the secondary meaning related to the brand owner, then it can become a protectable trademark. And so the test for trademark infringement is likelihood of confusion. And courts will look at the factors of how similar the products actually look, how sophisticated the shoppers are, whether there’s evidence that people were actually confused. I think one of the big cases in the trade dress space that came out since you and I discussed originally, Ken, is the Van Leeuwen versus Rebel Creamery ice cream case. And so for any of those interested, it’s a very interesting opinion. It just came out of the Eastern District of New York. I think that really helps people, brands specifically, kind of provide a roadmap with respect to how to define a trade dress. I think they did an excellent job there defining what the trade dress was for the packaging. And I think that that had a lot to do with the success. Ken Suzan: Yes. Ken Suzan: Why do you think younger consumers gravitate towards dupes so much more than past generations did? Caitlin Byczko: I think there are a few things that are kind of top of each other. The obvious one is economics. I think younger consumers, especially Gen Z, they’re shopping in an environment where there’s affordability pressure. And I think that dupes let them participate in certain trend cycles without the price tag. Gen Z is a significant demographic behind the growth of dupes. And they have a predicted spending power we saw recently, $12.6 trillion by 2030. Ken Suzan: Wow. That’s incredible. Caitlin Byczko: I think it is really also coupled with more of what I would say is a cultural shift. Again, I am a lawyer and this is just my opinion. But what feels aspirational is really changing, I think. And a generation ago, we saw in the fashion world, there was a really big, people really liked logos. Having a logo, owning a logo was the point. And now for a lot of younger shoppers or even more savvy shoppers, actually being a savvy shopper is the status symbol itself. So for a lot of creators, finding the dupe before anyone else or being the one who tells your followers about the dupe really has its own, and it’s less “I have this real thing” and more, “oh, I outsmarted the markup.” And I think it’s that kind of value. I think younger consumers are more publicly skeptical of the idea that something is worth five or ten times more just because of the name on the packaging. And I think that that becomes the case particularly in beauty and then clothing as well. And so I think it’s coupled with the question of craftsmanship and all of these different things. Like we can’t view anything in a vacuum, which is why I could talk for 500 years about this topic. Ken Suzan: Yeah, definitely. Now brands obviously want to protect themselves. That’s an important thing. But going after a dupe can backfire publicly, particularly on the internet. Can you comment on this possibility and what should brands do? Caitlin Byczko: Sure. I think the biggest thing is what you just said. So I think there’s the legal component. And when we’re assessing this for one of our brand clients, I think we cannot review one without the other. So I think you have to say, do we have this claim? Do we have a protectable trade dress or a look and feel claim? And what is the potential backlash in the public? I think it is also a joint PR concern, because what we see is suing over a dupe can very easily read to the public as, oh, this big brand or big corporation is coming down on a small competitor or on its own customers that made the original brand aspirational. I think that we see this in a lot of the big cases that are out right now. So brands, I think, can start to think about enforcement as a communication strategy first, because sometimes the smarter play isn’t necessarily filing a lawsuit. It’s kind of a quieter cease and desist, a takedown request, or separately, it might be really doubling down on the craftsmanship or on a marketing side of what makes the product worth the price. I think Charlotte Tilbury is a great example of this, who’s really leaned into this kind of “can’t be duped” or “you can’t remake the original” with respect to some of their really core products. And so I think people really need to, or brands really need to, assess: one, how can we define what it is that’s being duped? And again, that’s where I think that Van Leeuwen case, I think, will be really interesting over the next few years, with respect to kind of providing this roadmap to help people say, here is a way that we can try to really define what the trade dress is and then be able to protect it and be able to enforce it. Ken Suzan: Caitlin, are there cases right now, I know we just talked about the Van Leeuwen case, but are there cases right now that you think will actually set the tone for how this area of law develops? Caitlin Byczko: Absolutely. And I think some of the cases probably are even in the works, they’re not even filed yet, which is probably very exciting to us as trademark nerds. I do think the Lululemon versus Costco case will be a big one. It’s not just trademarks and trade dress, as many of them are not. I think a lot of times we see in these cases brands are very smartly using kind of all of the different types of causes of action that they bring: trademark, patent, false advertising, a lot of different things. And so I think that that one is definitely certainly one to watch kind of in the fashion space. And then the Sol de Janeiro versus Macau Beauty. Macau Beauty has been sued multiple times, I think, in various jurisdictions. And so I think part of that one is very interesting to me because I think it’s this, it loops not only trademark protection, but also it brings in false advertising, it brings in influencers, it brings in all of these different things. And so I think, like we had talked about previously, nothing is really viewed in a vacuum. And I think for all of these cases, one really important thing, maybe that we didn’t necessarily have access to 10 years ago, or certainly 20 years ago, is this like just ripe amount of evidence of potential confusion or potential non-confusion. When we go on social media and look at all of these things, and then read the comments and all of this different data that’s out there, it’s fascinating, because if you’re in trial, or if you’re going to trial, you’re sending a cease and desist letter, like there is evidence of what the consumers think right here in front of you, right? And the weight of that evidence obviously depends on what it is. But it’s fascinating the way that you can very quickly identify, you know, is there confusion? Is there not confusion, in a way that you likely could never have even thought to consider 10 to 20 years ago? Ken Suzan: Now beyond litigation, what should brands actually be doing to protect themselves in a dupe-driven market? Caitlin Byczko: I think one of the best things that we can do, right, is starting to register the trademarks. I think that’s an obvious one. And really start to consider where the product is genuinely distinctive. And so if it is genuinely distinctive, pursuing a trade dress or a design patent early, before a dupe exists, before anything happens. And I know that can be difficult, because oftentimes brands don’t know for sure what’s going to take off and what’s not. It can also be a surprise. But I think it’s really pushing brands that when you are innovating and when you are doing something that is truly unique and truly distinctive, or when you’re looking back on your brand assets and saying, this thing has been an anchor brand asset for 10 years, you know, have we sought trade dress protection? Is there a way that we can do that? The second layer really is monitoring, in my mind, because a lot of dupe disputes do start on social media. And I think it is important to have people within a company, if you have a product that you’re really keeping an eye on, or that you’re concerned about being duped or causing confusion, having someone who is keeping eyes on hashtags and influencer content and all of these various things. You know, we’re not watching just your direct competitors, we’re watching other completely different brands, or kind of made-up brands even, who could be duping the product. And then I think the third thing that I see as very important is this kind of consumer education and brand storytelling, which is when we kind of get outside of the purely legal side of it. And, you know, legal and marketing and brand and social kind of all need to work together, right? I think if the only pitch to consumers is “this is the original,” it kind of becomes a weak argument in a market where there are cheap alternatives everywhere. But I think the brands that really explain what actually makes their product different, in its formulation, its sourcing, its performance, its longevity, it really gives people a real reason to say, I want to pay more for this brand because of XYZ, you know, the technology or whatever that is. Charlotte Tilbury is one that I had mentioned. I know Olaplex kind of had a big campaign around “OlaDupe” is what they called it. So I think really unique and interesting marketing also assists with that. Ken Suzan: Caitlin, where do you see dupe culture heading? Is this a trend that plateaus or does it fundamentally change how brands operate? Caitlin Byczko: I think dupe culture itself is here to stay. I mean, I think we are only getting into a world where there is truly going to be a dupe of everything. And it’s not good or bad necessarily. I think it is just where we are in life. And I think, you know, things serve different purposes. And it all depends a lot on how the younger consumers shop. And it’s also changing how older consumers shop. You know, I’ve read a lot about teenage girls teaching their moms about dupes, who are then teaching their grandmothers about dupes, right? So on the legal side, I think we will get clarity eventually. I think right around, you know, all like all of these things, which seem so complex, and we’ll never know the answer. You know, five [years] from now, we will probably have certainly more clarity, because a lot of these cases will move forward. You know, the Van Leeuwen one, which I’ve now talked about multiple times, but I just obviously think it’s very fascinating. I think that that’s one where you have a roadmap, right? And it may be contested, or, you know, everything is very fact-specific in the trademark world. But I think it will open the door to allow people one more aggressive brand enforcement. But it will give people a roadmap proactively to kind of say, if we follow this formula for our trade dress, or, you know, defining our trade dress, then, you know, we have something we can potentially protect. And then I think on the brand side, we’ll likely see less reliance on litigation as the primary weapon and more investment in things that are actually, you know, difficult to dupe: innovation, ingredient transparency, marketing, genuinely interesting brand storytelling is something that we’ve seen. I read this past week that searches for craftsmanship, just like generally the word craftsmanship, and kind of products with craftsmanship, is at an all-time high, than it’s been in like the past 20 years. And so it’s interesting, right, that we have gone from this kind of luxury item or high craftsmanship to this dupe culture that we are in now. But there is some potential shift where people are saying, you know, now, I’ve seen all of this and I have all of these options, but now actually what I do care about is the original, right, the innovation or the ingredient transparency or all of those things that can’t necessarily be copied to the same quality. So it’s why it will just provide us with endless topic of discussion, because I think it will only just keep changing forever. Ken Suzan: That’s right. Caitlin, I want to thank you for spending time with us on the IP Friday’s podcast. This has been very insightful, and I’m sure we’ll be talking about this issue in the months and years to come. Caitlin Byczko: Thank you so much, Ken. I really appreciate it. Ken Suzan: Thank you.

This week on Headline Highlights: The Siders case takes a darker turn as Gary Jr. and Elizabeth face new felony charges tied to an alleged conduct involving a minor. Laken Snelling has pleaded guilty to all charges and admitted in court that she intentionally deprived her newborn baby of oxygen. A woman's death initially reported as self-inflicted is now being investigated as a staged homicide, with her husband charged with murder and investigators uncovering a shocking affair. A college freshman's murder takes a disturbing turn as her boyfriend claims “demons” told him to kill her, while his mother faces charges for allegedly helping cover it up..If you're new here, don't forget to follow the show for weekly deep dives into the darkest true crime cases! To watch the video version of this episode, head over to youtube.com/@annieelise. .

Megyn Kelly breaks down the most important takeaways from the Lindsay Clancy trial, including how difficult it is to find someone not guilty by reason of insanity, that even Jeffrey Dahmer's wasn't found to be insane legally, the truth about postpartum depression and psychosis, how Kevin Reddington, the very experienced lawyer representing Lindsay Clancy, is crucial to her defense, the way the public and jury might be reacting to the prosecutors, the significance of Clancy's sleep issues and obsession with her children's sleep schedule, why not every woman should be a mother, the way the medical system failed Clancy but that's not the end of the story, Clancy's search history prior to the crime, the evidence that makes the defense argument of "psychosis" hard to believe, the questions about whether she could have been a sociopath, the most important witness testimony in the Clancy trial, the parts of the testimony from Clancy's ex-husband Patrick that helped her case and the parts that didn't, and more. Then Brian Entin, Senior National Correspondent for NewsNation, joins to discuss what he has witnessed in the Lindsay Clancy trial courtroom, the reaction from the jury to the case, Clancy's nearly emotionless presence, the dueling narratives about psychology presented in the trial, and more. Finally Megyn discusses the breaking news that Justin Baldoni will only have to pay $400,000 to Blake Lively despite her request for $8 million in legal fees, why this is the latest and final embarrassment for the actress, how Melissa Gilbert is being a hypocrite by talking about child actors after the passing of Hayden Panettiere, the growing list of allegations against her own husband Timothy Busfield, and more. More from Entin- https://www.newsnationnow.com/author/brian-entin/ Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold Herald Group: Learn more at https://GuardYourCard.com ARMRA: go to https://tryarmra.com/MEGYNto get 30% off your first subscription order Byrna: Go to https://Byrna.com or your local Sportsman's Warehouse today. Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at:https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

She's been watched by 30 million people making her morning coffee and explaining wrongful termination in the same breath. In this episode of Heels in the Courtroom, Elizabeth McNulty, Sydney Marino, and Mary Simon sit down with Paige Sparks, employment attorney, founder of Sparks Legal, and one of the most recognizable legal creators online to talk about what it actually takes to build a personal brand as a lawyer. Paige gets candid about the accidental path that led her to employment law, the viral video she almost didn't post, and why "going viral" is actually the last thing a content creator should want. For any attorney who's ever wondered whether marketing themselves online is worth the risk, this conversation is proof that showing up consistently, even when it's uncomfortable, can level the playing field against firms with far bigger budgets. Catch part two in two weeks, where Paige dives into handling criticism, internet trolls, and where legal marketing is headed next.

The forensic psychologist who set off a firestorm in the courtroom on Monday will be back on the stand today. The judge ultimately ruled against a mistrial, but admonished the prosecution and instructed the jury to disregard Dr. Helibrun’s testimony about “mortal sin”. Testimony resumes today, first with Helibrun - and we can’t wait to hear how defense attorney Kevin Reddington handles any further questioning of him - and then with the state’s final rebuttal witness. We could see closing arguments as soon as Wednesday, and Lindsay Clancy’s fate should be in the hands of the jury by midweek. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The forensic psychologist who set off a firestorm in the courtroom on Monday will be back on the stand today. The judge ultimately ruled against a mistrial, but admonished the prosecution and instructed the jury to disregard Dr. Helibrun’s testimony about “mortal sin”. Testimony resumes today, first with Helibrun - and we can’t wait to hear how defense attorney Kevin Reddington handles any further questioning of him - and then with the state’s final rebuttal witness. We could see closing arguments as soon as Wednesday, and Lindsay Clancy’s fate should be in the hands of the jury by midweek. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The forensic psychologist who set off a firestorm in the courtroom on Monday will be back on the stand today. The judge ultimately ruled against a mistrial, but admonished the prosecution and instructed the jury to disregard Dr. Helibrun’s testimony about “mortal sin”. Testimony resumes today, first with Helibrun - and we can’t wait to hear how defense attorney Kevin Reddington handles any further questioning of him - and then with the state’s final rebuttal witness. We could see closing arguments as soon as Wednesday, and Lindsay Clancy’s fate should be in the hands of the jury by midweek. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

At the Tupac Murder Trial on Monday jurors heard an audio recording that defendant Duane "Keefe D" made during an interview he did for a Death Row Records documentary. In it Davis is asked admits being in the car with the shooter who killed Tupac. He is asked if he would like to apologize to the Shakur family and he says no because he didn't do nothing. Plus a heated rivalry between the defense and a prosecution witness over who speaks first.Show info:Instagram: @that90spodcastEmail: 1995podcast@gmail.comSubstack: @historyofthe90s Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Prosecutors in the Lindsay Clancy trial called Dr. Avram Mack to tell the jury she was responsible. He did. He also told them she described a laughing male voice, cried during his interview, and said she doesn't want to be alive. Jennifer Coffindaffer, a 25-year FBI veteran, joins Tony Brueski for the credibility fight that now defines this case.The guilt camp has moved off the evidence and onto the witnesses, and Tony takes the attacks in order. Resnick, 88, examined her at four months; Mack got his one interview in April 2026. The rules kept the Commonwealth's experts out until the insanity defense was filed, but the jury still heard who got there first.The chaplain, Sheila Cavanaugh, isn't a clinician, and her notes don't mention the voice. She testified Clancy described it in the first week of January 2023 hospitalization, off a breathing tube, and that she's visited about two hundred times. The malpractice lawsuit the voice was supposedly invented for was filed in January 2026.Courtroom face-reading meets Dr. Paul Zeizel's roughly sixty meetings and Mack's own account of her tears. The bipolar denial meets two examining doctors who diagnosed it and the clinical reality that sick people deny being sick.The family blame meets December 2022, when Clancy told them about harm thoughts and they got her admitted to McLean Hospital. McLean's psychiatrist saw no safety concerns and sent her home. The children died nineteen days later. Her providers had the harm thoughts in their records too.Clancy has entered a not guilty plea and argues she lacked criminal responsibility; prosecutors allege premeditation and a staged suicide attempt. She can't be a mastermind and an obvious danger at the same time. The jury gets to pick.Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LindsayClancy #ClancyTrial #TrueCrimeToday #TrueCrime #AvramMack #PostpartumPsychosis #Duxbury #InsanityDefense #MurderTrial #TrueCrimePodcast

The forensic psychologist who set off a firestorm in the courtroom on Monday will be back on the stand today. The judge ultimately ruled against a mistrial, but admonished the prosecution and instructed the jury to disregard Dr. Helibrun’s testimony about “mortal sin”. Testimony resumes today, first with Helibrun - and we can’t wait to hear how defense attorney Kevin Reddington handles any further questioning of him - and then with the state’s final rebuttal witness. We could see closing arguments as soon as Wednesday, and Lindsay Clancy’s fate should be in the hands of the jury by midweek. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jerry opens the show with his thoughts on the trade war between Canada and the United States. Then Jerry turns to a wild courtroom story where a Toronto woman threatened a prosecutor after allegedly exposing herself in court. Jerry speaks with Gavin Tighe, senior partner at Gardiner Roberts LLP, about courtroom conduct, judicial discretion, and what happens when defendants derail their own proceedings. Next, Jerry launches a listener‑favourite segment: Ask a (former) traffic cop. He takes your calls and puts questions to Sean Shapiro. Jerry speaks with Ryan Mallough, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business' VP of legislative affairs, about what Canadian businesses hope to see in tariff relief and how companies are preparing.

Bryan Kohberger's defense and Idaho prosecutors ultimately found themselves largely on the same side of the fight over cameras in the courtroom, even though their concerns were somewhat different. Kohberger's attorneys argued that the extraordinary media attention surrounding the case had turned routine court appearances into a spectacle and threatened his right to a fair trial. They accused photographers and broadcasters of repeatedly focusing tightly on Kohberger despite earlier instructions from Judge John Judge to avoid making him the exclusive subject of coverage, and they pointed to sensational headlines and images as evidence that courtroom footage was being used in ways they believed were prejudicial. Prosecutors agreed that unrestricted cameras created serious problems, particularly once the case reached trial and victims' relatives or sensitive witnesses might testify. In September 2023, the state formally supported removing still and video cameras at least during the trial and during proceedings involving victim testimony, arguing that the intense public attention required greater protection for everyone involved.The dispute therefore became less of a traditional prosecution-versus-defense battle and more of a fight between the parties and news organizations seeking continued visual access to the proceedings. Media groups argued that cameras promoted transparency and allowed the public to observe one of the most consequential criminal cases in Idaho, while Kohberger's lawyers maintained that public access did not require permitting cameras capable of producing endless close-ups and viral imagery. Judge Judge initially resisted an outright ban and considered compromises, including moving the camera farther away and using a controlled, wide-angle feed. He eventually granted Kohberger's request to remove independent media cameras from the courtroom, while preserving public visual access by allowing the court itself to operate cameras and distribute the official feed. The resolution attempted to split the difference: Kohberger and the prosecution received greater control over potentially prejudicial coverage, while the public and press were not completely shut out of seeing the proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jurors and the world heard, for the very first time, defendant Duane Davis confessing to police who he claimed shot and killed Tupac Shakur on the Vegas Strip 30 years ago. Davis is heard on tape telling detectives about what happened that night and his role in the murder right after police assure him “Nothing you say today can be used against you” and that “nothing leaves this room” in a deal that had to anger family and friends of Shakur. Police knew ALL this time who shot and killed Shakur, and we’re only now hearing about it? Davis’ defense continues to be that their client was lying to police, lying in interviews, and lying in his memoir about his role in the crime.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jurors and the world heard, for the very first time, defendant Duane Davis confessing to police who he claimed shot and killed Tupac Shakur on the Vegas Strip 30 years ago. Davis is heard on tape telling detectives about what happened that night and his role in the murder right after police assure him “Nothing you say today can be used against you” and that “nothing leaves this room” in a deal that had to anger family and friends of Shakur. Police knew ALL this time who shot and killed Shakur, and we’re only now hearing about it? Davis’ defense continues to be that their client was lying to police, lying in interviews, and lying in his memoir about his role in the crime.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jurors and the world heard, for the very first time, defendant Duane Davis confessing to police who he claimed shot and killed Tupac Shakur on the Vegas Strip 30 years ago. Davis is heard on tape telling detectives about what happened that night and his role in the murder right after police assure him “Nothing you say today can be used against you” and that “nothing leaves this room” in a deal that had to anger family and friends of Shakur. Police knew ALL this time who shot and killed Shakur, and we’re only now hearing about it? Davis’ defense continues to be that their client was lying to police, lying in interviews, and lying in his memoir about his role in the crime.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jurors and the world heard, for the very first time, defendant Duane Davis confessing to police who he claimed shot and killed Tupac Shakur on the Vegas Strip 30 years ago. Davis is heard on tape telling detectives about what happened that night and his role in the murder right after police assure him “Nothing you say today can be used against you” and that “nothing leaves this room” in a deal that had to anger family and friends of Shakur. Police knew ALL this time who shot and killed Shakur, and we’re only now hearing about it? Davis’ defense continues to be that their client was lying to police, lying in interviews, and lying in his memoir about his role in the crime.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In Massachusetts, Lindsay Clancy is on trial for allegedly murdering her three children. Her family and former colleagues testify for the defense. In New York, Luigi Mangione pleads guilty to federal stalking charges in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, while his lawyers seek to have the state murder case dismissed. In Dateline Round Up, Alex Murdaugh appears for a preliminary hearing ahead of his retrial for the murders of his wife and son. Plus, the trial begins for one of three people accused in the ambush murder of 33-year-old father Jared Bridegan. And an expert explains ghost guns and how they can complicate investigations.   This episode discusses suicide. If you or someone you know is in crisis, call the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 or visit 988lifeline.org for more resources.   Listen to season 5 of the Dateline: Missing in America podcast: https://swap.fm/l/miafdlw      Find out more about the cases covered each week here: www.datelinetruecrimeweekly.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Part One of Two Investigative journalists Mandy Matney and ⁠Liz Farrell break down everything that happened at Alex Murdaugh's most recent hearing.Team Murdaugh came to Friday's retrial hearing armed with a "bombshell" that turned out to be a dud… a rumor from fitsnews claiming Murdaugh murder weapons were tied to a recent Allendale County killing. However, no article existed, prosecutor Creighton Waters had never heard of it, and SLED debunked the claim within minutes.Mandy and Liz break down how the fumble unraveled in real time — and why so much of the media ran with it anyway. Then there's the venue circus: Dick Harpootlian putting his own associate on the stand to testify about budget hotels and Cracker Barrel commutes, insisting on Charleston-only... before pivoting to Richland County in a Monday letter to Judge McCaslin. Plus, the ruling that matters most: Alex's sworn testimony from the first trial — the lies, the kennel video admission, all of it — is allowed into the record in Murdaugh 2.0. Testifying has consequences. So does lying about where you were when your family was murdered.Vote for Laura Richards and Mandy Matney's SXSW Panel!Let's Dive In…

QUANTUM COURTS - 08.19.2026 - #968 BestPodcastintheMetaverse.com Canary Cry News Talk #968 - 08.19.2026 - Recorded Live to 1s and 0s Deconstructing World Events from a Biblical Worldview Declaring Jesus as Lord amidst the Fifth Generation War! CageRattlerCoffee.com SD/TC email Ike for discount https://CanaryCry.Support   Send address and shirt size updates to canarycrysupplydrop@gmail.com Join the Canary Cry Roundtable This Episode was Produced By:   Executive Producers Chelsea S*** Sir LX Protocol Baron of the Berrean Protocol***   Producers of TREASURE (CanaryCry.Support) Rebecca T, Bruce W, Sayitaintso, Monica, Dame TinFoilHat, Sir Casey the Shield Knight   Producers of TIME Timestampers: Jade Bouncerson, Morgan E Clankoniphius Links: JAM   SIR IKE MEGA BOX GIVEAWAY - Rating/Review, screenshot, send to Sir Ike CanaryCrySupplyDrop@gmail.com   RE-ENCHANTMENT Quantum scientist discover randomness doesn't exist (Popular Mechanics)   MIND CONTROL Short form video deactivates cognitive control, advertisers conflicted (Media Post) → Vine reboot Divine is now open to everyone, no invite code required (Endgadget)   BRAIN → Oldest human brain cells grown in lab 'recorded passage of time' (Insider Paper) St Agatha's Skull installed in body (RT X)   EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS ART   FAUCI Fauci Aid pleads guilty to covid cover up (Justice.gov)   BIBLICAL 1 Kings 22 - The council in session for Ahab Isaiah 1 - Courtroom setting, rebellion before the witnesses Hosea 4 - Yahweh brings the Rib or Legal Dispute Micah 6 - Yahweh presents evidence Psalm 50 - Heavenly Court witnesses judgment   PRODUCERS END

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.serioustrouble.showLike some of the big law firms, Disney hoped to buy peace with the Trump administration through a bogus settlement. It didn't work. Disney is now suing the FCC, saying the commission's move to review its broadcast licenses early is unconstitutional retaliation for its speech — namely, ABC broadcasts the president doesn't like. Our discussion of the ABC litigation is for all listeners this week.For paying subscribers, Ken and Josh discuss Luigi Mangione's choice to plead guilty in federal court with no plea deal; another rejected Trump administration gambit to install US attorneys without the Senate's approval; a victory for Harvard in litigation with the Trump administration; expert witness AI shenanigans; and the mailbox-rifling congressman.To hear the full episode and every full episode of Serious Trouble, subscribe here.

The Lindsay Clancy murder trial is being argued in Plymouth Superior Court and rebuilt on TikTok at the same time. Tony Brueski and Robin Dreeke, a retired FBI special agent who ran the Bureau's Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program, walk through both.The prosecution rested after calling more than seventy witnesses over fourteen days. Patrick Clancy described Lindsay's best day and her worst months. The 911 call stopped the courtroom. Medical witnesses admitted they never coordinated Lindsay's psychiatric care. The defense team used cross-examination to turn each provider into evidence that the system failed her.The defense started the same afternoon. Lindsay's mother testified about a daughter who said the medications were destroying her mind. The psychiatric experts are coming next. The jury has to decide whether Lindsay could understand what she was doing — and whether they trust the doctors who treated her or the ones who will evaluate her.Then the parallel trial. TikTok creators are comparing photos of Patrick's new wife to Lindsay. They took a blood stain expert's testimony and built a theory that he pushed her from the window. They've turned a command hallucination into his voice on the phone. No investigator supports any of it.Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.HASHTAGS:#LindsayClancy #RobinDreeke #HiddenKillers #LindsayClancyTrial #PatrickClancy #TrueCrime #TrueCrimePodcast #PlymouthSuperiorCourt #Duxbury #TrialWatch

In Massachusetts, Lindsay Clancy is on trial for allegedly murdering her three children. Her family and former colleagues testify for the defense. In New York, Luigi Mangione pleads guilty to federal stalking charges in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, while his lawyers seek to have the state murder case dismissed. In Dateline Round Up, Alex Murdaugh appears for a preliminary hearing ahead of his retrial for the murders of his wife and son. Plus, the trial begins for one of three people accused in the ambush murder of 33-year-old father Jared Bridegan. And an expert explains ghost guns and how they can complicate investigations. This episode discusses suicide. If you or someone you know is in crisis, call the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 or visit 988lifeline.org for more resources. Listen to season 5 of the Dateline: Missing in America podcast: https://swap.fm/l/miafdlw    Find out more about the cases covered each week here: www.datelinetruecrimeweekly.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Luigi Mangione confessed to murder and was convicted of stalking. Lindsay Clancy had four providers who never spoke to each other. Alex Murdaugh's prosecutor found out about his own evidence from the defense table.Retired FBI Special Agent Jennifer Coffindaffer joins Tony Brueski on True Crime Today to cover all three cases.Mangione told a federal judge on August 14 that he shot and killed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. He posed as a financial manager overseeing billions to get the conference location. The federal murder charge had already been dismissed. His lawyers filed a double jeopardy motion to kill the state murder case within hours. He is twenty-eight and faces sentencing in December with prosecutors seeking life.The Clancy trial at Plymouth Superior Court is three weeks into testimony. Clancy's nurse practitioner had no idea she had seen her psychiatrist fourteen times. She searched "hallucinations" on her phone five days before the killings. Peer-reviewed literature documents a four percent infanticide rate for postpartum psychosis. She broke her spine in a suicide attempt and is permanently paralyzed.At Murdaugh's Lexington County hearing, Judge Debra McCaslin ordered independent DNA testing on Maggie Murdaugh's fingernail evidence and moved the retrial out of the Colleton County circuit. The defense raised a potential connection between Allendale County murder weapons and the Murdaugh case. Creighton Waters, who speaks with SLED daily, said he had never heard of it.Coffindaffer covers what an investigator sees in all three cases and where each one goes from here.Lindsay Clancy and Alex Murdaugh have pleaded not guilty. All individuals are presumed innocent.Tony Brueski and retired FBI Special Agent Jennifer Coffindaffer.Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJgJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LindsayClancy #LuigiMangione #AlexMurdaugh #JenniferCoffindaffer #TrueCrimeToday #TrueCrime #PostpartumPsychosis #DoubleJeopardy #SLED #CriminalJustice

Some of Tupac Shakur's family members walked out of the Clark County courtroom on Tuesday before autopsy photographs appeared on screen. His cousin Zayd Akinyela stayed in his seat and watched photographs of a body that had been dead for six days when they were taken.Day 2 of the Duane "Keffe D" Davis murder trial put the physical record of Shakur's death in front of a jury for the first time since 1996. The prosecution called six witnesses. None were present at the shooting.Clark County medical examiner Dr. Lisa Gavin described three bullet wounds from Polaroid photographs taken during the original autopsy in September 1996. One round collapsed a lung. Shakur survived six days in a hospital before dying at twenty-five years old. The examiner who performed the original autopsy has since died.An MGM investigator authenticated casino surveillance footage from the night of a Mike Tyson heavyweight fight that ended in a ninety-second knockout. The footage survived on VHS tape because nobody bothered to erase it. It showed Shakur and Death Row Records associates attacking Davis's nephew Orlando Anderson in the casino lobby. Two and a half hours later, Shakur was shot four times from a white Cadillac on Flamingo Road.Former sergeant Kenneth Rios testified he made contact with Anderson after the beating. Anderson declined to press charges. No report was ever filed. Anderson later became the primary suspect in the murder and was killed in Compton in 1998. He was never charged.No murder weapon has been recovered in thirty years. The white Cadillac has never been found. All three other men believed to have been in the Cadillac are dead.The trial resumes Wednesday with additional prosecution witnesses.END LINKSListen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod?sub_confirmation=1Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.HASHTAGS#TupacShakur #KeffeD #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #TupacTrial #DuaneDavis #LasVegas #2Pac #FlamingoRoad #ComptonStreetLegend

Last week, I took you through the devastating events of January 24, 2023, the night Lindsay Clancy's three young children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan, were fatally harmed inside their family home in Duxbury, Massachusetts. This week, we move from the home to the courtroom. In The Lindsay Clancy Trial: Psychosis, Premeditation, or Both?, I take a closer look at one of the most complicated questions surrounding this case: What was happening in Lindsay Clancy's mind when her children died? Lindsay's mental health before the deaths has become a critical part of understanding the case. Her treatment, medications, reported symptoms, and concerns surrounding postpartum mental illness raise difficult questions about postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis, and about how severe psychiatric illness affects criminal responsibility. But there is another side to this case. The circumstances surrounding that night also raise questions about planning and awareness. Lindsay's husband, Patrick, left the home to run errands. During the relatively short period he was gone, the lives of all three children were changed forever. So how does the legal system distinguish between an intentional, premeditated act and an act committed by someone experiencing profound psychosis? Can a person appear organized or purposeful while simultaneously experiencing a severe break from reality? And where does mental illness end and legal responsibility begin? As a nurse and former forensic death investigator, I'm particularly interested in the intersection between the medical evidence and the investigative evidence. A case like this cannot be understood through one piece of information alone. We have to look at the timeline, behavior, medical and psychiatric history, physical evidence, statements, expert opinions, and what investigators were able to establish. We also have to remember why this trial is happening. Three young children lost their lives. Whatever conclusions are ultimately reached about Lindsay's mental state and criminal responsibility, Cora, Dawson, and Callan remain at the center of this case. In this episode, I explore the competing questions surrounding the Lindsay Clancy trial and the challenge of evaluating a case in which mental illness and evidence of apparent planning may exist alongside one another. Was this postpartum psychosis? Was it premeditation? Or is the truth more complicated than either explanation alone? Join me for Part Two of the Lindsay Clancy case on Pushing Up Lilies: The Lindsay Clancy Trial: Psychosis, Premeditation, or Both?

Tupac Shakur's murder trial in Las Vegas takes an explosive turn as former gang member Mob James McDonald takes the stand, addressing defendant Duane "Keffe D" Davis directly after a fiery exchange with his defense attorney. Meanwhile, Death Row Records head of security Reggie Wright Jr. faces intense cross-examination over security breakdowns and conspiracy theories surrounding the night of the infamous 1996 drive-by shooting. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber breaks down the most dramatic courtroom moments and key witness testimony unfolding in Nevada.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Go to https://quince.com/lawcrime to get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson, Heather Berzak & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Three things happened inside Plymouth Superior Court during the third week of the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. The prosecution's own psychiatric witnesses described a woman desperate for help she never received. The autopsy testimony reduced jurors and the defendant to tears. And every piece of evidence presented continued to contradict the conspiracy theory millions of people are spreading on social media.Clancy has pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months. She admits killing her children. Her defense argues postpartum psychosis and overmedication. Prosecutors allege deliberate, rational action.Criminal defense attorney Bob Motta of Defense Diaries was in the courtroom for all of it. He takes on the prosecution's growing witness problem and what it was like being in the room when Lindsay collapsed during testimony about her daughter's autopsy. He also addresses why the TikTok theory that Patrick Clancy framed his wife dies on contact with the trial record.Listen Anywhere You Get Podcasts: https://pod.link/1655749292Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJgJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LindsayClancy #LindsayClancyTrial #BobMotta #PatrickClancy #KevinReddington #PlymouthSuperiorCourt #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #DefenseDiaries #TrueCrimeToday

A model spends 300 milliseconds on your resume and the decision follows you for years. Courtrooms are fighting over whether hiring algorithms tilt toward some candidates or against others, and both sides are arguing about the wrong thing. This episode makes the case that the real scandal is not the bias setting. It is that nobody has to sign their name next to a rejection. ... Brought to you by: Career Intelligence Weekly https://newsletter.jimstroud.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Headlines and the Shot of the Day

For this segment Jimmy and Americans' Comedian Kurt Metzger point out that the surveillance footage shown in court identifying Tyler Robinson as Charlie Kirk's killer was horizontally compressed, making the person appear thinner and more like Robinson, while the uncompressed image shows a stockier individual who doesn't match his build. Jimmy also points out that the lead prosecutor identified the person in the altered footage as Robinson despite the visual discrepancy, suggesting the video was manipulated to frame him.  Candace Owens has publicly defended the image as unaltered by AI, stating that the court showed "compressed footage." The segment also questions why Tyler Robinson's court-appointed defense team appears ineffective and why other lawyers have been prevented from representing him. Plus segments on China controlling whether the U.S. can rebuild its depleted missile supply, Jen Psaki admitting that the Democrats rig primary elections and journalist Sam Husseini confronting Congressman Ro Khanna about his failure to call for Trump's impeachment over the "illegal" Iran war. Also featuring Stef Zamorano!

This Day in Legal History: The Social Security ActOn August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act, creating the foundation of the American social safety net and permanently changing the relationship between citizens and their government. Flanked by members of Congress and photographers, FDR put his signature to a law that guaranteed, for the first time in American history, a measure of economic security against the hazards of old age, unemployment, and poverty.The Act was born of the Great Depression, when the suffering of millions—elderly people with no savings, workers with no jobs, families with no support—overwhelmed the old assumption that hardship was a purely private matter. Social Security established old-age benefits funded by taxes on workers and employers, created a federal-state system of unemployment insurance, and provided aid for dependent children, the blind, and people with disabilities. Roosevelt himself was clear-eyed about its limits, saying at the signing that no law could insure everyone against every vicissitude of life, but that this one gave “some measure of protection” against poverty-ridden old age and unemployment.The legal significance runs deep, and it connects to a story we've told before on this show. When the Social Security Act was challenged as an unconstitutional federal overreach and an improper use of the taxing power, it reached a Supreme Court that had been striking down New Deal programs left and right. But in 1937—in the same term as the failed court-packing fight and the Court's famous doctrinal shift—the justices upheld Social Security, in Steward Machine Company v. Davis and Helvering v. Davis, broadly reading Congress's power to tax and spend for the general welfare. Those decisions helped cement the constitutional foundation of the modern administrative and welfare state. Ninety-one years later, Social Security remains the single largest program in the federal budget, and the principle it established—that the national government has a role in securing the economic dignity of its people—remains, as our opening quote from FDR suggests, a live measure of the country's progress.A federal trade court has upheld President Trump's authority to close the “de minimis” tariff exemption—handing the administration a rare courtroom win on tariffs. The U.S. Court of International Trade, a three-judge panel in New York, ruled that Trump lawfully used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to end the duty-free treatment that low-value imports—parcels worth $800 or less—had long enjoyed. Some quick background: the de minimis exemption is what let a flood of cheap packages, especially from Chinese e-commerce sellers, enter the U.S. tariff-free, and closing it has already generated over a billion dollars in new duty payments. What makes this ruling notable is that it cuts against the trend. Trump's tariff agenda has fared badly in court—the Supreme Court ruled in February that IEEPA does not authorize him to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs, which led to that roughly $100 billion in refunds we covered, and the trade court later struck down a replacement tariff. So how does the administration win this one? The court drew a fine but important distinction: ending a duty-free privilege is not the same as affirmatively imposing a tariff. The challenger, an auto-parts importer, argued IEEPA gave the president no independent power to close the exemption, but the panel found that rescinding a trade-related “privilege” falls within the emergency-powers statute even if imposing new tariffs does not. The significance is that it carves out a narrow lane where the administration's emergency-powers theory actually holds up—a reminder that in the tariff wars, the difference between taking away a benefit and imposing a new burden can be the difference between winning and losing in court. US court backs Trump's power to close ‘de minimis' tariff exemption | ReutersCNBC · BloombergThe Supreme Court has taken up a case that sounds technical but goes to the heart of whether wrongly detained immigrants can find a lawyer at all. The question is whether attorneys who successfully challenge an immigrant's detention through a habeas corpus petition can recover their fees from the federal government. It turns on the Equal Access to Justice Act—a statute that lets people who beat the government in court recover their attorney's fees, unless the government's position was “substantially justified.” Here's why this matters enormously right now. As immigration detention has surged, so have habeas petitions challenging it: one court in California went from a handful of these cases in 2021 to hundreds in a single month this year, and courts have repeatedly ordered the government to pay fees after finding people were detained unlawfully. But two federal appeals courts, the Fourth and Fifth Circuits, have held that habeas challenges to immigration detention aren't the kind of “civil case” the fee statute covers—which would mean the lawyers who win these cases can't recover a dime. Think about the practical stakes. Detained immigrants are frequently poor, often can't work, and have no right to a free lawyer in immigration proceedings. Fee-shifting is a big part of what makes it economically possible for attorneys to take these cases at all. If the Supreme Court rules that EAJA doesn't apply, it doesn't change the substance of anyone's detention—but it quietly removes much of the financial incentive for lawyers to challenge unlawful detention, weakening one of the few real checks on the system. The significance is that this is access to justice in its most concrete form: whether the courthouse door stays open depends, as it so often does, on who can afford to walk through it. US Supreme Court case tests fees for immigration detainees | ReutersSCOTUSblog · Bloomberg LawAnd finally, a story from the frontier of AI misuse that is equal parts alarming and absurd. A Connecticut judge has sanctioned a plaintiff who hid secret instructions inside his own court filings—instructions aimed not at the judge, but at any artificial intelligence that might read the documents. The plaintiff, representing himself, buried text in white font on a white background, invisible to a human eye, telling any AI model reviewing the filing to side with him. This is what's known as a “prompt injection” attack, and it's reportedly the first documented instance of one aimed at a U.S. court. The court caught it—apparently tipped off by strange white spaces in the text—and issued an order warning him to stop. He didn't. At the next hearing, he'd hidden a message reading “hi, I hope you can't see me,” and, in another filing, a concealed link to a SpongeBob SquarePants video. The judge was not amused, issuing a decision bluntly titled “Court Sanction for Plaintiff's Use of Prompt-Injection.” The remedy is almost poetically low-tech: the plaintiff is now barred from filing electronically and must submit everything on paper. Now, it's easy to laugh—and the SpongeBob link earns a chuckle—but the serious point is real. This is a new species of the AI-integrity problem we've tracked all summer, alongside the fake hallucinated citations. It's an attempt to corrupt the decision-making process itself, and it quietly reveals something bigger: that courts and their staff may increasingly be using AI tools to help review filings, which creates a brand-new attack surface for litigants willing to game it. The significance is that the age-old duty of candor to the tribunal now has to contend with adversaries trying to whisper to the machines—and courts are going to need new rules, and sharp eyes, to catch them. Connecticut judge says plaintiff hid messages for AI in court filings | Reuters404 Media · Tom's Hardware This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

What do the courtroom and Survivor have in common? More than you might think. The Lawyer Stories Podcast Episode 279 features Sydney Segal, public defender, former Division I athlete, and competitor on CBS Survivor 41 and MTV's The Challenge. Sydney's Lawyer Story is anything but conventional. From competing as a Division I runner at Columbia University to law school, reality television, and ultimately becoming a public defender, Sydney has built a life around competition, advocacy, and standing up for what she believes in. At the center of her legal career is a strong belief in due process, the presumption of innocence, and the fundamental goodness of people. We discuss why she chose public defense and what it means to advocate for people during some of the most difficult moments of their lives. We also talk about an innovative initiative Sydney helped create while working in Los Angeles after recognizing that some criminal defendants were missing court simply because they lacked reliable transportation. Sydney worked to establish a program with Uber providing ride vouchers to help defendants get to court—a creative solution designed to prevent a transportation problem from becoming another reason for someone to end up back in jail. Sydney also shares how growing up with a lawyer for a father influenced her path, and how the competitiveness and resilience she developed as an athlete—and later tested on Survivor and The Challenge—show up in her work as a lawyer today. Survivor. The Challenge. The courtroom. One incredible Lawyer Story.

Courtroom shockwaves!

In Episode 193 of Gaston's Great, we sit down with Locke Bell, retired District Attorney of Gaston County, for a powerful conversation about leadership, public service, and the community he has called home for decades.Locke shares his journey into law, the experiences that shaped him as a leader, and the lessons he learned throughout his career serving Gaston County. From making difficult decisions to understanding the responsibility that comes with leadership, this episode gives us a personal look at the man behind the title.

Two cases with nothing in common except the grip they hold on this audience: the Nancy Guthrie disappearance and the Lindsay Clancy murder trial. Tony Brueski and retired FBI behavioral analyst Robin Dreeke give both a full listener-question treatment in one extended session.The Guthrie letters, public since July 31, supply half the questions. The abandoned $4 million demand. The claim that an 84-year-old grandmother is buried in nature. The apology to her children, and a sheriff whose denial of the note's existence lasted exactly one day. The Clancy trial supplies the rest. A prosecution whose witnesses keep humanizing the defendant. Pill bottles counted out like evidence for both sides at once. And the online movement that built a case against Patrick Clancy out of a verified alibi and a grieving man's composure.Robin's career was reading people who lie for a living. That makes him the right analyst for an unidentified letter writer and a theory that outlives its own debunking. However deep you are into either case, this session will take you deeper.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LindsayClancy #NancyGuthrie #TrueCrimeToday #TrueCrime #TrueCrimePodcast #SavannahGuthrie #PatrickClancy #RansomNote #TrialWatch #CrimeNews

Judge rules can make or break your trial, and most lawyers are looking at the wrong document first. If you are headed to trial, this episode shows why the judge's trial rules, schedule, and persona matter more than simply memorizing jury instructions. I talk about how a trial consultation exposed major surprises in a judge's courtroom procedures, including half-day sessions, skipped Fridays, limited jury-selection time, and strict expectations that could completely reshape the order of proof, witness strategy, and expert costs. This episode previously aired on the podcast in 2024, and I'm bringing it back today because it's the perfect refresher ahead of an upcoming episode where I'll walk you through a recent trial consult of mine and the verdict. So keep that one in mind, and you can always refer back here for more context! If you want more trial prep strategies just like this, but in more depth and delivered straight to your inbox, grab my email newsletter that I send out each month: https://www.larricklawfirm.com/newsletter In this episode, we cover: Why the best place to start is the judge's rules and procedures, not just the jury instructions. How voir dire format and time limits change the way you connect with jurors. When a jury questionnaire can save your trial prep. How to spot a judge's trial persona before you walk into the courtroom. You can also listen to today's episode on my YouTube Channel: Identify a Judge's Trial Persona Before you Walk into the Courtroom [Ep 172] Follow and Review: We'd love for you to follow us if you haven't yet. Click that purple '+' in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We'd love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select "Ratings and Reviews" and "Write a Review" then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast. Have a trial or mediation coming up and want to test with a focus group? Book a free consultation call with Elizabeth to learn more: www.calendly.com/elizabethlarrick Don't miss out on the Trial Lawyer Prep Newsletter that is delivered right to your email with extra tips and 'how to' information. Join the newsletter here:  www.larricklawfirm.com/newsletter

Inside the Lindsay Clancy murder trial there's no dispute about who caused the deaths of Cora, Dawson, and Callan — the defense conceded it on day one. Outside the courtroom, a second trial is running with no judge, no rules, and no end date, and Patrick Clancy is its defendant. Tony Brueski and retired FBI behavioral analyst Robin Dreeke take the online case against Patrick apart.Every element of the theory gets its turn. The verified timeline and why conspiracy communities read it as too clean. The universal instinct that points at the husband. The armchair reads on his composure, his grief, and his remarriage. The detail the theory can't digest: Patrick sued Lindsay's doctors for failing her, putting his money behind the same argument her defense makes in court.Robin's specialty is why smart people hold beliefs that evidence should kill. By the end of this conversation you'll understand what drives every internet mob you've ever watched form. You'll also know his honest answer on whether this one ever releases its grip.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/ Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#LindsayClancy #PatrickClancy #TrueCrimeToday #TrueCrime #TrueCrimePodcast #LindsayClancyTrial #Duxbury #Massachusetts #RobinDreeke #TrialWatch

Elul prep

On this episode of Killer Cross Examination, host Neil Rockind sits down with powerhouse trial attorney Keith Bruno (of Bruno | Nalu) to break down the art, strategy, and evolution of winning high-stakes jury trials.From his beginnings as an Orange County Public Defender trying 30 cases a year to securing massive nine-figure verdicts—including a landmark $857M verdict against Monsanto and a $412M medical fraud verdict—Keith shares rare, candid insights into what it truly takes to dominate in the courtroom.#KillerCrossExamination #KeithBruno #NeilRockind #TrialLawyer #CrossExamination #PersonalInjury #CourtroomStrategy #TrueCrime #LawyerLife #CivilLitigationIn this episode, Neil and Keith discuss:Criminal vs. Civil Strategy: How transitioning from criminal defense shifted Keith's cross-examination style.The "Level 3" Approach: Why turning down the aggression and focusing on clarification can dismantle an adverse witness.Mastering High-Stakes Trials: Inside the $412M medical fraud trial and why the defense's mistakes cost them everything.Battling Corporate Titans: Taking on big-law defense teams, overcoming intimidation, and leveraging authenticity over pedigree.The Importance of Trial Work: Why staying active in courtroom battles is the ultimate training ground for trial attorneys.Whether you are a trial junkie, true crime fan, or practicing attorney looking to sharpen your cross-examination skills, this masterclass in trial strategy is one you don't want to miss!About Neil Rockind - Neil Rockind is a trial lawyer. Neil Rockind is often considered a bet the farm/company type of lawyer, taking on cases where the stakes are “all in.” Neil Rockind appears regularly on television and in the news, defends people in serious court cases, is a regular guest on the Law and Crime Network and also discusses popular trials and cases and current events with other top lawyers around the country. Neil Rockind has won just about every award imaginable, has represented athletes, celebrities, musicians, public figures and has obtained acquittals in all varieties of cases. His nickname is "The Rockweiler" and he's known for his cross examination style.Neil Rockind:Https://www.X.com/neilrockindlawHttps://www.instagram.com/rockindlaw https://www.rockindlaw.com/http://www.killercrossexamination.com/*************************************Subscribe to Killer Cross Examination® PodcastAPPLE: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/424RIys...GOOGLE PODCASTS: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...AUDIBLE:https://www.audible.com/pd/Podcast/B0...******************************************Fair Use DoctrineThe contents are under fair use. It may contain copyrighted materials whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This, in our view, is fair use pursuant to section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. We retain no rights to that material. To the extent the videos capture images or likenesses, we do not own the rights to those images, likenesses, etc and only use them pursuant to the fair use doctrine.All other rights are reserved.

What happens when a legal case becomes global entertainment?When a celebrity is accused of serious wrongdoing, the public rarely waits for a courtroom verdict before forming an opinion. News headlines, documentaries, podcasts, social media commentary and viral clips can shape a narrative long before all the available evidence has been examined.In this compelling episode of A Voice and Beyond, I speak with attorney and legal commentator James Porfido about the complex relationship between celebrity, media influence, public opinion and the justice system.Drawing on high-profile cases involving figures such as Michael Jackson and Sean "Diddy" Combs, James explores what happens when allegations are tried simultaneously in a courtroom and in the court of public opinion.Our conversation is not about declaring guilt or innocence. Instead, it examines how we consume stories about public figures, how easily allegation can be confused with proof and why critical thinking is essential when legal proceedings become part of popular culture.In this episode, we discuss:Why public opinion is not the same as a legal verdictThe difference between an allegation, evidence and proofHow celebrity status can influence the way legal cases are reportedMichael Jackson's legal history and the continuing debate surrounding his legacyThe complexity around cases involving Sean "Diddy" Combs and Jeffrey EpsteinWhether celebrity defendants can receive a genuinely fair trialHow confirmation bias affects the information we accept or rejectWhy due process matters, even when public emotions are intenseThe danger of confusing online popularity with credibilityHow audiences can become more responsible consumers of legal contentThis episode is ultimately a conversation about media literacy, justice and personal responsibility.It is a reminder that critical thinking does not mean dismissing allegations or refusing to believe those who come forward. It means holding space for seriousness and compassion while also respecting evidence, due process and the presumption of innocence.Find James Here:justicewithporfido.com/facebook.com/porfidolawinstagram.com/jamesporfido/linkedin.com/in/james-m-porfido-b007461a1/Book:Unequal Justice: The Search for Truth to Balance the Scalesxlibris.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/861729-unequal-justiceFind Marisa online:Website: https://drmarisaleenaismith.com/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drmarisaleenaismith/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drmarisaleenaismith/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/marisa.lee.12YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@avoiceandbeyond3519/videosResources:MLN Coaching Program: https://drmarisaleenaismith.com/mentoring/Schedule a Free Clarity Call: https://calendly.com/info-56015/discovery Gratitude Journal: https://drmarisaleenaismith.com/product/in-gratitude-my-daily-self-journal/Download your eBook: Thriving in a Creative Industry: https://drmarisaleenaismith.com/product/ebook-thriving-in-a-creative-industry-dr-marisa-lee-naismith/Like this episode? Please leave a review here - even one sentence helps! ...

David Burke (stage name D4vd) has been ordered to stand trial for the murder of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez after a 5-day preliminary hearing. New texts reveal she threatened him the night before her death. Meanwhile, Lindsay Clancy's trial for the murders of her three children is officially underway in Massachusetts, with her ex-husband Patrick Clancy testifying for the prosecution. Try our coffee! - www.CriminalCoffeeCo.com Become a Patreon member -- > https://www.patreon.com/CrimeWeekly Shop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shop Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcast Website: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.com Instagram: @CrimeWeeklyPod Twitter: @CrimeWeeklyPod Facebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod ADS: https://www.WildGrain.com/CrimeWeekly30 - Use code CRIMEWEEKLY30 for $30 off and FREE croissants FOR LIFE! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.