Podcasts about Criminal law

This week Jeff opens with the long-awaited Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, a dazzling military operation years in the making. But instead of support for Israel, Jeff is stunned by the response: hatred not only from the far left but now pouring out of MAGA's biggest names. Yes, the Trump-right has joined Hamas and the progressive left in their obsessive Jew hatred, and Jeff is seething.Trump, meanwhile, couldn't resist taking credit for the Israeli success after the fact, even though he reportedly tried to block the strike for months. And if he actually helped, why didn't he greenlight American B-52s to finish the job on the underground nuke sites? Why is he trying to make a huge deal when the world's biggest sponsor of terror is on its knees?Also this week: a tale of how a young lawyer buying his first suits comes full circle 30 years later, this time as a man paying cash with 44 tailored suits under his belt. Plus, Jeff faces a federal judge he went to college with and admits, despite all of his own accomplishments, the judge is the better man.As always, Jeff pulls no punches. Not for MAGA. Not for Trump. Not for the far left. And certainly not for anyone siding with the world's worst terror regime.

Episode 121 of The Fifth Court is the first of a mini-series of the podcast recorded at the Kilkenny Law Festival 2025, held from May 16–18 in Kilkenny City. It offered a dynamic weekend of discussions on contemporary and historical legal topics aimed at making legal discourse accessible and engaging, blending serious analysis with entertainment - a bit like our own podcast!The event featured a diverse lineup of speakers, including judges, journalists, academics, and legal practitioners. Topics ranged from the impact of AI and blockchain on the legal profession to discussions on censorship, defamation, and constitutional reform.On this episode co-host Peter Leonard chats to Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger, appointed as a Judge of the High Court in January 2022. She is very well known for work in employment and equality law. She co-authored seminal legal texts such as Criminal Law (with Peter Charleton and Paul Anthony McDermott), Sex Discrimination and the Law, and Employment Equality Law and served as Chairperson of the Employment Bar Association of Ireland as well as being a member of the executive board of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties.Notable Judgments:In a 2024 case, emphasized the importance of firsthand recollections in traumatic events, stating that assumptions about memory fading shouldn't apply to unusual incidents like witnessing a death outside a nightclub.In 2025, ruled that a plaintiff's claim regarding defective breast implants was sufficiently pleaded, allowing the case to proceed.Her cultural recommendation, 38 Londres Street: On Impunity, Pinochet in England and a Nazi in Patagonia (2025) by Phillipe Sands. He examines the cases of Augusto Pinochet and Nazi officer Walther Rauff, highlighting issues of impunity and international justice.The episode also includes recent important cases drawn from the Decisis casebook and discussed by Mark Tottenham BL and Peter Leonard BL.These cases are brought to you thanks to Charltons Solicitors and Collaborative Practitioners, Georges St. Dun Laoghaire, Dublin.Cases includeA case involving a failure to comply with a court orderA wind turbine operation restriction to minimise noise, particularly at nightA High Court decision involving a Norwich Pharmacal Order, a type of court order compelling a third party—usually an innocent but involved party, like an internet service provider, bank, or social media platform—to disclose information that can help identify a wrongdoer. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Second Chance Amendment Act of 2022, as enacted in March 2025, amends D.C.'s outdated record-sealing laws to align them with contemporary record relief laws in other states. Succinctly stated, the Act provides a comprehensive framework for expunging and sealing certain records. In doing so, it can help remove the stigma of past convictions and make it easier for eligible individuals to get a job, rent an apartment, or secure a loan—all while still ensuring public safety. Because navigating the Act's eligibility requirements can be tricky, joining us to explain it all are D.C. Justice Lab's founder and Executive Director, Patrice Sulton; and Policy Counsel, Nye Winslow, with host Robin Earnest from the Steering Committee of the DC Bar's Criminal Law and Individual Rights Steering Committee.Robin M. Earnest serves on the Steering Committee for the DC Bar's Criminal Law and Individual Rights Community and received the Bar's 2024 Lawyer of the Year Award for her Community service. Robin is also a member of the D.C. Court of Appeals Committee on Admissions; and she teaches a course on Litigation With the Federal Government as a Professional Lecturer at GW Law School. Robin founded The Earnest Law Firm and is a CJA Panel attorney with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and D.C. Circuits, as well as the D.C. Court of Appeals.Patrice A. Sulton is the founder and executive director for DC Justice Lab–a team of law and policy experts researching, organizing, and advocating for large-scale changes to the District's criminal legal system. She teaches Adjudicatory Criminal Procedure and Trial Advocacy as a Professional Lecturer at GW Law School and was awarded the Distinguished Adjunct Teaching Award in 2021. She also serves on the Board of Directors for the Network of Victim Recovery of DC. Most recently, Patrice served on DC's Criminal Code Reform Commission; the Police Reform Commission; and its Jails and Justice Task Force.Nye Winslow is the Policy Counsel with the DC Justice Lab where he shapes policy campaigns and offers legal expertise on policy issues. Prior to joining DC Justice Lab Nye worked as a Legal Consultant at the NAACP's Office of the General Counsel and focused on claims of racial discrimination in voting rights, policing, redistricting, and child welfare.

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! This is the final installment of the summary of Criminal Law topics we've covered in our "Listen and Learn" series. Today, we're reviewing crimes against the person, the felony murder rule, and accomplice liability. We also address the complex scenarios that are likely to show up on the bar exam and offer a strategy for analyzing criminal law questions. In this episode, we discuss: Assault and battery: key distinctions False imprisonment and kidnapping The felony murder rule Accomplice liability Strategy for approaching criminal law questions on the bar exam Resources: Private Bar Exam Tutoring (https://barexamtoolbox.com/private-bar-exam-tutoring/) Podcast Episode 307: Listen and Learn – Crimes Against the Person (Part 1) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-307-listen-and-learn-crimes-against-the-person-part-1/) Podcast Episode 308: Listen and Learn – Crimes Against the Person (Part 2) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-308-listen-and-learn-crimes-against-the-person-part-2/) Podcast Episode 309: Listen and Learn – Felony Murder and Causation (Criminal Law) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-309-listen-and-learn-felony-murder-and-causation-criminal-law/) Podcast Episode 310: Listen and Learn – Accomplice Liability (Criminal Law) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-310-listen-and-learn-accomplice-liability-criminal-law/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-313-spotlight-on-criminal-law-part-3/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on  Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Joe Fogarty has spent over 30 years working in national security and law enforcement, in the UK and elsewhere. He's currently working on cyber-security risks and organised crime for the UK's central government, as the Head of the Government's Cyber Resilience Centre. Recently, he's been looking at security and law enforcement through a philosophical lens, through studying for a Masters in Applied and Professional Ethics at IDEA, the Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds. One of the big questions for these areas of work is how to balance privacy concerns against the public good, and we discuss that question, among others, in this interview.Some extra reading suggested by Joe:Omand, D. 2023. Examining the Ethics of Spying: A Practitioner's View. Criminal Law and Philosophy. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11572-023-09704-5). [Online].  Available from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11572-023-09704-5.Omand, D. and Phythian, M. 2023. Principled Spying - The Ethics of Secret Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at https://uk.bookshop.org/p/books/principled-spying-the-ethics-of-secret-intelligence-david-omand/3583190.Fabre, C. 2022. Spying Through A Glass Darkly. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at https://www.amazon.co.uk/Spying-Through-Glass-Darkly-Counter-Intelligence/dp/019891217X.And if listeners are interested in a view from the top of the domestic national security establishment, there is an excellent Reith Lecture by former Head of MI5 Eliza Manningham-Buller here, which echoes some of the themes in the podcast: BBC Radio 4. 2011. Eliza Manningham-Buller - Securing Freedom: Security. [Online]. Available from http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/radio4/transcripts/2011_reith4.pdf. Book your place at our public event with Gavin Esler, "Dead Cats, Strategic Lying and Truth Decay", here. Ethics Untangled is produced by IDEA, The Ethics Centre at the University of Leeds.Bluesky: @ethicsuntangled.bsky.socialFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/ideacetlLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/idea-ethics-centre/

  Summary In this conversation, Dayle Annand from Homeschool Minnesota interviews Amy Buchmeyer from HSLDA about the current state of homeschooling legislation in Minnesota. They discuss the role of HSLDA in advocating for homeschool freedoms, the legislative landscape including key bills that could impact homeschooling, and specific concerns regarding vaccination laws and the definition of homeschooling. The conversation emphasizes the importance of parental rights in education and the ongoing efforts to protect homeschooling freedoms. In this conversation, Amy Buchmeyer discusses the implications of the Elford's plea in the context of homeschooling and criminal justice. The discussion highlights the impact of criminal records on the ability to homeschool, the lack of nuance in current laws, and the existing protections for children. The legislative process surrounding homeschooling laws in Minnesota is explored, including advocacy efforts by families and organizations. The conversation emphasizes the importance of community engagement and collaboration in shaping education policy.   Links To become a member of MACHE:  https://mache.org/ To become a member of HSLDA: https://hslda.org/ To find out who is serving on the Legislative Working Group for the education bill: https://hslda.org/post/minnesota-senate-file-1740     Chapters 00:00 Introduction to HSLDA and Its Role 02:21 Minnesota Legislative Overview and Key Bills 05:02 Impact of Budget on Non-Public School Aid 09:14 Vaccination Legislation and Parental Rights 12:22 Concerns Over Homeschooling Definition and Regulations 19:34 Understanding Elford's Plea and Its Implications 20:31 The Impact of Criminal Records on Homeschooling 22:12 Nuances in Criminal Law and Homeschooling Rights 24:24 Existing Protections for Children in the System 26:14 The Legislative Process and Homeschool Advocacy 28:40 Current Status of the Homeschool Law in Minnesota 32:21 How Families Can Engage in Advocacy 34:15 The Importance of Community and Collaboration             Keywords HSLDA, homeschooling, Minnesota legislation, parental rights, education policy, vaccination laws, non-public school aid, homeschool definition, legislative advocacy, education freedom, Elford's plea, homeschooling, criminal justice, advocacy, Minnesota law, education policy, child safety, legislative process, homeschooling rights, community engagement  

Today, Hunter was joined by Professor Andrew Crespo to continue the conversation about how we can improve how criminal law is taught. On this episode, we dive into the new criminal law text book that Andrew and his co-author, John Rappaport, recently published to learn a better way to teach criminal law.   Guest Andrew Crespo, Professor of Law, Morris Wasserstein Public Interest Professor of Law Executive Faculty Director, Institute to End Mass Incarceration, Harvard University   Resources: Andrew's Faculty Page https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/andrew-m-crespo/ Andrew and John's Book https://aspenpublishing.com/products/crespo-criminallawamericanpenalsys?srsltid=AfmBOoqnaBc-2_PBCEJcaHFiEERzwgSJJwMWFPTXMtAl3xkWozObifci   Contact Hunter Parnell:                                 Publicdefenseless@gmail.com  Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter                                                                 @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com  Subscribe to the Patreon www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast  Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN Trying to find a specific part of an episode? Use this link to search transcripts of every episode of the show! https://app.reduct.video/o/eca54fbf9f/p/d543070e6a/share/c34e85194394723d4131/home  

In this special episode we sit down with Professor David Schlueter after delivering the Prugh Lecture at TJAGLCS. We discuss the 75th anniversary of the UCMJ and persistent issues throughout the history of military justice. Learn more about The Quill & Sword series of podcasts by visiting our podcast page at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/thequillandsword. The Quill & Sword show includes featured episodes from across the JAGC, plus all episodes from our four separate shows: “Criminal Law Department Presents” (Criminal Law Department), “NSL Unscripted” (National Security Law Department), “The FAR and Beyond” (Contract & Fiscal Law Department) and “Hold My Reg” (Administrative & Civil Law Department). Connect with The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School by visiting our website at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/ or on Facebook (tjaglcs), Instagram (tjaglcs), or LinkedIn (school/tjaglcs).

Join us for a truly moving and insightful discussion on the radio. With Attorney Melissa Rosenblum, we understand that legal challenges often come with a heavy emotional toll. This week, we delve into how navigating the complexities of Criminal Law can be a journey of self-realization and empowerment. Tune in to hear stories of resilience, and gain valuable perspectives on how to find your voice and reclaim your life, even in the most challenging circumstances. Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey as a criminal trial attorney, Melissa Rosenblum works with a client-focused approach that keeps you informed throughout your entire legal process. She understands the sentencing structure and can work to identify weaknesses in the prosecution's case that play to your advantage. Her experience, skills, and knowledge provide a competitive edge in your defense strategy. We believe that everyone deserves to feel heard and supported through their legal journey. Let us be a beacon of hope and guidance for you. Don't miss this opportunity to connect with the New Jersey law community that understands and cares. 

Today, Hunter was joined by Professor Alice Ristroph for the first of a two-part focus on how and why we teach Criminal Law the way we do. On today's episode, Hunter and Alice explore the historical roots of criminal law teaching, critique it, and discuss ways in which we can improve how criminal law is taught to law students.   Guest Alice Ristroph, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School   Resources: Contact Alice Here https://www.brooklaw.edu/contact-us/ristroph-alice/writings/ Read Alice's Law Review Article https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty/1257/   Contact Hunter Parnell:                                 Publicdefenseless@gmail.com  Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter                                                                 @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com  Subscribe to the Patreon www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast  Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN Trying to find a specific part of an episode? Use this link to search transcripts of every episode of the show! https://app.reduct.video/o/eca54fbf9f/p/d543070e6a/share/c34e85194394723d4131/home  

Adrienne looks back to a conversation she had last year with the fabulous Emily M Austen. Emily M Austen is the founder and CEO of EMERGE, an award winning PR Agency, based in London, working with global brands, including Huel, Red Bull, Spanx, and Abercrombie. The 25 strong team was started by Emily in 2012, at the age of 22, after she graduated from Manchester University with a degree in Criminology and Criminal Law. Her new book SMARTER is out on November 7th and can be preordered now. In it Emily reframes the idea of over-productivity equalling success, and will ultimately show that those who work smarter, are those who achieve more long-term success. Featuring 10 achievable steps, and the experience of successful entrepreneur, E.M Austen, SMARTER will show you how to reframe previous systems that your brain predicts, switch your mindset from one of scarcity to one of abundance, join the 8am club, conduct a busyness detox, define what success means to you, track your energy not your time, identify and set healthy boundaries, time block, habit pair and switch to mono tasking, and so much more. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Send us a textThis week I sit down with powerhouse Law prof, lawyer, and creative force, Joseline Hardrick to dismantle the myth that success always requires monetization. Together we explore why joy is its own form of wealth, how to resist the pressure to turn every skill into a hustle, and what business owners actually need to prioritize to build a life of meaning, especially in a world that monetizes everything.We cover: The trap of over-adaptation and why joy is a necessary form of self-preservation.Why "not everything has to make you money" needs to be a non-negotiable mindset shift.How to build your life around joy, not the other way around.The 5 forms of wealth beyond money every entrepreneur should protect.The real meaning of freedom, especially for women juggling caregiving and ambition.Whether you're overwhelmed by hustle culture or finally ready to make your business feel like it's actually yours, this episode is your permission slip to start doing things differently.Guest Bio:Meet Joseline Jean-Louis Hardrick, the multitasking dynamo who's rewriting the script for what it means to be a modern-day legal superstar. By day, she's molding the minds of future attorneys as an Associate Professor at Cooley Law School, teaching Constitutional Law and Criminal Law. By night (and probably any other available time), she's the founder and president of Diversity Access Pipeline, Inc., better known as Journey to Esquire ®, a nonprofit dedicated to promoting diversity and providing access to law students through scholarships, leadership programs, podcasts, and blogs and Lawyerish® a business that emperors every legal journey.Connect with Joseline:joselinehardrick.comhttps://www.facebook.com/jhardrick/https://twitter.com/JJHardrickhttps://www.instagram.com/jjhardrick/https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdbU42gg7FDNrsUzLL0kUmQJourney to Esquire Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@journeytoesq Let Your Light Shine on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1h_eD1pKLj8V01ZJ5mo7PMIhNN8-8mCY Support the showLove what you heard? Let's stay connected! Subscribe to my newsletter for bold insights on leadership, strategy, and building your legacy — straight to your inbox every week. Follow me on LinkedIn for more no-nonsense advice on leading with power and purpose. And if you're ready to dive even deeper, grab a copy of my book Bite-Sized Blasphemy and ignite your inner fire to do life and business your way. The Business Blasphemy Podcast is sponsored by Corporate Rehab® Strategic Consulting.

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! This is the second of three episodes in which we summarize the topics from Criminal Law we've covered in our "Listen and Learn" series. Today we explore the elements of key property crimes (like larceny, robbery, embezzlement, burglary, and arson) and inchoate offenses (such as attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy). We also discuss defenses to criminal acts and offer strategies for analyzing these topics on the bar exam. In this episode, we discuss: The elements of various property crimes and key distinctions between them Summary of inchoate offenses -- the "almost" crimes Defenses to criminal acts Resources: Private Bar Exam Tutoring (https://barexamtoolbox.com/private-bar-exam-tutoring/) Podcast Episode 112: Listen and Learn – Property Crimes (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-112-listen-and-learn-property-crimes/) Podcast Episode 175: Listen and Learn – Inchoate Offenses (Criminal Law) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-175-listen-and-learn-inchoate-offenses-criminal-law/) Podcast Episode 202: Listen and Learn – Defenses to a Crime (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-202-listen-and-learn-defenses-to-a-crime/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-312-spotlight-on-criminal-law-part-2/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on  Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

The first Selden Society lecture for 2025, Recasting the law on a more merciful basis: juvenile justice then and now, will be presented by Dr Robyn Blewer from the Griffith Law School.In 1897, a Perth newspaper reported on the distressed state of two young boys who'd been remanded in custody in the local watchhouse for stealing a pigeon: ‘the punishment, even if guilty ... must have been greater than many a women beater or hardened thief suffers. If the system is to blame, it is high time that it was recast on a more merciful basis.'This lecture explores the youth crime crisis of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when the age of criminal responsibility, detention of children in watchhouses, and the housing crisis were subjects of debate and potential reform for a more compassionate approach to juvenile justice. Political, legislative and judicial responses were cohesive and introduced children's courts across the country, contributing to the 150-year legacy shaping our conversations today.About the speakerRobyn is a lecturer at Griffith Law School, specialising in criminal trial procedure and vulnerable witness testimony. She completed a Master of Criminology and Criminal Justice in 2012, and her doctoral research focused on Australia's child witness law as part of The Prosecution Project. In 2019, Robyn became Director of the Griffith University Innocence Project. She also teaches Criminal Law courses and has experience in commercial litigation and volunteering with Salvos Legal Humanitarian.Support the show

In this episode we examine the changes to Article 131 and what “endeavoring to seize” means in the statutory scheme. In the process we examine the history of this new article, its implementation under MJA 2016, and charging strategies. Learn more about The Quill & Sword series of podcasts by visiting our podcast page at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/thequillandsword. The Quill & Sword show includes featured episodes from across the JAGC, plus all episodes from our four separate shows: “Criminal Law Department Presents” (Criminal Law Department), “NSL Unscripted” (National Security Law Department), “The FAR and Beyond” (Contract & Fiscal Law Department) and “Hold My Reg” (Administrative & Civil Law Department). Connect with The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School by visiting our website at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/ or on Facebook (tjaglcs), Instagram (tjaglcs), or LinkedIn (school/tjaglcs).

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! This is the first of three episodes in which we summarize the topics from Criminal Law we've covered in our "Listen and Learn" series. We begin by reviewing the elements of a crime (actus reus, mens rea, causation, concurrence) and the various types of homicide (first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter). We also cover legal defenses in criminal law and provide an attack plan for analyzing homicide questions on an exam. In this episode, we discuss: The essential elements of a crime The different types of homicide Legal defenses in criminal law An attack plan for analyzing homicide questions on an exam Resources: Private Bar Exam Tutoring (https://barexamtoolbox.com/private-bar-exam-tutoring/) Podcast Episode 260: Listen and Learn – Elements of a Crime (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-260-listen-and-learn-elements-of-a-crime/) Podcast Episode 87: Listen and Learn – Homicide (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-87-listen-and-learn-homicide/) Podcast Episode 218: Listen and Learn – Intent Under the Model Penal Code (Criminal Law) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-218-listen-and-learn-intent-under-the-model-penal-code-criminal-law/) Podcast Episode 202: Listen and Learn – Defenses to a Crime (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-202-listen-and-learn-defenses-to-a-crime/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-311-spotlight-on-criminal-law-part-1/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on  Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Magna Legal Services Director and Senior Litigation Consultant Hiliary Remick joins Legal Face-Off to discuss jury selection in Diddy's trial. Northeastern University School of Law distinguished Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Daniel Medwed discusses the latest in the retrial of Karen Read. Kravit Hovel & Krawczyk Founding Partner Stephen Kravit joins Rich and […]

In this award-winning episode of Immigration Crisis: The Fight for the Southern Border, Yami Virgin and Paul Sanchez uncover the real-world impact of a new military zone near Fort Bliss, Texas, where active-duty troops are now authorized to detain migrants crossing into what's been declared federal defense land.With exclusive insights from retired Lt. Colonel Geoffrey Corn, George R. Killam Jr. Chair of Criminal Law and Director of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University. This episode dives into the creative use of legal loopholes, risks to civil liberties, and the narrative framing the border as a battlefield. Plus, Jordan Elder reports on Congress's multi-billion dollar proposal to expand the southern border's infrastructure, from walls to high-tech surveillance.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Rachel Barkow is the Charles Seligson Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the Faculty Director of the Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU. From 2013 to 2019, she served as a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission. From 2010 to 2020, she was a member of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Conviction Integrity Policy Advisory Panel and co-chaired Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's transition committee on police accountability in 2021. She is also amongst the most cited legal scholars of all time.  For a transcript of Rachel's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

CAAF Chats is back! This week we examine what meaningful relief looks like during appellate review, and whether meaningful relief is even required. CAAF continues its trend of interpreting statutory changes to the UCMJ. Learn more about The Quill & Sword series of podcasts by visiting our podcast page at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/thequillandsword. The Quill & Sword show includes featured episodes from across the JAGC, plus all episodes from our four separate shows: “Criminal Law Department Presents” (Criminal Law Department), “NSL Unscripted” (National Security Law Department), “The FAR and Beyond” (Contract & Fiscal Law Department) and “Hold My Reg” (Administrative & Civil Law Department). Connect with The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School by visiting our website at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/ or on Facebook (tjaglcs), Instagram (tjaglcs), or LinkedIn (school/tjaglcs).

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today we're focusing on another topic from Criminal Law -- namely, accomplice liability. We're covering the three elements of establishing accomplice liability, situations where accomplice liability doesn't apply, and what defenses a person charged as an accomplice can assert. We also apply these concepts to several hypothetical scenarios. In this episode, we discuss: Elements of accomplice liability Exceptions and defenses to accomplice liability Analysis of three criminal law hypotheticals Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) Podcast Episode 70: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Criminal Law and Procedure (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-70-tackling-a-california-bar-exam-essay-criminal-law-and-procedure/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-310-listen-and-learn-accomplice-liability-criminal-law/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! Today we're exploring some complex aspects of criminal law that frequently appear on exams -- the felony murder rule and causation in homicide cases. We have included an analysis of two hypothetical scenarios to illustrate these legal principles. In this episode, we discuss: Review of the felony murder rule Which felonies are considered inherently dangerous? The death of a co-felon rule Causation in homicide cases, and when is the chain of causation broken? Analysis of two hypothetical criminal law scenarios Resources: "Listen and Learn" series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn) Podcast Episode 87: Listen and Learn – Homicide  (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-87-listen-and-learn-homicide/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-309-listen-and-learn-felony-murder-and-causation-criminal-law/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

Elements of a Crime: A crime generally has two components: the actus reus, the physical or external part, and the mens rea, the mental or internal feature. The actus reus generally includes a voluntary act that causes social harm. Causation links the voluntary act to the social harm. The requirement of a voluntary act is generally an implicit element of criminal statutes supported by common law. In exceptional cases, an omission (failure to act when there is a legal duty) can serve as the basis for criminal responsibility. A duty to act can arise from common law, statute, or contract. Most human acts are considered voluntary, with involuntary acts including reflexive actions, spasms, seizures, and movements during unconsciousness or sleep.Mens rea refers to criminal intent or a "guilty mind". It is the state of mind statutorily required to convict a defendant of a particular crime. The prosecution typically must prove mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt. The Model Penal Code (MPC) categorizes culpable mental states into four levels: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently.Concurrence (or contemporaneity) is the need to prove that the actus reus and mens rea occurred simultaneously, except in strict liability crimes. The single transaction principle allows a sequence of inevitably linked events to be viewed as one transaction, where mens rea formed at any point during the sequence can suffice.Classification of Crimes: Crimes can be classified in several ways, most commonly as felonies (punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year) and misdemeanors (lesser offenses usually punishable by a fine or incarceration for less than one year). Crimes are also categorized as inchoate offenses and strict liability offenses. At common law, there were nine major felonies and various misdemeanors.Inchoate Offenses: Inchoate offenses (attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy) involve steps taken toward committing another crime, even if the final harmful result does not occur. Attempt involves preparatory conduct that comes dangerously close to success (common law proximity test) or constitutes a substantial step strongly corroborative of criminal purpose (MPC substantial step test). Solicitation occurs when one intentionally entices another to commit a crime. Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, coupled with an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. The Pinkerton doctrine can hold a conspirator liable for foreseeable crimes committed by co-conspirators. The merger doctrine often prevents conviction for both an attempt or solicitation and the completed offense, but conspiracy typically does not merge. Renunciation or withdrawal may be a defense to inchoate offenses in some jurisdictions.Specific Crimes: Homicide is the unlawful killing of a human being, categorized into murder, manslaughter, and sometimes criminally negligent homicide. Murder is typically defined as unlawful killing with malice aforethought. US law for murder varies by jurisdiction, often with degrees of murder (first, second, sometimes third) and different classifications in the Model Penal Code (purposely/knowingly, reckless, negligent). Property crimes include larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, robbery, burglary, and arson, each involving different ways property rights are violated.Defenses to Criminal Liability: Defenses are broadly divided into justifications (admitting actus reus and mens rea but claiming the act was legally permissible) and excuses (conceding the act was wrongful but arguing the actor should not be held criminally responsible). Justification defenses include self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, necessity, and law enforcement privilege. Excuse defenses include insanity, intoxication, duress, entrapment, and mistake.The insanity defense concerns the defendant's state of mind, potentially negating mens rea, with various legal tests like the M'Naghten Rule, Durh

A justification defense claims that the defendant's conduct was lawful under the circumstances, while an excuse defense concedes the wrongfulness of the act but argues the defendant should not be held criminally responsible. An example of justification is self-defense; an example of excuse is insanity.The core elements of self-defense include an actual and reasonable belief that the use of force was necessary to prevent the imminent use of unlawful force by another. Deadly force is permissible only when the defendant reasonably believes they are facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.The majority rule (and the Model Penal Code approach) does not require retreat before using deadly force unless the defendant knows they can avoid the threat with complete safety. The minority rule, or "stand your ground" rule, permits individuals to meet deadly force with deadly force, even if retreat is safely possible, as long as they are in a place where they have a legal right to be.The defense of necessity allows a defendant to commit a crime to avoid a greater imminent harm when no adequate legal alternative is available. Two key limitations are that the defense is generally not available if the defendant caused the situation and is typically not a defense to homicide.The M'Naghten Rule states that a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if, due to a mental disease or defect, they did not know the nature and quality of their act, or if they did know it, they did not know it was wrong. The central focus of this test is the defendant's cognitive understanding of their actions and their wrongfulness.Voluntary intoxication, the result of the defendant's intentional consumption of intoxicants, may negate the specific intent required for certain crimes. Involuntary intoxication, which occurs through coercion, fraud, or mistake, is treated more like insanity and may be a defense to any crime if it negates the necessary mental state.Duress can be a valid defense if the defendant committed a crime under the threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or others, the threat would overcome the will of a person of ordinary firmness, and there was no reasonable opportunity to escape. It is generally not a defense to homicide.The subjective test for entrapment focuses on the predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime. If the defendant was already inclined to commit the crime and the government merely provided an opportunity, the defense of entrapment will likely fail, regardless of the government's conduct.The general rule is that mistake of law is not a defense; ignorance of the law is no excuse. One recognized exception is when the defendant reasonably relied on an official interpretation of the law by a public official responsible for interpreting or enforcing that law (entrapment by estoppel).Due process guarantees fundamental fairness in the criminal process, which includes the right of a defendant to present a defense. This means defendants must have the opportunity to introduce evidence, challenge the prosecution's case, and have their defenses properly considered by the court and jury.

Matthew Brickman speaks with Lawyer and Forensic Scientist Tad A. Nelson on MediateThis! to discuss retirement plans from mediation - there isn't one. With over 400 jury trials under his belt, Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization for 30 years, and recognized as a Super Lawyer over 10 consecutive years, Tad Nelson is a force to be reckoned with in the courtroom. His reputation for aggressive representation, combined with an unparalleled level of expertise, has made him the go-to criminal defense attorney in Galveston County and beyond. Former Assistant District AttorneyBoard Certified® in 1996Certified SFST InstructorCertified in the DRE ProtocolTad has not only mastered the law—he has mastered the science behind it. Achieving the prestigious Lawyer-Scientist designation from the American Chemical Society, he further solidified his expertise by pursuing a Master's in Forensic Toxicology from the University of Florida. This deep understanding of forensic science gives him a cutting edge in cases involving DWI, drug charges, sexual assaults and other forensic-heavy criminal matters.Beyond his scientific acumen, Tad has earned the highest possible AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell, an honor recognizing both legal skill and ethical integrity. His aggressive nature, wicked courtroom skills, and commitment to justice make him a wrecking ball when it comes to defending the rights of his clients.Website: https://tadlaw.com If you have a matter, disagreement, or dispute you need professional help with then visit iMediate.com - Email mbrickman@ichatmediation or Call (877) 822-1479Matthew Brickman is a Florida Supreme Court certified family and appellate mediator who has worked in the 15th and 19th Judicial Circuit Courts since 2009 and 2006 respectively. But what makes him qualified to speak on the subject of conflict resolution is his own personal experience with divorce.Download Matthew's book on iTunes for FREE:You're Not the Only One - The Agony of Divorce: The Joy of Peaceful ResolutionMatthew Brickman President iMediate Inc. Mediator 20836CFASCHEDULE YOUR MEDIATION: https://ichatmediation.com/calendar/OFFICIAL BLOG: https://ichatmediation.com/podcastOFFICIAL YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/ichatmediationOFFICIAL LINKEDIN: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ichat-mediation/ABOUT MATTHEW BRICKMAN:Matthew Brickman is a Supreme Court of Florida certified county civil family mediator who has worked in the 15th and 19th Judicial Circuit Courts since 2009 and 2006 respectively. He is also an appellate certified mediator who mediates a variety of small claims, civil, and family cases. Mr. Brickman recently graduated both the Harvard Business School Negotiation Mastery Program and the Negotiation Master Class at Harvard Law School.

This lecture provides a comprehensive overview of defenses to criminal liability, categorizing them into justifications, where the act is deemed lawful, and excuses, where responsibility is negated due to factors like incapacity or coercion. It explores specific justification defenses such as self-defense and necessity, and excuse defenses including insanity and duress, detailing their legal standards and variations. The lecture also examines procedural and constitutional limitations, like due process and double jeopardy, which influence the application and availability of these defenses in the legal system. Understanding these principles is crucial for analyzing criminal cases and appreciating the balance between state power and individual rights.

Inchoate offenses are "incomplete" crimes that involve steps taken toward committing another crime, even if the final harmful result never occurs. The three main types discussed are attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy.The two primary elements required for attempt are the intent to commit a specific crime and an overt act that constitutes a substantial step toward its commission. The mental state requires a specific intent to achieve the prohibited result.The proximity test for attempt requires the defendant's actions to be dangerously close to the completion of the intended crime, while the Model Penal Code's substantial step test is more expansive, focusing on conduct strongly corroborative of criminal purpose.Solicitation occurs when a person entices, encourages, commands, or requests another person to engage in criminal conduct, with the intent that the crime be committed. The crime of solicitation is complete the moment the request is made with the requisite intent, regardless of whether the other person acts on it.The actus reus of conspiracy is the agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, often requiring an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. The mens rea includes both the intent to agree and the intent that the object of the agreement be achieved.Malice aforethought for murder can be established through intent to kill (express malice), intent to cause serious bodily harm resulting in death, depraved heart murder (extreme recklessness), and felony murder (killing during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony).Voluntary manslaughter involves an intentional killing committed in the heat of passion resulting from adequate provocation, without a cooling-off period. Involuntary manslaughter, on the other hand, involves an unintentional killing resulting from criminal negligence or during the commission of a misdemeanor or non-dangerous felony.At common law, battery is the unlawful application of force to another person resulting in bodily injury or offensive touching. Assault can be either an attempted battery or the intentional creation of a reasonable apprehension in the victim of imminent bodily harm.Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the tangible personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it. It differs from embezzlement, where the defendant initially possesses the property lawfully but then fraudulently converts it.Robbery is defined as the unlawful taking of personal property from the person or presence of another, by force or threat of immediate force, with the intent to permanently deprive. The use of violence or intimidation is the defining characteristic that elevates larceny to robbery.

This lecture on criminal law explores the crucial concepts of inchoate offenses, which are incomplete crimes like attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy. It then transitions to specific crimes against persons, such as varying degrees of homicide, assault, battery, kidnapping, and rape, detailing their distinct elements. Finally, the lecture examines various property crimes, including larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, robbery, burglary, and arson, highlighting the legal differences between these offenses. The session aims to build upon foundational criminal law principles by applying them to these substantive and preparatory crimes.

In this episode of Nurse Converse, Maggie Ortiz and RaDonda Vaught explore the lasting impact of RaDonda's case, focusing on the Board of Nursing's role, the legal risks nurses face, and the complexities of due process following medical errors. They discuss the urgent need for accountability, legal education, and support for nurses navigating an often opaque regulatory system—all while keeping patient safety at the center. Join us for a candid conversation about the legal challenges nurses face and what must change to better protect both nurses and patients.Jump Ahead to Listen:[01:41] Boards of nursing investigations.[04:16] Types of law for nurses.[09:54] Medication-related patient harm.[12:13] Medication administration policy violation.[16:07] Legal rights for nurses.[20:14] Protecting the public vs. nurses.[25:03] Administrative law for nurses.[29:35] Oversight in nursing investigations.Connect with Maggie LinkedIn and on social media:Instagram: @advocates4nursesTikTok: @advocates4nursesFor more information, full transcript and videos visit Nurse.org/podcastJoin our newsletter at nurse.org/joinInstagram: @nurse_orgTikTok: @nurse.orgFacebook: @nurse.orgYouTube: Nurse.org

The Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) reads, “The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant's consent.” This rule has recently been used by the Justice Department in cases like the Mayor Eric Adams case and January 6th cases. In both instances, judges have questioned the reasons for the dismissal and revealed unsolved conflict between permissive and restrictive views of the judge's role, both to explore executive decisions of the prosecution and whether to dismiss indictments with or without prejudice to their later renewal. This panel will discuss the rule and its recent uses, along with questions regarding the government’s motivation to dismiss such cases and just how far judicial review can and ought to go when approving the dismissals.Featuring:Prof. Paul Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Utah College of LawAndrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National ReviewWilliam Shipley, Attorney, Law Offices of William L. Shipley & AssociatesModerator: Hon. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding--To resgister, click the link above.

The primary objectives of criminal law include deterrence (general and specific), incapacitation, retribution, rehabilitation, and defining societal norms. Unlike civil law, which aims to compensate a wronged party, criminal law operates on behalf of the state to prosecute and punish wrongful acts in the communal interest.Felonies are typically punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year, while misdemeanors are lesser offenses usually punishable by a fine or incarceration for less than one year. Murder is an example of a malum in se crime because it violates fundamental moral standards, whereas a traffic violation is an example of a malum prohibitum crime because its illegality stems from statute.General intent crimes require the intent to perform the physical act itself, such as intentionally striking someone in battery. Specific intent crimes require an additional subjective intent to bring about a specific result, such as in theft, where the defendant must intend to permanently deprive another of their property.A state generally has jurisdiction to prosecute crimes that either occur within its borders or produce harmful effects within its territory. Concurrent jurisdiction arises when more than one sovereign has the legal authority to prosecute the same conduct. The doctrine of dual sovereignty under the Double Jeopardy Clause allows both federal and state governments to prosecute the same individual for the same conduct without violating double jeopardy protections, as they are separate sovereigns.Actus reus refers to the physical component of a crime, which is a voluntary act or a qualifying omission. An omission can constitute actus reus when there is a legal duty to act, the person is physically capable of acting, and they fail to do so, such as a parent deliberately withholding food from their child.Recklessness is a subjective mental state involving the conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk; the defendant must be aware of the risk. Negligence is an objective standard that applies when a person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a reasonable person would have recognized, regardless of actual awareness.Strict liability crimes are offenses where no mental state is required; the mere commission of the act is sufficient for liability. These types of crimes are most commonly found in regulatory and public welfare areas such as food safety or statutory rape. For example, a vendor selling contaminated food may be held strictly liable regardless of intent.The principle of concurrence requires that the actus reus (the physical act) and the mens rea (the mental state) coincide in time. This is generally required because criminal liability is predicated on the idea that the wrongful conduct was accompanied by a culpable state of mind.Factual cause, or "but-for" causation, means that the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant's act. Legal cause, or proximate cause, addresses whether the result is closely enough connected to the act to hold the defendant criminally responsible, considering factors like foreseeability. An intervening cause might break the chain of legal causation if it is unforeseeable and superseding, meaning it was not a natural or probable consequence of the defendant's actions.A principal is the primary actor who commits the criminal act, while an accomplice is someone who aids, encourages, or assists the principal with the intent that the crime be committed. Accomplice liability requires both an act of assistance and the specific intent that the underlying crime be committed by the principal.

This lecture note from a criminal law course introduces fundamental concepts necessary for understanding criminal liability. It explores the purposes of criminal law, including deterrence and retribution, and classifies crimes based on severity and inherent wrongfulness. The note further details the essential elements of a crime, specifically the physical act (actus reus) and the mental state (mens rea), along with principles of causation and concurrence. Finally, it outlines different forms of criminal responsibility, such as accomplice liability and corporate liability, providing a foundational overview for further study of specific offenses.

What happens when modern neuroscience challenges our centuries-old understanding of free will, responsibility, and justice? In this groundbreaking conversation, three experts explore one of the most profound questions of our time:

In this episode, Jeff analyzes President Trump's handling of negotiations with Iran and its terror proxies, as well as America's jihadist universities, and demonstrates that the desire for the bestest of deals doesn't always end with good results for America and its allies. America needs a strong ideologue in place during these difficult times and not a used car salesman.The new four episode Max docuseries about the Sinaloa Cartel is out and you've got a review from the one person who actually knows the truth — Jeff — and he points out the obviously fabrications contained therein. If you real true crime stories you don't want to miss this podcast.

Matthew Brickman speaks with Lawyer and Forensic Scientist Tad A. Nelson on MediateThis! to discuss the the impact someone having a mental heath crisis can have on employment and divorce. With over 400 jury trials under his belt, Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization for 30 years, and recognized as a Super Lawyer over 10 consecutive years, Tad Nelson is a force to be reckoned with in the courtroom. His reputation for aggressive representation, combined with an unparalleled level of expertise, has made him the go-to criminal defense attorney in Galveston County and beyond. Former Assistant District AttorneyBoard Certified® in 1996Certified SFST InstructorCertified in the DRE ProtocolTad has not only mastered the law—he has mastered the science behind it. Achieving the prestigious Lawyer-Scientist designation from the American Chemical Society, he further solidified his expertise by pursuing a Master's in Forensic Toxicology from the University of Florida. This deep understanding of forensic science gives him a cutting edge in cases involving DWI, drug charges, sexual assaults and other forensic-heavy criminal matters.Beyond his scientific acumen, Tad has earned the highest possible AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell, an honor recognizing both legal skill and ethical integrity. His aggressive nature, wicked courtroom skills, and commitment to justice make him a wrecking ball when it comes to defending the rights of his clients.Website: https://tadlaw.com If you have a matter, disagreement, or dispute you need professional help with then visit iMediate.com - Email mbrickman@ichatmediation or Call (877) 822-1479Matthew Brickman is a Florida Supreme Court certified family and appellate mediator who has worked in the 15th and 19th Judicial Circuit Courts since 2009 and 2006 respectively. But what makes him qualified to speak on the subject of conflict resolution is his own personal experience with divorce.Download Matthew's book on iTunes for FREE:You're Not the Only One - The Agony of Divorce: The Joy of Peaceful ResolutionMatthew Brickman President iMediate Inc. Mediator 20836CFASCHEDULE YOUR MEDIATION: https://ichatmediation.com/calendar/OFFICIAL BLOG: https://ichatmediation.com/podcastOFFICIAL YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/ichatmediationOFFICIAL LINKEDIN: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ichat-mediation/ABOUT MATTHEW BRICKMAN:Matthew Brickman is a Supreme Court of Florida certified county civil family mediator who has worked in the 15th and 19th Judicial Circuit Courts since 2009 and 2006 respectively. He is also an appellate certified mediator who mediates a variety of small claims, civil, and family cases. Mr. Brickman recently graduated both the Harvard Business School Negotiation Mastery Program and the Negotiation Master Class at Harvard Law School.

Rachel Barkow is the Charles Seligson Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the Faculty Director of the Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU. From 2013 to 2019, she served as a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission. From 2010 to 2020, she was a member of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Conviction Integrity Policy Advisory Panel and co-chaired Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's transition committee on police accountability in 2021. She is also amongst the most cited legal scholars of all time.  For a transcript of Rachel's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

He is a retired Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a special agent after thirty years and currently teaches criminal law for those coming into law enforcement. He runs his own private investigating business; LRH Investigators, and volunteers to visit with military veterans, law enforcement agents, and officers in hospice.He co-authored his first book about his work in Path of the Devil and in Spanish: Camino del Diablo with Dianne DeMille PhD, Jeff Pearce, and Randy Torgerson.His second book with Dianne DeMille PhD: Fighting My Greatest Enemy, Myself is about his spiritual journey growing up in Kentucky, working in law enforcement, and keeping his faith.His third book with Dianne DeMille PhD: Home is Never the Same is his family memoir and his life as an agent with DEA.He says that we are guaranteed to fail some of those tests. That is ok if we learn from them and find the strength to continue travelling on the road. We become much stronger by overcoming our failures and mustering the strength to reach our destination. https://www.larryrayhardin.com/http://www.yourlotandparcel.org

In this episode of DEVIANT Off Script, host Andrew Iden sits down with Atlanta-based defense attorney Kirby Clements. Kirby, who has experience on both sides of the legal system as a former prosecutor, provides a compelling look into the American justice system. They discuss the intricacies of representing clients, the challenges faced by defense attorneys, and the courtroom dynamics that often surprise the public. Kirby shares personal stories from his career, shedding light on the emotional and practical aspects of criminal defense. This episode is a must for anyone interested in the law, and the real-life scenarios that attorneys navigate daily. JOIN OUR PATREON: http://www.deviantpodcast.com Visit DEVIANT's socials: http://www.instagram.com/deviant.podcast http://www.tiktok.com/@deviant.podcast Copyright 2025 Cold Open Media LLC 00:00 Introduction and Guest Overview 01:41 Kirby's Journey to Becoming a Lawyer 02:38 Early Career as a Prosecutor 04:00 Memorable Courtroom Stories 10:29 Transition to Criminal Defense 18:29 Confronting a Killer Client 19:34 The Role of a Defense Attorney 20:24 Prosecutor vs. Defense: A Philosophical Debate 21:55 Defending the Guilty and the Innocent 24:19 The Emotional Toll of Defending the Innocent 27:35 Public Perception and Jury Bias 32:58 The Reality of the Criminal Justice System 37:10 The Impact of Resources on Legal Defense 38:31 Final Thoughts and Reflections Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

President Trump has signed more executive orders in his first 10 days and in his first month in office than any recent president has in their first 100 days. Trump critics say the orders greatly exceed his constitutional authority.Those orders range from tariffs on Mexico, China and Canada, to pauses on foreign aid and crackdowns on illegal immigration to bans on transgender people serving in the military and the use of federal funds for gender-affirming medical care for minors.Court challenges to Trump's policies started on Inauguration Day and have continued at a furious pace since Jan. 20. The administration is facing some 70 lawsuits nationwide challenging his executive orders and moves to downsize the federal government.The Republican-controlled Congress is putting up little resistance, so the court system is ground zero for pushback. Judges have issued more than a dozen orders at least temporarily blocking aspects of Trump's agenda, ranging from an executive order to end U.S. citizenship extended automatically to people born in this country to giving Musk's team access to sensitive federal data.Executive Actions: 108, Executive Orders: 73, Proclamations: 23, Memorandums: 12Mark Brown, Constitutional Law expert and professor at Capital University Law School talks with us about the constitutionality of executive orders. Mark holds Capital's Newton D. Baker/Baker & Hostetler Chair. He joined the faculty in 2003 after having taught at Stetson University, the University of Illinois and The Ohio State University.Mark has authored and co-authored works in various books and academic journals, including the Boston College Law Review, the Cornell Law Review, the Hastings Law Journal, the Iowa Law Review, the University of Illinois Law Review, the Ohio State Law Journal, the American University Law Review, and the Oregon Law Review, as well as others. Prior to academia, Mark clerked for the Honorable Harry Wellford, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He also served as a Supreme Court Fellow under the Chief Justice of the United States during the 1993 October Term. Mark's research interests include Constitutional Law and Constitutional Litigation, courses he also teaches. He has also taught Civil Procedure, Administrative Law, Criminal Law, and Criminal Procedure. His public interest litigation presently focuses on public access to the political process.

Matthew Brickman speaks with Lawyer and Forensic Scientist Tad A. Nelson on MediateThis! to discuss the correlation between divorce and the effect it can have the psyche post-divorce. With over 400 jury trials under his belt, Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization for 30 years, and recognized as a Super Lawyer over 10 consecutive years, Tad Nelson is a force to be reckoned with in the courtroom. His reputation for aggressive representation, combined with an unparalleled level of expertise, has made him the go-to criminal defense attorney in Galveston County and beyond. Former Assistant District AttorneyBoard Certified® in 1996Certified SFST InstructorCertified in the DRE ProtocolTad has not only mastered the law—he has mastered the science behind it. Achieving the prestigious Lawyer-Scientist designation from the American Chemical Society, he further solidified his expertise by pursuing a Master's in Forensic Toxicology from the University of Florida. This deep understanding of forensic science gives him a cutting edge in cases involving DWI, drug charges, sexual assaults and other forensic-heavy criminal matters.Beyond his scientific acumen, Tad has earned the highest possible AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell, an honor recognizing both legal skill and ethical integrity. His aggressive nature, wicked courtroom skills, and commitment to justice make him a wrecking ball when it comes to defending the rights of his clients.Website: https://tadlaw.com If you have a matter, disagreement, or dispute you need professional help with then visit iMediate.com - Email mbrickman@ichatmediation or Call (877) 822-1479Matthew Brickman is a Florida Supreme Court certified family and appellate mediator who has worked in the 15th and 19th Judicial Circuit Courts since 2009 and 2006 respectively. But what makes him qualified to speak on the subject of conflict resolution is his own personal experience with divorce.Download Matthew's book on iTunes for FREE:You're Not the Only One - The Agony of Divorce: The Joy of Peaceful ResolutionMatthew Brickman President iMediate Inc. Mediator 20836CFASCHEDULE YOUR MEDIATION: https://ichatmediation.com/calendar/OFFICIAL BLOG: https://ichatmediation.com/podcastOFFICIAL YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/ichatmediationOFFICIAL LINKEDIN: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ichat-mediation/ABOUT MATTHEW BRICKMAN:Matthew Brickman is a Supreme Court of Florida certified county civil family mediator who has worked in the 15th and 19th Judicial Circuit Courts since 2009 and 2006 respectively. He is also an appellate certified mediator who mediates a variety of small claims, civil, and family cases. Mr. Brickman recently graduated both the Harvard Business School Negotiation Mastery Program and the Negotiation Master Class at Harvard Law School.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Louisiana v. Callais (March 24) - Election law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.Riley v. Bondi (March 24) - Immigration; Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research (March 26) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (March 31) - First Amendment, Religion; Issue(s): Whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.Rivers v. Guerrero (March 31) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) applies only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or to some second-in-time filings — depending on a prisoner’s success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (April 1) - Due Process, Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (April 2) - Medicare; Issue(s): Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. Featuring:Allison Daniel, Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationErielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman VogelJennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of CommerceElizabeth A. Kiernan, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherMorgan Ratner, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP(Moderator) Sarah Welch, Issues & Appeals Associate, Jones Day

Baltimore State's Attorney Ivan Bates joins the show to discuss his career, his involvement in the Freddie Gray case and the infamous Gun Trace Task Force, and his recent decisions in the Adnan Syed case.Check out our new True Crime Substack the True Crime Times at: https://t.co/26TIoM14TgGet Prosecutors Podcast Merch: https://www.bonfire.com/store/prosecutors-podcast/Join the Gallery on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/g/4oHFF4agcAvBhm3o/Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ProsecutorsPodFollow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/prosecutorspod/Check out our website for case resources: https://prosecutorspodcast.com/Hang out with us on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@prosecutorspodSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Trump and Musk are on a self-declared mission to destroy the bureaucracy and the “deep state" — and they're taking aim at the government's independent agencies. CAFE Contributor and administrative law expert Rachel Barkow breaks down why an almost 100-year-old Supreme Court precedent is at risk of being overturned and the danger for the rule of law. Rachel Barkow is the Charles Seligson Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the Faculty Director of the Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU. From 2013 to 2019, she served as a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission. From 2010 to 2020, she was a member of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Conviction Integrity Policy Advisory Panel and co-chaired Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's transition committee on police accountability in 2021. She is also amongst the most cited legal scholars of all time.  For a transcript of Rachel's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, Jeff finds a fresh low for Hamas: celebrations around the coffins of babies they kidnaped and massacred. When will the world stand up? When will President Trump open the gates of hell he promised? Jeff provides a quick plan to fix the terrorist threat from Gaza. Also, federal prosecutors in NYC rightly quit in protest of the Department of Justice's political decision to dismiss the indictment against NYC Mayor Adams — but don't think for a second they're above politics in their own actions: exhibit A is the phony 3.5 year investigation of James O'Keefe.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Gutierrez v. Saenz (Feburary 24) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, Courts; Issue(s): Whether Article III standing requires a particularized determination of whether a specific state official will redress the plaintiff’s injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment.Esteras v. U.S. (February 25) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)’s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release.Perttu v. Richards (February 25) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim.Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (February 26) - Labor & Employment Law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. (March 3) - Federalism & Separation of Powers, International Law; Issue(s): Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, (March 3) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (March 4) - International Law, Gun Crime; Issue(s): (1) Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the proximate cause of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico; and (2) whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas (March 4) - Administrative Law & Regulation; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Hobbs Act, which authorizes a “party aggrieved” by an agency’s “final order” to petition for review in a court of appeals, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory authority; and (2) whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.Featuring:Joel S. Nolette, Associate, Wiley Rein LLPJonathan A. Segal, Partner and Managing Principal, Duane Morris InstituteRichard A. Simpson, Partner & Deputy General Counsel, Wiley Rein LLPWill Yeatman, Senior Legal Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation(Moderator) Austin Rogers, Chief Counsel, Senate Judiciary Committee

SummaryIn this conversation, attorney Chris LaCour discusses the complexities of criminal law in Louisiana, the impact of recent criminal justice reforms, and the challenges faced by black lawyers in the legal system. He shares insights from his career, including high-profile cases, the importance of business acumen in law, and advice for aspiring lawyers. The conversation also touches on the implications of social media on legal troubles and the nuances of navigating police encounters. In this engaging conversation, Chris LaCour discusses the complexities of the legal system, particularly focusing on the trial of Derek Stafford and the challenges of jury selection. He highlights the impact of criminal justice reform in Louisiana, the generational transmission of racism, and the intricacies of obtaining pardons. LaCour also shares insights on balancing work and personal life as a lawyer, his diverse legal experiences, and the importance of perception and professionalism in the courtroom. The discussion culminates in a call for parents to take responsibility for their children's upbringing to combat community violence.TakeawaysChris LaCour specializes in high-profile criminal cases in Louisiana.Recent criminal justice reforms have been rolled back, increasing incarceration rates.Self-defense laws in Louisiana are complex and can be racially biased.Becoming a lawyer requires both legal knowledge and business skills.Public defenders can provide invaluable experience for new lawyers.Young black men should be cautious in their interactions with police.Social media can complicate legal situations for individuals.Louisiana's murder laws are strict, with life sentences for serious offenses.Federal court operates under different rules and pressures than state court.Respect in the legal community must be earned through hard work. Derek Stafford's trial was challenging due to public perception.Jury selection is crucial for a fair trial outcome.Criminal justice reforms in Louisiana have been rolled back.Racism is a generational issue that persists in society.Pardons often involve political favors and connections.Balancing work and personal life is essential for lawyers.Chapters00:00 Introduction to Criminal Law and the Legal Landscape02:44 Criminal Justice Reform in Louisiana05:15 Self-Defense Laws and Racial Implications07:57 High-Profile Cases and Public Perception10:33 The Journey to Becoming a Lawyer13:08 Advice for Aspiring Criminal Lawyers15:49 Navigating Racial Dynamics in the Legal Field20:31 Navigating Challenges for Young Black Men23:36 Legal Advice and Rights Awareness25:09 Consequences of Poor Decision-Making26:11 The Impact of Social Media on Legal Issues29:21 The Role of Judges and the Legal System31:05 The Burden of Public Scrutiny on Athletes33:27 The Dangers of Confessing to Police35:38 Navigating Plea Deals and Trial Strategies37:21 Experiences in Federal Court40:08 High-Profile Cases and Their Impact43:28 The Complexity of Jury Selection47:06 Challenges in the Legal System48:42 Racism and Generational Mindsets51:31 Pardons and Political Favoritism53:26 Balancing Work and Personal Life55:00 Diverse Legal Experiences55:59 The Ethics of Legal Representation58:51 The Art of Jury Selection01:03:43 The Game of Trial Law01:05:03 Connecting with Clients01:05:51 Cultural Reflections on Music and Events01:07:42 Mardi Gras: A Cultural Experience01:09:17 Navigating Legal Challenges01:11:05 Final Thoughts on Legal Representation and Community01:18:40 The Role of Parents in Community Safety Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

CAFE Contributor Rachel Barkow reflects on the pardons issued by President Trump and former President Biden, highlighting the flaws in the pardon process and necessary reforms. Rachel Barkow is the Charles Seligson Professor of Law at NYU School of Law and the Faculty Director of the Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU. From 2013 to 2019, she served as a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission. From 2010 to 2020, she was a member of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Conviction Integrity Policy Advisory Panel and co-chaired Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's transition committee on police accountability in 2021. She is also amongst the most cited legal scholars of all time.  For a transcript of Rachel's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Sources:As Nationwide Fraud Losses Top $10 Billion in 2023, FTC Steps Up Efforts to Protect the Public. (2024, February 9). Federal Trade Commission. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/02/nationwide-fraud-losses-top-10-billion-2023-ftc-steps-efforts-protect-publicBBB Tip: 10 steps to avoid scams. (2024, June 21). Better Business Bureau. https://www.bbb.org/article/tips/8767-bbb-tips-10-steps-to-avoid-scamsThe Latest Scams You Need to Be Aware of in 2024, By DeNicola, L. (2023, December 30). https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/the-latest-scams-you-need-to-aware-of/​​Empowering Fraud Fighters. (n.d.). Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Foundation. https://www.finrafoundation.org/networks-we-strengthen/fighting-fraudInternet Crime Report 2023 by The Federal Bureau of Investigations. (2024). In Internet Crime Complaint Center. https://www.ic3.gov/Media/PDF/AnnualReport/2023_IC3Report.pdf National Center for Victims of Crime, Financial Crime Resource Center: https://victimsofcrime.org/financial-crime-resource-center/ Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, FinCEN Resource Center: https://www.fincen.gov/fincen-resource-centerFletcher, E. (2023, October 6). Social Media. Federal Trade Commission. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/data-visualizations/data-spotlight/2023/10/social-media-golden-goose-scammersIdentity Fraud Cost Americans $43 Billion in 2023. (2024, April 10). American Association of Retired People. https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/info-2024/identity-fraud-report.htmlIs Fraud Always a Federal Crime? (2024, March 20). Stechschulte Nell. https://www.tpatrialattorneys.com/fraud-always-federal-crime/Criminal Consumer Fraud, Must the Goals of Deterrence and Compensation Be Mutually Exclusive? By The American Journal of Criminal Law, Kirschner, N. M. (1979). https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/criminal-consumer-fraud-must-goals-deterrence-and-compensation-beRecovering From Online Fraud. National Crime Victim Law Institute: https://ncvli.org/recovering-from-financial-fraud-and-identity-theft-services-for-victims/#:~:text=%E2%80%93Identity%20Theft%20Resource%20Center%20What Are Some Common Types of Scams? (2024, March 13). Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/what-are-some-common-types-of-scams-en-2092/Resources:FBI Internet Complaint Center: https://www.ic3.gov/FBI Tip Center: http://tips.fbi.govBBB Scam Risk Calculator: https://www.bbb.org/all/scam-prevention/risk-calculatorCybercrime Support Network: https://fightcybercrime.org/Identity Theft Resource Center: https://www.idtheftcenter.org/Financial Industry Regulatory Authority: https://www.finra.org/Report Fraud to the Federal Trade Commission: https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/For additional resources and a list of related non-profit organizations, please visit http://www.somethingwaswrong.com/resourcesFollow Something Was Wrong:Website: somethingwaswrong.com IG: instagram.com/somethingwaswrongpodcastTikTok: tiktok.com/@somethingwaswrongpodcast Follow Tiffany Reese:Website: tiffanyreese.me IG: http://www.instagram.com/lookieboo The Data Points cover art is by the Amazing Sara Stewart. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

When Kathryn Wombacher suspected her husband, Walter Andrew, of having an affair in the spring of 1920, she hired a private detective to follow him on one of his many “out-of-town” trips that he'd taken in their short marriage. However, rather than follow Walter out of town, the private detective tracked the man less than a mile from his home in Hollywood, where he discovered that Walter had indeed been carrying on a relationship with another woman—but that was to be the least of Kathryn's worries.Thank you to the Incredible Dave White of Bring Me the Axe Podcast for research and Writing support!ReferencesAssociated Press. 1920. "Police search for Montana girl is commenced ." Miles City Star, April 1: 1.—. 1920. "Alleged wife believes Huirt 'woman hater'." San Francisco Chronicle, April 15: 1.—. 1920. "Nine 'wives' killed by Bluebeard." Saskatoon Daily Star, May 11: 7.Cameron, Jim. 2014. "The horrifying marriage career of James "Bluebeard" Watson." Cranbrook Daily Townsman, October 31.Dowd, Katie. 2019. "'Object, matrimony': The forgotten tale of the West Coast's first serial bride killer." SF Gate, October 4.Hoag, Ernest, and Edward Williams. 1922. "The Case of J.P. Watson, the Modern Bluebeard." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 348-359.Los Angeles Evening Express. 1920. "Huirt's latest wife here to clear mystery." Los Angeles Evening Express, April 14: 1.Los Angeles Times. 1920. ""I'm crazy!" Bluebeard cries to the public." Los Angeles Times, May 4: 15.—. 1920. "Watson confesses four wife-murders; married nearly a score of women." Los Angeles Times, April 30: 1.—. 1920. "Watson's real name Boyd?" Los Angeles Times, April 27: 17.—. 1920. "Watson's story of early life." Los Angeles Times, April 30: 1.—. 1920. "Whoesale bigamy bared." Los Angeles Times, April 11: 1.Rasmussen, Cecelia. 1997. "Quiet man left trail of dead wives." Los Angeles Times, August 31.Sacramento Bee. 1920. "Watson given life sentence for murder of Nina Lee Deloney." Sacramento Bee, May 10: 1.San Francisco Chronicle. 1920. "Burying ground of 'Bluebeard' thought found." San Francisco Chronicle, April 20: 6.Whitaker, Alma. 1930. "Bluebeard's treasure hunt blows up--bang." Los Angeles Times, November 30: 19.Zdeb, Chris. 2014. "Serial killer, bigamist had ties to Edmonton." Edmonton Journal, May 10: 2.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.