Podcasts about Courtroom

I was in the courtroom for Alex Murdaugh's 1st hearing since being granted a new trial - let's break it down.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout  - NEW STYLES Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibisVenmo - @prettyliesalibisBuy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesrCash App- PrettyliesandalibisAll links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibisMerch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.comPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis(Weekly lives and private message board)

The world is in absolute chaos, and we are laying out the raw, unvarnished truth!

This Day in Legal History: Plessy v. FergusonOn June 7, 1896, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation in the United States. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court ruled 7-1 that states could require separate facilities for Black and white people as long as those facilities were “separate but equal.” Homer Plessy, a man of mixed race, had violated a Louisiana law by sitting in a “whites only” railroad car. When arrested, he challenged the law as unconstitutional. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote for the majority that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed political and legal equality but not social equality, and that the law was reasonable. Justice John Marshall Harlan issued a lone dissent, famously writing: “Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens.”This doctrine of “separate but equal” stood for nearly 60 years, providing legal cover for Jim Crow laws and racial apartheid across the South. Schools were drastically unequal in funding and resources. Hotels, restaurants, bathrooms, and water fountains were segregated by race. The doctrine was finally overturned in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which acknowledged that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Plessy v. Ferguson represents one of the most consequential wrong turns in Supreme Court history. What made it so damaging was not just the ruling, but the Court's apparent good faith in the “separate but equal” framework—a comfort with the idea that segregation could be constitutional if resources were distributed evenly, a comfort the Court itself never actually required states to achieve. The case shows how courts can legitimize injustice through neutral-sounding language and deference to legislatures.A federal appeals court ruled this week that California schools cannot keep secret a student's gender identity transition from their parents. Think of it this way: California had passed a law giving schools discretion to withhold from parents information about changes to a student's gender expression or identity, reasoning that this protected students from potentially harmful family reactions. But the court found this violated parents' constitutional rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children. The Supreme Court has long recognized that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. This includes decisions about their education and health.California's policy attempted to create an exception to parental notification by allowing schools to conceal information about gender identity changes from parents without parental knowledge or consent. The court said California went too far. The judges acknowledged that student safety is a legitimate concern, but concluded that blanket policies allowing schools to hide information from parents violate the constitutional rights that parents have.This case sits at the intersection of three important values: parental rights, student privacy, and student safety. On one side, parents argue they need information to support their children's development and health. On the other, supporters of the California policy argued that some students face rejection or harm from parents if they learn about gender transitions, and that schools need confidentiality to protect vulnerable youth. The court sided with parental notification rights, but left open the question of whether schools can still withhold information in specific cases where there's evidence of abuse or danger. The ruling doesn't mean schools must immediately report every aspect of a student's identity; rather, it means they generally cannot have a blanket policy of concealing gender-related information from parents.California Gender Transition Parental Notification CaseThe Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a case with potentially enormous implications for citizenship law in America. Here's what's at stake: On his first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order attempting to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents entered the country illegally or are living and working in the U.S. on temporary visas. This directly challenges the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.”For over 150 years, the United States has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to mean that virtually anyone born on U.S. soil becomes a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' immigration status. Trump's order says the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of illegal aliens and temporary visa holders. The administration argues that these children are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the way the amendment requires. Legal scholars and immigration advocates counter that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” simply means not immune from U.S. law—which applies to everyone in the country, citizen and non-citizen alike.This case could affect millions of people. The U.S. currently grants automatic citizenship to roughly 250,000 to 375,000 children born to undocumented immigrants each year. If Trump v. Barbara succeeds, those children would not automatically be citizens. The case will require the Supreme Court to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment—one of the most fundamental provisions in the Constitution. The Court hasn't definitively ruled on the citizenship status of children born to undocumented immigrants in modern times. The outcome will reshape American immigration law and the path to citizenship for generations to come.Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration ActionsA Senate Judiciary Committee advanced two bipartisan bills that would expand camera access in the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courtrooms. The bills, the Cameras in the Courtroom Act and the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, now move to the full Senate for possible consideration. Supporters say the measures would make the judiciary more transparent by allowing the public to see important proceedings without having to attend in person. Senator Chuck Grassley, who chairs the committee and co-sponsored both bills, argued that Americans should be able to observe cases that affect the whole country, especially at the Supreme Court. Senator Amy Klobuchar also supported the effort, comparing courtroom access to the public's ability to watch Congress on C-SPAN.The federal judiciary opposes the proposals and warned that cameras could create problems for jury trials, witness safety, courtroom security, and the administration of justice. The Supreme Court has traditionally barred video coverage, although it began offering live audio of oral arguments during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Cameras in the Courtroom Act would require televised coverage of public Supreme Court proceedings unless a majority of justices found that cameras would violate due process. The Sunshine in the Courtroom Act would give federal judges broader discretion to allow photography, recording, broadcasting, or televising of court proceedings. That bill also includes safeguards for jurors and witnesses, limits coverage of private conversations, and would expire after three years unless Congress renews it.US Senate panel advances bills allowing cameras in US Supreme Court, lower courts | Reuters 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

Mike Crawford of the Young Jurks joins Grace to discuss Karen Read, and Grace wonders how much longer Karen will be in a courtroom.   Visit the Howie Carr Radio Network website to access columns, podcasts, and other exclusive content.

Leaked Courtroom Video Shows Karmelo Anthony Wasn't Jumped

Lexi Brine didn't follow a straight line to where she is now — and that's the point. After five years in luxury cosmetics marketing at Estée Lauder, she found herself drawn elsewhere, eventually landing at NYU Law after a stint volunteering on a 2008 presidential campaign. From there: litigation at a corporate law firm, a hard exit after becoming a mother, a wandering search through legal recruiting and LSAT tutoring, and finally a real estate career at Compass that finally clicked. Along the way, she co-founded Inc., a networking community supporting women through their own career transitions. In this conversation, Lexi talks candidly about ignoring well-meaning advice, treating “failures” as data rather than dead ends, and building a personal brand rooted in authenticity instead of perfection! Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

He faced the DA and answered every question in one or two words. Strangulation. Yes. Eight. He did not turn around to look at the families of the women he killed. He did not look at his own daughter. He stood with his hands shackled behind his back in a dark suit and gave the courtroom nothing.Rex Heuermann maintained a double life for seventeen years — suburban architect and father on one side, serial murderer on the other. He planned each killing for when his wife and children were out of town. His attorney described the plea as a huge relief. A friend said he was always respectful to women.Psychotherapist Shavaun Scott joins Tony Brueski for a conversation about what the courtroom presentation reveals about someone who has compartmentalized violence for that long. Whether the refusal to look at the gallery is control, indifference, or something the clinical literature has a name for. And whether a mind that walled itself off for two decades can provide useful information to the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit, which Heuermann is now required to cooperate with as part of his plea deal.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.#RexHeuermann #GilgoBeach #HiddenKillers #GilgoBeachKiller #ShavaunScott #TrueCrime #GuiltyPlea #SerialKillerPsychology #Compartmentalization #Sentencing

“Feared in corporate board rooms” is how the St. Louis Business Journal describes attorney Mary Anne Sedey. In Part Two of Heels in the Courtroom, this legendary trial lawyer shares more powerful stories from her career, including high-stakes discrimination cases, multimillion-dollar verdicts, and hard-learned courtroom strategies. From exposing systemic racism at a major hotel to winning big against a Mercedes-Benz dealership, Mary Anne walks through the facts, the fight, and the lessons behind each case. She also delivers candid, practical advice for young attorneys: embrace risk, be persistent, pick your cases wisely, and don't chase perfection at the expense of progress. It's a masterclass in advocacy, resilience, and building a meaningful legal career.

David Anthony Burke, the singer better known as D4vd, appeared in court Wednesday for a status conference ahead of his preliminary hearing. D4vd is accused of killing 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, who he was allegedly in an illegal sexual relationship with. But as his prelim continues to be pushed back, the singer appears to be slowly deteriorating behind bars. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber got all the details from inside the courtroom from reporter Julia Deng.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & 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.

This week on Bleav in the ACC, Darian, Ronnie, and JD tackle some of the biggest headlines in football. The conversation begins with the controversial court ruling that allows Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby to regain his eligibility despite NCAA gambling violations. The hosts debate whether the NCAA is losing its ability to enforce rules, discuss the growing role of courts in college athletics, and examine what this decision could mean for future athletes facing disciplinary action. The crew also shares differing perspectives on player rights, punishment, and whether the ruling ultimately benefits or harms college football. Later, the focus shifts to San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Brandon Aiyuk and his increasingly public conflict with the organization. The hosts break down Aiyuk's social media comments, discuss how NFL front offices view situations like this, and analyze whether his approach is helping or hurting his long-term future. Ronnie provides insight from his NFL scouting and personnel background, offering a front-office perspective on contract disputes, trade demands, player leverage, and organizational decision-making. The episode is filled with spirited debate, behind-the-scenes football insight, and honest opinions on two of the sport's most talked-about stories. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Join psychologist Christopher Quarto, Ph.D. for the second installment of the “Autism Myth Courtroom” series on the “Adult Autism: A Spectrum of Uniqueness” podcast. Dr. Quarto examines the common belief that autism has become so widespread that it must be overdiagnosed and explores why autism diagnoses have increased dramatically in recent decades. Along the way, he discusses how our understanding of autism has evolved, why many autistic adults were overlooked for years, the role of masking, increasing recognition among women and other previously missed groups, and whether rising diagnosis rates reflect a true increase in autism or simply a better ability to identify people who have been autistic all along. The Adult Autism:  A Spectrum of Uniqueness podcast series is hosted by Christopher Quarto - a licensed psychologist who evaluates adults for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) (https://chrisquarto.com).  Issues pertaining to mildly autistic adults (and neurodiverse folks who believe they are on the spectrum) are covered on the podcast including sensory sensitivities, how to make friends, regulating emotions and the role pets play as friends.  Listen and discover why your uniqueness is awesome! * Would you like to watch a video version of this podcast episode?  Check out the Adult Autism:  A Spectrum of Uniqueness YouTube channel:  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4IPUmICA-ZlIERsJk3pHyqkSyPKMht9X * Are you interested in taking the online course for autistic adults?  “Unmasked: Living Authentically as an Autistic Adult” is designed to help newly diagnosed & self-diagnosed autistic adults understand their identity, reduce masking, build practical communication and self-regulation skills, and create a life that aligns with their values, energy, and nervous system. To get on the waitlist or learn more about the course shoot Dr. Quarto an e-mail (chris@chrisquarto.com) or check out his website: (https://chrisquarto.com/online-courses-books) * Are you thinking that you might be autistic but have never been professionally evaluated?  How about taking a 6-question quiz designed by Dr. Quarto to find out if autism is likely:  “Am I Autistic?” quiz link - https://quiz.tryinteract.com/#/64db4bb606278800141be2fd * Are you interested in getting evaluated for autism? Dr. Quarto conducts in-person and telehealth evaluations with clients in most states across the United States! Click here to get the ball rolling: https://chrisquarto.com/autism-spectrum-disorder-testing/    

Last week, OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, confidentially filed for an initial public offering in the United States. With a valuation of more than $850 billion, it could become one of the largest tech listings ever.  The move marks a significant milestone for a company that began in 2015 as a not for profit research lab. In 2022, ChatGPT was launched, and the company changed its structure and attached a for-profit entity. That change did not please everyone. Elon Musk, who helped fund OpenAI in its early years before falling out with the company's leadership, filed a lawsuit in 2024 questioning the change. He argued that OpenAI moved away from its original mission. He accused founder Sam Altman and president Greg Brockman of manipulating him into donating to a not-for-profit organisation and then attaching a for-profit subsidiary and accepting billions from Microsoft.  In May, a jury ruled against Musk on procedural grounds, though he has said he will appeal. He is also pursuing a separate antitrust case against OpenAI and Microsoft. Guest: Rahul Singh, Associate Professor of Law, National Law School of India University Host: Nivedita V Edited by Sharmada Venkatasubramanian Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, we're focusing on two high profile cases – the Karmelo Anthony trial in Texas and the Vance Boelter trial in Minnesota. We'll get insight from inside the courtrooms. Featuring audio from KRLD 1080 in Dallas and WCCO News Talk in the Twin Cities.

In this episode, we're focusing on two high profile cases – the Karmelo Anthony trial in Texas and the Vance Boelter trial in Minnesota. We'll get insight from inside the courtrooms. Featuring audio from KRLD 1080 in Dallas and WCCO News Talk in the Twin Cities.

In this episode, we're focusing on two high profile cases – the Karmelo Anthony trial in Texas and the Vance Boelter trial in Minnesota. We'll get insight from inside the courtrooms. Featuring audio from KRLD 1080 in Dallas and WCCO News Talk in the Twin Cities.

In this episode, we're focusing on two high profile cases – the Karmelo Anthony trial in Texas and the Vance Boelter trial in Minnesota. We'll get insight from inside the courtrooms. Featuring audio from KRLD 1080 in Dallas and WCCO News Talk in the Twin Cities.

In this episode, we're focusing on two high profile cases – the Karmelo Anthony trial in Texas and the Vance Boelter trial in Minnesota. We'll get insight from inside the courtrooms. Featuring audio from KRLD 1080 in Dallas and WCCO News Talk in the Twin Cities.

In this episode, we're focusing on two high profile cases – the Karmelo Anthony trial in Texas and the Vance Boelter trial in Minnesota. We'll get insight from inside the courtrooms. Featuring audio from KRLD 1080 in Dallas and WCCO News Talk in the Twin Cities.

In this episode, we're focusing on two high profile cases – the Karmelo Anthony trial in Texas and the Vance Boelter trial in Minnesota. We'll get insight from inside the courtrooms. Featuring audio from KRLD 1080 in Dallas and WCCO News Talk in the Twin Cities.

In this episode, we're focusing on two high profile cases – the Karmelo Anthony trial in Texas and the Vance Boelter trial in Minnesota. We'll get insight from inside the courtrooms. Featuring audio from KRLD 1080 in Dallas and WCCO News Talk in the Twin Cities.

Do autistic people really lack empathy, or is this one of the most misunderstood aspects of autism? Join psychologist Christopher Quarto, Ph.D. for the first episode of the new “Autism Myth Courtroom” series on the “Adult Autism: A Spectrum of Uniqueness” podcast. Dr. Quarto examines where the myth that autistic people lack empathy came from, why it persists, and what autistic adults frequently describe about their own emotional experiences. Along the way, he explores topics such as emotional expression, problem-solving versus validation, the Double Empathy Problem, and why caring deeply can sometimes be mistaken for not caring at all. The Adult Autism:  A Spectrum of Uniqueness podcast series is hosted by Christopher Quarto - a licensed psychologist who evaluates adults for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) (https://chrisquarto.com).  Issues pertaining to mildly autistic adults (and neurodiverse folks who believe they are on the spectrum) are covered on the podcast including sensory sensitivities, how to make friends, regulating emotions and the role pets play as friends.  Listen and discover why your uniqueness is awesome! * Would you like to watch a video version of this podcast episode?  Check out the Adult Autism:  A Spectrum of Uniqueness YouTube channel:  https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4IPUmICA-ZlIERsJk3pHyqkSyPKMht9X * Are you interested in taking the online course for autistic adults?  “Unmasked: Living Authentically as an Autistic Adult” is designed to help newly diagnosed & self-diagnosed autistic adults understand their identity, reduce masking, build practical communication and self-regulation skills, and create a life that aligns with their values, energy, and nervous system. To get on the waitlist or learn more about the course shoot Dr. Quarto an e-mail (chris@chrisquarto.com) or check out his website: (https://chrisquarto.com/online-courses-books) * Are you thinking that you might be autistic but have never been professionally evaluated?  How about taking a 6-question quiz designed by Dr. Quarto to find out if autism is likely:  “Am I Autistic?” quiz link - https://quiz.tryinteract.com/#/64db4bb606278800141be2fd * Are you interested in getting evaluated for autism? Dr. Quarto conducts in-person and telehealth evaluations with clients in most states across the United States! Click here to get the ball rolling: https://chrisquarto.com/autism-spectrum-disorder-testing/        

Jason talks with Channel 9 reporter Paul Blume who was in the courtroom this morning as Vance Boelter pled guilty to Federal charges for the murders of Mark & Melissa Hortman and the shootings of John & Yvette Hoffman. What were the emotions like as the hearing went along? Paul has that and more.

Another week, another round of chaos.This week on The Whitfield Report Live, Sam Whitfield and the crew break down the biggest controversies dominating social media, the courts, and the culture war. Joining Sam this week is Craig D. Mansfield, filling in for Max Sand, who is under the weather.First, the internet erupted after YouTube creator Jesse Ridgway found himself at the center of a heated abortion controversy that quickly spiraled into a broader debate about personal responsibility, modern relationships, and the state of online discourse. The panel examines why these stories capture so much attention and what they reveal about today's digital culture.Next, we dive into the results of the highly discussed Karmelo Anthony trial and the public reaction surrounding the case. Was justice served? Why has the response been so polarized? Sam and Craig separate fact from emotion and examine the broader implications of the verdict.Plus, Antifa activists disrupted a Turning Point USA event, once again raising questions about free speech, political activism, and the growing divide in American culture. We discuss why these confrontations continue to happen, how the media frames them, and what they say about the current state of political engagement in the United States.All that and more, including commentary on the latest headlines, internet insanity, and whatever fresh madness the week decides to throw our way.

This is the ultimate guide to mock trial direct examinations! You'll learn the difference between open-ended and leading questions, the best ways to improve your direct score as an attorney, my process for writing a direct, the one thing every direct must include, and you'll see an example of a great direct in action.

I'm standing outside a federal courthouse, and the story of Donald Trump's legal battles over the past few days feels less like a chapter and more like the closing act of a years‑long saga. Let's start in New York, where the hush‑money criminal case still casts the longest shadow over Donald Trump's political future. After his earlier conviction on felony counts related to falsifying business records, the focus in the past few days has shifted from guilt to punishment. NBC News and CNN report that lawyers for Donald Trump have been filing fresh briefs, pushing hard to delay or soften any sentence, arguing that sending a former president to jail would tear the country apart and interfere with the 2026 campaign cycle. Prosecutors in Manhattan, according to the New York Times, have countered that no one is above the law, not even a past president, and they have highlighted Trump's defiant public comments about the judge, the jury, and the process itself as a reason the court should not go easy on him. Inside the building, the mood has turned from explosive testimony to tense procedure. Courtroom observers from outlets like Court TV and the Associated Press describe a defense team leaning heavily on constitutional themes, hinting that any severe sentence will trigger immediate appeals that could climb quickly toward the higher courts. At the same time, the judge has been reviewing probation reports and impact statements, weighing whether Donald Trump will walk out with probation, home confinement, a fine, or time behind bars. The word “unprecedented” is on everyone's lips, but at this point it almost feels overused. Down in Florida, the classified documents case has lurched forward in fits and starts. Reporters from the Washington Post note that in the last several days, Judge Aileen Cannon has held additional closed‑door conferences over how to handle sensitive national security information—what the lawyers call CIPA issues. Special counsel Jack Smith's team has been pressing for a firm trial schedule, complaining that delay after delay is eroding the public's interest in a swift resolution. Trump's attorneys have pushed back, saying the complexity of handling classified material, coupled with the demands of his other cases, makes any early trial date unrealistic and unfair. Over in Georgia, the election interference racketeering case has been quieter but no less important. According to coverage from the Atlanta Journal‑Constitution, the Georgia Court of Appeals recently agreed to review Donald Trump's bid to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis, which has effectively put much of the trial preparation on pause. In the past few days, the debate has all been on paper—filings, responses, and replies—but the stakes are enormous. If Fani Willis is removed, the case could be delayed for months while a new prosecutor is found; if she stays, the pressure will mount to get a trial date on the calendar. Meanwhile, the federal election subversion case in Washington, D.C. still hangs in the balance of constitutional law. Legal analysts on outlets like PBS NewsHour and Reuters have been focused on the Supreme Court's continuing consideration of presidential immunity. Over the last several days, Donald Trump's fate in that courtroom has been decided not by witnesses, but by written opinions and legal doctrines. If the justices carve out broad immunity for official acts, the D.C. case could shrink dramatically. If they reject that argument, Trump faces the possibility of standing trial for his actions after the 2020 election, with the entire country watching. What ties these past few days together is not a single dramatic moment but the grinding, relentless machinery of the law closing in from four directions at once: New York state, federal court in Florida, state court in Georgia, and federal court in Washington. Every new filing, every hearing, every scheduling order has become part of a larger question: how do you hold a former president accountable without tearing apart the political and constitutional fabric of the United States? As these cases move, so does the narrative around Donald Trump himself. Supporters point to every delay or legal dispute as proof of a partisan witch hunt. Critics say the very fact that a former president is answering to multiple juries and judges proves that American institutions are still capable of restraining power. And that, listeners, is where we stand in this moment: in the hallway between verdicts and sentences, between indictments and trials, between claims of immunity and the reality of a courtroom. Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I. Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3Qs For more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

A body dumped in a landfill in 1975, a victim who had no name for decades, and a suspect who allegedly spent over half a century collecting a dead man's pension, this is one of the most chilling cold case resolutions in recent memory. Investigators used forensic genealogy to identify the victim as William Reginald Sipfle and zeroed in on his stepdaughter Carol Ann Beall, now 79, as the woman prosecutors believe killed him and buried both the body and the truth for 51 years. This episode goes deep into the investigative trail, the forensic tools that made the breakthrough possible, and the haunting question of how someone lives an ordinary life while carrying a secret that dark for that long.

In a trial with no body and no crime scene, is circumstantial evidence enough to convict? Larry Millete's murder trial continues this week with shocking courtroom revelations. He is accused of killing his wife, 39-year-old mother of three Maya Millete. With cameras banned from the courtroom, 48 Hours correspondent Peter Van Sant and CBS News legal reporter Katrina Kaufman break down the past two weeks of testimony, from texts inquiring about a hitman, to a mysterious freezer wheeled out of the home just two days after she disappeared.

As Florida sues OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman for allegedly prioritizing corporate profits over public safety, alarm is rising nationwide regarding how advanced artificial intelligence can manipulate vulnerable individuals and even aid in violent criminal acts. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier joins to examine the state's dual civil and criminal offensive against the tech giant, the chilling role a chatbot played in an FSU campus shooting and a youth suicide, and how local prosecutors plan to weaponize consumer protection laws to mandate strict age verification and safety guards.New FOX News polls show a dramatic, 20-year shift in how Americans view higher education. With tuition costs skyrocketing, growing debates over free speech, and artificial intelligence reshaping the workforce, more families are asking if a degree makes financial sense in the long run? FOX News' Alex Hogan sits down with NYU Stern School of Business professor, podcast host, and author Suzy Welch to break down what's happening across American campuses. Plus, Suzy shares strategic advice from her book, "Becoming You," on how young professionals can navigate a broken career conveyor belt and pivot ahead of major tech trends. PLUS, commentary by Jason Rantz, author of What's Killing America, and the host of The Jason Rantz Show Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

As Florida sues OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman for allegedly prioritizing corporate profits over public safety, alarm is rising nationwide regarding how advanced artificial intelligence can manipulate vulnerable individuals and even aid in violent criminal acts. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier joins to examine the state's dual civil and criminal offensive against the tech giant, the chilling role a chatbot played in an FSU campus shooting and a youth suicide, and how local prosecutors plan to weaponize consumer protection laws to mandate strict age verification and safety guards.New FOX News polls show a dramatic, 20-year shift in how Americans view higher education. With tuition costs skyrocketing, growing debates over free speech, and artificial intelligence reshaping the workforce, more families are asking if a degree makes financial sense in the long run? FOX News' Alex Hogan sits down with NYU Stern School of Business professor, podcast host, and author Suzy Welch to break down what's happening across American campuses. Plus, Suzy shares strategic advice from her book, "Becoming You," on how young professionals can navigate a broken career conveyor belt and pivot ahead of major tech trends. PLUS, commentary by Jason Rantz, author of What's Killing America, and the host of The Jason Rantz Show Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, Zach Merritt, a seasoned defense attorney, discusses the intricacies of South Carolina's stand your ground law, recent case examples, and legal strategies. Gain insights into self-defense laws, courtroom tactics, and the impact of legal decisions on real cases. Seton Tucker and Matt Harris began the Impact of Influence podcast shortly after the murders of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh. Now they cover true crime past and present from the southeast region of the U.S. Impact of Influence is part of the Evergreen Podcast Company. Look for Impact of Influence on Facebook and Youtube. Please support our sponsors Elevate your closet with Quince. Go to Quince dot com slash impact for free shipping on your order and three hundred and sixty-five -day return #Self-defense law, Stand your ground, South Carolina legal cases, Criminal defense, Legal strategy, Courtroom tactics, Civil and criminal law, Case analysis, Law education Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this in-depth interview, Ariel Deshe shares his journey from military service and criminal defense law to founding Trial Kit, an AI-powered platform revolutionizing legal discovery. Discover how his unique background influences his innovative approach to legal tech and the future of AI in law.Tune in on your favorite podcast platform

What was it like to win a landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court and pursue a high-profile discrimination lawsuit against Anheuser-Busch? In this episode of Heels in the Courtroom, legendary attorney Mary Anne Sedey covers it all, from founding the first women-owned law firm in St. Louis dedicated to advancing employee rights. Along the way, Mary Anne reflects on the realities of litigation, the personal toll on clients, and the courage it takes to challenge powerful institutions. Blending humor, history, and hard-earned wisdom as only Mary Anne Sedey can, this episode captures the legacy of a legal pioneer while offering valuable insight and inspiration for the next generation of trial lawyers.

In Episode 208 of The Practice Podcast, Jeff Bast and Brett Amron sit down with matrimonial attorney  Jacqueline Newman, Managing Partner of Berkman Bottger Newman & Schein, LLP, to discuss divorce, relationships, parenting, and the power of communication. Jacqueline shares how she knew from an early age that family law was her calling and reflects on a career dedicated to helping individuals and families navigate some of life's most challenging transitions. From high-net-worth divorces and custody matters to prenuptial agreements and mediation, she offers practical insight into the emotional and financial realities of divorce. The conversation explores why many prospective clients are encouraged to pause before filing for divorce, how parents can better protect their children during the process, and why effective communication is often the key to healthier relationships. Jacqueline also challenges common misconceptions about prenuptial agreements, explaining how they can foster transparency and strengthen marriages before problems arise. The episode concludes with a discussion on law firm leadership, recruiting, and building a workplace culture that attracts and retains top talent. Key Topics:The realities of divorce and family law Protecting children during family transitions The importance of communication in relationships Why some clients are advised not to divorce—yet The value of prenuptial agreements Law firm culture, leadership, and recruitingTune in for an insightful conversation about relationships, resilience, and helping people move forward through life's most difficult transitions. Streaming on  YouTube, Spotify, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts. We are also in the top ten percent of listened-to podcasts globally.

In this episode, you'll learn the best strategies for excelling as an expert witness in mock trial.

The past few days in Donald Trump's court battles have felt less like a series of hearings and more like a rolling stress test on the American legal system, and you can feel it in every courtroom doorway he walks through. In New York, the criminal hush money case that once sounded almost technical has turned into a running clash over what accountability looks like for a former president. NBC News and CNN have reported on how Trump's lawyers are pressing hard on appeal issues and potential challenges to any sentence, arguing that prosecutors stretched state law by tying business record falsification to federal election crimes. At the same time, New York court reporters describe a judiciary trying to show that the rules of evidence, contempt warnings, and jury instructions apply even when the defendant is Donald J. Trump. You hear it when judges remind the parties that public statements outside the courthouse can still threaten the integrity of the trial inside. Shift to the federal election interference case in Washington, and the word that hangs over everything is immunity. According to reporting from the New York Times and the Washington Post, Trump's team has been leaning hard on the argument that actions he took while president, including pressuring officials about the 2020 election, should be shielded from criminal liability. Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecutors have pushed back, pointing to Supreme Court precedent that no person, not even a president, is above the law. Legal analysts at outlets like Justia and Oyez note that recent Supreme Court arguments in presidential power cases are being watched as a proxy battle over how far that immunity can stretch. Then there is Georgia, where the Fulton County election case has been mired in fights over District Attorney Fani Willis and allegations of conflicts of interest. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the last several days have been dominated less by jury selection and more by hearings on whether Willis can stay on the case, and whether the racketeering charges against Trump and his allies are being wielded too broadly. It is a reminder that the Trump trials are not just about one man, but about the prosecutors, judges, and local jurors pulled into a national storm. Meanwhile, civil cases continue to ripple in the background. News outlets like Reuters and the Associated Press have described how New York's civil fraud judgment, with its massive financial penalties and monitoring of the Trump Organization, is now intersecting with the criminal cases. Every appeal deadline, every bond posting, becomes another data point in whether a former president can run for office while under extraordinary legal constraint. Across all of this, commentators on Court TV and major networks keep returning to the same point: these cases are testing the seams between politics and law. Jurors are told to decide only on evidence and statutes, while knowing the entire world is watching. Judges are forced to balance free speech rights against the risk of intimidating witnesses and poisoning a jury pool. And listeners are left tracking multiple dockets at once, watching the same name appear in New York, Washington, Georgia, and beyond. As these past days have shown, none of these trials moves in isolation. A ruling on presidential immunity in one courtroom reshapes strategy in another. A contempt warning in New York echoes into how Trump speaks on the courthouse steps in Washington or Atlanta. The story is no longer just about verdicts, but about whether the system can hold together when the defendant is a former and possibly future president. Thank you for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out QuietPlease dot A I. Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3Qs For more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Van and Rachel react to Jay-Z's freestyle at the Roots Picnic, and Donald Trump taking two public L's in the lead-up to his Freedom 250 festival. Plus a check-in on the L.A. mayoral race, and an Atlanta judge and police deputy chief's noisy sexual encounters get exposed. (0:00) Intro (19:12) Jay-Z freestyle (42:57) Trump cancelling concert (52:27) Removal of Trump's name from Kennedy Center (1:00:06) Spencer Pratt's appeal (1:24:47) Courtroom sex affair (1:34:52) The return of Mountain Lion (1:39:30) Give up your section for Lil Baby? Hosts: Van Lathan and Rachel Lindsay Producers: Donnie Beacham Jr. and Jade Whaley Social Producer: Bernard Moore Video Supervision: Chris Thomas and Jacob Cornett Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Send us Fan MailWhy do Christians renounce sin, lies, occult involvement, vows, or demonic agreements during deliverance ministry?In this episode, Karl Gessler explains that the reason we renounce things is because deliverance is a legal battle in the Courtroom of Heaven. Agreements matter. Words matter. And writing or speaking your renunciations out loud is vital to breaking agreement with darkness.Topics include: What it means to renounce something  Why we renounce things in deliverance  Deliverance as a legal battle in the Courtroom of Heaven  Why speaking or writing words out loud matters  The difference between renouncing and deliverance Jesus still sets captives free.

Almost 30 years as a judge teaches you a lot about people. Harvey Brownstone witnessed thousands of family and criminal cases and shares what those experiences taught him about conflict, relationships and forgiveness. Harvey explains why he believes family court often fails people and why so many Canadians struggle to access justice. We also reflect on his personal journey as Canada's first openly gay judge.

AI has made it infinitely easier for anyone who can't afford a lawyer, can't get one, or doesn't want one to file a lawsuit and pro se cases are skyrocketing. But the wins haven't followed and courts are starting to get overwhelmed with new AI filings. Today on the show, what happens when AI gets its day in court.Your Next Listen  — Most People Can't Afford Legal Help. 1 Reformer Wants To Change ThatConnect with The Indicator — Sign up for The Indicator's brand new newsletter— Buy the Planet Money book— Find our socials, YouTube and more!— For sponsor-free episodes, subscribe to NPR+ Fact checking by Sierra Juarez.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Charlie Kirk Trial: Media Coverage, Public Trials, and Constitutional RightsFrom the Salem witch trials to those classic moments in To Kill a Mockingbird, and right on through to modern high-profile cases like the O.J. Simpson and Lindbergh trials, we've always loved a good courtroom drama. But as our technology has evolved, so have the questions: Should cameras or reporters have a place in the courtroom? And what rights are really at stake here?The Kirk Case Up CloseLately, a lot of us have been focused on the Charlie Kirk murder trial. I take a look at how the defense tried to keep cameras out, arguing that it would be prejudicial to their client. But the judge ultimately ruled against them—the cameras are staying, and the public gets to watch 02:18. That leads to the bigger question: What does the law really say about this?Media vs. Defendant: Whose Right Is It?Here's the real crux: The Sixth Amendment does guarantee a right to a speedy and public trial, but the Supreme Court has made it clear—that's the defendant's right, not the media's 02:47. So, while the public can attend, courts retain the power to keep cameras out. In fact, federal courts still ban cameras completely 02:59. Sometimes you'll get a sketch artist or special permission for audio, but that's it 03:16.The Legal LandmarksI walked through a couple of important cases. Back in Estes v. Texas (1965), the Supreme Court worried about cameras subtly influencing the courtroom process 04:00. Later, in Chandler v. Florida (1981), the Court refused to install an automatic ban on cameras, but said they could be excluded if there was a specific, articulable prejudice 04:55. In other words, you've got to explain exactly how it would hurt your case—not just say it might.Why Open Trials MatterWhat's the point of all this? I strongly believe public trials are a vital check against government abuse. As I said in the episode, “Our system loves sunshine” 06:40. When the public keeps an eye on the process, it's a lot tougher for things to go wrong in secret. That's not to say the system is perfect—but it's a lot better with the spotlight on it 06:56.Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2026 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At LawMentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

The judge overseeing the Charlie Kirk murder case has reaffirmed that the trial – and preliminary hearings too – will remain open to the media and the public. But Tyler Robinson's defense says they'll appeal that decision all the way to the Utah Supreme Court. We hear the judge's decisions on that and potential sanctions against the Utah County Attorney's Office; Greg shares his legal insights.

When Alexander Ortiz appeared in court for the brutal January 2024 Albuquerque murders of Alianna Farfan and Nicole Maldonado, the victims' grieving family triggered an all-out brawl that erupted in the courtroom on January 31, 2025. Newly obtained bodycam footage takes viewers inside the bloody aftermath, revealing the raw heartbreak and rage behind the viral chaos. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber breaks down the shocking footage and the tragic history of the case.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & 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.

Just over a week after we covered the murders of Victorian police officers Vadim De Waart-Hottart and Neal Thompson, we've learned more information about the case from the Coronial Inquest Hearing. Desmond Filby, 'Dezi Freeman', was shot dead following a seven-month manhunt, and this week, the Victorian Coroner’s Court heard the opening of two inquests. 7NEWS reporter Rochelle Brown explains what we learnt. LINKS If any of the contents in this episode have caused distress, know that there is help available via Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Beyond Blue on 1300 22 4636. New Mamamia subscribers get $40 off — $20 off an annual membership and $20 off your TWOOBS order. Click here to subscribe.Already a subscriber? Click here for your $20 TWOOBS discount code.T&C's apply. GET IN TOUCH Follow us on Instagram and TikTok @truecrimeconversations Want us to cover a case on the podcast? Email us at truecrime@mamamia.com.au or send us a voice note. Make sure to leave us a rating and review on Apple & Spotify to let us know how you're liking the episodes. CREDITS Guest: 7News Journalist Rochelle Brown Host: Gemma Bath Senior Producer: Tahli Blackman Group Executive Producer: Ilaria Brophy Video Editor: Julian Rosario Mamamia acknowledges the traditional owners of the land on which we have recorded this podcast.Become a Mamamia subscriber: https://www.mamamia.com.au/subscribeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today, the barbecue chicken pizza is a menu staple found in restaurants everywhere. But when California Pizza Kitchen introduced it four decades ago, it changed the way America thought about pizza and reshaped the restaurant industry. The "CPK" brand quickly became a household name with its modern, casual dining concept. What started as a single restaurant in Beverly Hills soon grew into a global footprint. The founders were prosecutors-turned-entrepreneurs who took a major risk with their revolutionary restaurant idea. Co-founder of California Pizza Kitchen, Rick Rosenfield, joins FBN's Lydia Hu to pull back the curtain on the triumphs, shortcomings, and defining risks behind the beloved brand. Rosenfield also discusses his upcoming book, “The California Pizza Kitchen Story: How Two Federal Prosecutors Changed The Way America Eats Pizza.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It was a wild day in court for the trial of former assistant principal Dr. Ebony Parker. Parker is being criminally charged after a 6-year-old student shot his teacher, hours after Parker was warned the student might have a loaded gun. Court began with juror questions, which ultimately led to both the defense and prosecution asking for a mistrial! The judge denied both motions, and testimony finally got underway, and it was compelling. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It was a wild day in court for the trial of former assistant principal Dr. Ebony Parker. Parker is being criminally charged after a 6-year-old student shot his teacher, hours after Parker was warned the student might have a loaded gun. Court began with juror questions, which ultimately led to both the defense and prosecution asking for a mistrial! The judge denied both motions, and testimony finally got underway, and it was compelling. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It was a wild day in court for the trial of former assistant principal Dr. Ebony Parker. Parker is being criminally charged after a 6-year-old student shot his teacher, hours after Parker was warned the student might have a loaded gun. Court began with juror questions, which ultimately led to both the defense and prosecution asking for a mistrial! The judge denied both motions, and testimony finally got underway, and it was compelling. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

For the last three weeks, a messy, dramatic battle has played out between two of the most powerful titans of tech in the world: Elon Musk and Sam Altman. As jury deliberations begin today, the technology reporter Mike Isaac takes us inside the courtroom drama and explains how a corporate dispute got extremely personal. Guest: Mike Isaac, a New York Times reporter based in the San Francisco Bay Area, covering tech companies and Silicon Valley. Background reading:  Inside the courtroom circus with Elon Musk and Sam Altman. Musk lawyer's question for Sam Altman on the stand: Are you trustworthy? Photo: Manuel Orbegozo/Reuters, Benjamin Fanjoy/Getty Images For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.  Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Harvey Weinstein's Manhattan retrial ended in another mistrial after jurors remained deadlocked...and now jurors are speaking publicly. We break down the dramatic courtroom moments, the reported 9-3 split favoring acquittal, and what comes next for Weinstein. Plus, Weinstein defense attorney Teny Geragos is back to discuss the verdict.Watch Beyond A Reasonable Doubt and all Reasonable Doubt video content on YouTube exclusively at YouTube.com/ReasonableDoubtPodcast and subscribe while you're thereSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.