Podcasts about Criminal procedure

In response to the Court's request during the November 22, 2024, hearing, defendant Sean Combs has submitted a letter addressing the permissible scope of his communications under the Court's order and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23.1. Combs' legal team outlines the types of interactions he is allowed to engage in, ensuring compliance with the Court's directives while upholding his First and Sixth Amendment rights. The letter emphasizes the importance of balancing the need to prevent potential jury tampering or undue influence with Combs' constitutional rights to free speech and a fair trial.The submission seeks to clarify the boundaries of acceptable communications, proposing guidelines that would allow Combs to maintain necessary personal and professional interactions without violating legal restrictions. By providing this detailed briefing, Combs' attorneys aim to assist the Court in establishing clear parameters that protect the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.(commercial at 11:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.85.0.pdf

In response to the Court's request during the November 22, 2024, hearing, defendant Sean Combs has submitted a letter addressing the permissible scope of his communications under the Court's order and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23.1. Combs' legal team outlines the types of interactions he is allowed to engage in, ensuring compliance with the Court's directives while upholding his First and Sixth Amendment rights. The letter emphasizes the importance of balancing the need to prevent potential jury tampering or undue influence with Combs' constitutional rights to free speech and a fair trial.The submission seeks to clarify the boundaries of acceptable communications, proposing guidelines that would allow Combs to maintain necessary personal and professional interactions without violating legal restrictions. By providing this detailed briefing, Combs' attorneys aim to assist the Court in establishing clear parameters that protect the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.United States District Judge Arun Subramanian has denied Sean Combs's renewed motion for bail following a November 22, 2024, hearing. Combs originally filed the motion on November 8, 2024, with both parties providing supplemental letters on November 25 and 26, 2024, to support their arguments. The court evaluated the presented evidence and legal arguments during the proceedings and determined that the conditions of bail sought by Combs were not appropriate under the circumstances.The decision to deny bail highlights the court's assessment that Combs's release might pose legal or procedural risks that outweigh any arguments for his freedom pending further proceedings. Details of the ruling emphasize the seriousness of the case against him, with Judge Subramanian concluding that Combs must remain in custody as the legal process continues.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.92.0_1.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.85.0.pdf

In response to the Court's request during the November 22, 2024, hearing, defendant Sean Combs has submitted a letter addressing the permissible scope of his communications under the Court's order and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23.1. Combs' legal team outlines the types of interactions he is allowed to engage in, ensuring compliance with the Court's directives while upholding his First and Sixth Amendment rights. The letter emphasizes the importance of balancing the need to prevent potential jury tampering or undue influence with Combs' constitutional rights to free speech and a fair trial.The submission seeks to clarify the boundaries of acceptable communications, proposing guidelines that would allow Combs to maintain necessary personal and professional interactions without violating legal restrictions. By providing this detailed briefing, Combs' attorneys aim to assist the Court in establishing clear parameters that protect the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.United States District Judge Arun Subramanian has denied Sean Combs's renewed motion for bail following a November 22, 2024, hearing. Combs originally filed the motion on November 8, 2024, with both parties providing supplemental letters on November 25 and 26, 2024, to support their arguments. The court evaluated the presented evidence and legal arguments during the proceedings and determined that the conditions of bail sought by Combs were not appropriate under the circumstances.The decision to deny bail highlights the court's assessment that Combs's release might pose legal or procedural risks that outweigh any arguments for his freedom pending further proceedings. Details of the ruling emphasize the seriousness of the case against him, with Judge Subramanian concluding that Combs must remain in custody as the legal process continues.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.92.0_1.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.85.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to the Court's request during the November 22, 2024, hearing, defendant Sean Combs has submitted a letter addressing the permissible scope of his communications under the Court's order and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23.1. Combs' legal team outlines the types of interactions he is allowed to engage in, ensuring compliance with the Court's directives while upholding his First and Sixth Amendment rights. The letter emphasizes the importance of balancing the need to prevent potential jury tampering or undue influence with Combs' constitutional rights to free speech and a fair trial.The submission seeks to clarify the boundaries of acceptable communications, proposing guidelines that would allow Combs to maintain necessary personal and professional interactions without violating legal restrictions. By providing this detailed briefing, Combs' attorneys aim to assist the Court in establishing clear parameters that protect the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.United States District Judge Arun Subramanian has denied Sean Combs's renewed motion for bail following a November 22, 2024, hearing. Combs originally filed the motion on November 8, 2024, with both parties providing supplemental letters on November 25 and 26, 2024, to support their arguments. The court evaluated the presented evidence and legal arguments during the proceedings and determined that the conditions of bail sought by Combs were not appropriate under the circumstances.The decision to deny bail highlights the court's assessment that Combs's release might pose legal or procedural risks that outweigh any arguments for his freedom pending further proceedings. Details of the ruling emphasize the seriousness of the case against him, with Judge Subramanian concluding that Combs must remain in custody as the legal process continues.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.92.0_1.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.85.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Dr. Elie Aoun, a forensic psychiatrist and assistant professor at Columbia University, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. The defense aims to have Dr. Aoun testify regarding Combs' mental state during the period of the alleged offenses, suggesting that Combs may have had diminished mental capacity. However, the government argues that Dr. Aoun's proposed testimony is inadmissible under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2, which govern the introduction of expert testimony related to a defendant's mental condition. Prosecutors contend that Dr. Aoun's opinions lack a reliable scientific basis and appear to be speculative, rendering them unsuitable for presentation to the jury.Additionally, the government asserts that allowing Dr. Aoun's testimony would effectively permit the defense to introduce a mental health defense without adhering to the procedural requirements mandated by law. They argue that the defense has not provided sufficient notice or evidence to support such a defense, and that Dr. Aoun's testimony would serve as a substitute for calling actual witnesses, thereby circumventing the rules of evidence. The prosecution maintains that admitting this testimony could mislead the jury and prejudice the government's case, and therefore, they urge the court to preclude Dr. Aoun from testifying at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.276.0_1.pdf

Sean “Diddy” Combs' case is unfolding within the strict architecture of the federal criminal justice system, meaning every stage—from indictment through sentencing—is governed by the same procedural and constitutional rules described above. His arrest followed a lengthy investigation, likely involving sealed warrants, grand jury subpoenas, and cooperation from multiple agencies. Once federal authorities gathered enough evidence to establish probable cause, a grand jury returned an indictment, triggering his initial appearance in federal court. There, issues like bail, representation, and pretrial release were addressed under the Bail Reform Act. With a trial date now scheduled, the case has moved past the early procedural phases and is entering the critical stages of pretrial motions and evidentiary challenges, including potential Rule 12 motions by the defense to suppress evidence or challenge the sufficiency of the indictment.As Diddy's federal trial begins today, he now faces the full weight of the government's case under the high-stakes adversarial structure of federal criminal procedure. With plea negotiations reportedly rejected, the prosecution must now prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury. The courtroom will become a battleground for evidentiary rulings, cross-examinations, and strategic maneuvering, all governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure. Defense counsel will work to undermine the government's witnesses, challenge the admissibility of key materials, and inject doubt into the narrative being presented. If convicted, Diddy would then move into the sentencing phase, where the U.S. Probation Office will prepare a Presentence Investigation Report factoring in conduct enhancements and criminal history to produce an advisory Guidelines range. His sentence would ultimately be shaped by both the Guidelines and the judge's application of the § 3553(a) factors—bringing the full machinery of federal prosecution to bear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Dr. Elie Aoun, a forensic psychiatrist and assistant professor at Columbia University, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. The defense aims to have Dr. Aoun testify regarding Combs' mental state during the period of the alleged offenses, suggesting that Combs may have had diminished mental capacity. However, the government argues that Dr. Aoun's proposed testimony is inadmissible under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2, which govern the introduction of expert testimony related to a defendant's mental condition. Prosecutors contend that Dr. Aoun's opinions lack a reliable scientific basis and appear to be speculative, rendering them unsuitable for presentation to the jury.Additionally, the government asserts that allowing Dr. Aoun's testimony would effectively permit the defense to introduce a mental health defense without adhering to the procedural requirements mandated by law. They argue that the defense has not provided sufficient notice or evidence to support such a defense, and that Dr. Aoun's testimony would serve as a substitute for calling actual witnesses, thereby circumventing the rules of evidence. The prosecution maintains that admitting this testimony could mislead the jury and prejudice the government's case, and therefore, they urge the court to preclude Dr. Aoun from testifying at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.276.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Sean “Diddy” Combs' case is unfolding within the strict architecture of the federal criminal justice system, meaning every stage—from indictment through sentencing—is governed by the same procedural and constitutional rules described above. His arrest followed a lengthy investigation, likely involving sealed warrants, grand jury subpoenas, and cooperation from multiple agencies. Once federal authorities gathered enough evidence to establish probable cause, a grand jury returned an indictment, triggering his initial appearance in federal court. There, issues like bail, representation, and pretrial release were addressed under the Bail Reform Act. With a trial date now scheduled, the case has moved past the early procedural phases and is entering the critical stages of pretrial motions and evidentiary challenges, including potential Rule 12 motions by the defense to suppress evidence or challenge the sufficiency of the indictment.As Diddy's federal trial begins today, he now faces the full weight of the government's case under the high-stakes adversarial structure of federal criminal procedure. With plea negotiations reportedly rejected, the prosecution must now prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury. The courtroom will become a battleground for evidentiary rulings, cross-examinations, and strategic maneuvering, all governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure. Defense counsel will work to undermine the government's witnesses, challenge the admissibility of key materials, and inject doubt into the narrative being presented. If convicted, Diddy would then move into the sentencing phase, where the U.S. Probation Office will prepare a Presentence Investigation Report factoring in conduct enhancements and criminal history to produce an advisory Guidelines range. His sentence would ultimately be shaped by both the Guidelines and the judge's application of the § 3553(a) factors—bringing the full machinery of federal prosecution to bear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Conor McCourt, a former NYPD sergeant and forensic video analyst, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. McCourt analyzed surveillance footage of an alleged 2016 assault involving Combs and concluded that the videos were distorted and not faithful representations of the events. The government contends that McCourt's testimony should be barred due to the defense's untimely and incomplete disclosure, which failed to meet the requirements set by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, the defense did not provide a comprehensive summary of McCourt's opinions, his qualifications, or a list of prior cases where he testified as an expert, all of which were due by March 14, 2025. The government argues that this delay hindered its ability to prepare a rebuttal and prejudiced its caseBeyond procedural issues, prosecutors assert that McCourt's anticipated testimony lacks substantial probative value and could mislead the jury. They argue that his technical critiques—such as claims about video distortion and transcoding artifacts—are speculative and unlikely to assist jurors in understanding the evidence. Furthermore, the government warns that presenting McCourt as an expert may unduly influence the jury, giving his opinions more weight than warranted. They also note that McCourt's analysis includes videos not intended for presentation at trial, rendering parts of his testimony irrelevant. Consequently, the government urges the court to exclude McCourt's testimony entirely or, at the very least, limit it under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 702 to prevent confusion and ensure a fair trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.277.0.pdf

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Dr. Elie Aoun, a forensic psychiatrist and assistant professor at Columbia University, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. The defense aims to have Dr. Aoun testify regarding Combs' mental state during the period of the alleged offenses, suggesting that Combs may have had diminished mental capacity. However, the government argues that Dr. Aoun's proposed testimony is inadmissible under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2, which govern the introduction of expert testimony related to a defendant's mental condition. Prosecutors contend that Dr. Aoun's opinions lack a reliable scientific basis and appear to be speculative, rendering them unsuitable for presentation to the jury.Additionally, the government asserts that allowing Dr. Aoun's testimony would effectively permit the defense to introduce a mental health defense without adhering to the procedural requirements mandated by law. They argue that the defense has not provided sufficient notice or evidence to support such a defense, and that Dr. Aoun's testimony would serve as a substitute for calling actual witnesses, thereby circumventing the rules of evidence. The prosecution maintains that admitting this testimony could mislead the jury and prejudice the government's case, and therefore, they urge the court to preclude Dr. Aoun from testifying at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.276.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Conor McCourt, a former NYPD sergeant and forensic video analyst, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. McCourt analyzed surveillance footage of an alleged 2016 assault involving Combs and concluded that the videos were distorted and not faithful representations of the events. The government contends that McCourt's testimony should be barred due to the defense's untimely and incomplete disclosure, which failed to meet the requirements set by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, the defense did not provide a comprehensive summary of McCourt's opinions, his qualifications, or a list of prior cases where he testified as an expert, all of which were due by March 14, 2025. The government argues that this delay hindered its ability to prepare a rebuttal and prejudiced its caseBeyond procedural issues, prosecutors assert that McCourt's anticipated testimony lacks substantial probative value and could mislead the jury. They argue that his technical critiques—such as claims about video distortion and transcoding artifacts—are speculative and unlikely to assist jurors in understanding the evidence. Furthermore, the government warns that presenting McCourt as an expert may unduly influence the jury, giving his opinions more weight than warranted. They also note that McCourt's analysis includes videos not intended for presentation at trial, rendering parts of his testimony irrelevant. Consequently, the government urges the court to exclude McCourt's testimony entirely or, at the very least, limit it under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 702 to prevent confusion and ensure a fair trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.277.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Conor McCourt, a former NYPD sergeant and forensic video analyst, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. McCourt analyzed surveillance footage of an alleged 2016 assault involving Combs and concluded that the videos were distorted and not faithful representations of the events. The government contends that McCourt's testimony should be barred due to the defense's untimely and incomplete disclosure, which failed to meet the requirements set by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, the defense did not provide a comprehensive summary of McCourt's opinions, his qualifications, or a list of prior cases where he testified as an expert, all of which were due by March 14, 2025. The government argues that this delay hindered its ability to prepare a rebuttal and prejudiced its caseBeyond procedural issues, prosecutors assert that McCourt's anticipated testimony lacks substantial probative value and could mislead the jury. They argue that his technical critiques—such as claims about video distortion and transcoding artifacts—are speculative and unlikely to assist jurors in understanding the evidence. Furthermore, the government warns that presenting McCourt as an expert may unduly influence the jury, giving his opinions more weight than warranted. They also note that McCourt's analysis includes videos not intended for presentation at trial, rendering parts of his testimony irrelevant. Consequently, the government urges the court to exclude McCourt's testimony entirely or, at the very least, limit it under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 702 to prevent confusion and ensure a fair trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.277.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In Chambers v. Florida and the Criminal Justice Revolution, historian and former ABA Journal reporter Richard Brust lifts the veil on a case that laid the groundwork for some much more famous civil rights victories. On May 13, 1933, shopkeeper Robert Darsey was robbed and murdered in Pompano, Florida. Four Black migrant farm workers—Izell Chambers, Walter Woodard, Jack Williamson and Charlie Davis—were seized and pressured by the local sheriff into confessing to the murder under threat of lynching. Their appeals eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court through the efforts of some dedicated African American attorneys, and succeeded in 1940. In Justice Hugo Black's written opinion for the majority, the justice drew parallels between the Jim Crow regime in the American South and the rise of authoritarianism and fascism in Europe. Chambers v. Florida forbade the use of psychological coercion—such as threatening to turn prisoners over to lynch mobs—as well as physical abuse to extract confessions. The court's ruling declared that the protections of the Bill of Rights extended into states' criminal cases, and began to change the kinds of cases that made it onto the Supreme Court docket.Brust sees it as part of a trio of cases, which includes Moore v. Dempsey (1923) and Brown v. Mississippi (1936), that led to a “criminal procedure revolution,” he tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Brust discusses the lawyers who worked on the case, most prominently Simuel D. McGill, a Black attorney in Jacksonville. He delves into the generational differences between the Floridian defense lawyers and the attorneys of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund who would go on to win key civil rights battles. He explains why Justice Black would have been considered an unlikely author for this opinion. And he shares what he could discover about the fates of Chambers, Woodard, Williamson and Davis after the trial.

In Chambers v. Florida and the Criminal Justice Revolution, historian and former ABA Journal reporter Richard Brust lifts the veil on a case that laid the groundwork for some much more famous civil rights victories. On May 13, 1933, shopkeeper Robert Darsey was robbed and murdered in Pompano, Florida. Four Black migrant farm workers—Izell Chambers, Walter Woodard, Jack Williamson and Charlie Davis—were seized and pressured by the local sheriff into confessing to the murder under threat of lynching. Their appeals eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court through the efforts of some dedicated African American attorneys, and succeeded in 1940. In Justice Hugo Black's written opinion for the majority, the justice drew parallels between the Jim Crow regime in the American South and the rise of authoritarianism and fascism in Europe. Chambers v. Florida forbade the use of psychological coercion—such as threatening to turn prisoners over to lynch mobs—as well as physical abuse to extract confessions. The court's ruling declared that the protections of the Bill of Rights extended into states' criminal cases, and began to change the kinds of cases that made it onto the Supreme Court docket.Brust sees it as part of a trio of cases, which includes Moore v. Dempsey (1923) and Brown v. Mississippi (1936), that led to a “criminal procedure revolution,” he tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Brust discusses the lawyers who worked on the case, most prominently Simuel D. McGill, a Black attorney in Jacksonville. He delves into the generational differences between the Floridian defense lawyers and the attorneys of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund who would go on to win key civil rights battles. He explains why Justice Black would have been considered an unlikely author for this opinion. And he shares what he could discover about the fates of Chambers, Woodard, Williamson and Davis after the trial. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Chambers v. Florida and the Criminal Justice Revolution, historian and former ABA Journal reporter Richard Brust lifts the veil on a case that laid the groundwork for some much more famous civil rights victories. On May 13, 1933, shopkeeper Robert Darsey was robbed and murdered in Pompano, Florida. Four Black migrant farm workers—Izell Chambers, Walter Woodard, Jack Williamson and Charlie Davis—were seized and pressured by the local sheriff into confessing to the murder under threat of lynching. Their appeals eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court through the efforts of some dedicated African American attorneys, and succeeded in 1940. In Justice Hugo Black's written opinion for the majority, the justice drew parallels between the Jim Crow regime in the American South and the rise of authoritarianism and fascism in Europe. Chambers v. Florida forbade the use of psychological coercion—such as threatening to turn prisoners over to lynch mobs—as well as physical abuse to extract confessions. The court's ruling declared that the protections of the Bill of Rights extended into states' criminal cases, and began to change the kinds of cases that made it onto the Supreme Court docket.Brust sees it as part of a trio of cases, which includes Moore v. Dempsey (1923) and Brown v. Mississippi (1936), that led to a “criminal procedure revolution,” he tells the ABA Journal's Lee Rawles. In this episode of The Modern Law Library, Brust discusses the lawyers who worked on the case, most prominently Simuel D. McGill, a Black attorney in Jacksonville. He delves into the generational differences between the Floridian defense lawyers and the attorneys of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund who would go on to win key civil rights battles. He explains why Justice Black would have been considered an unlikely author for this opinion. And he shares what he could discover about the fates of Chambers, Woodard, Williamson and Davis after the trial.

These sources collectively offer a comprehensive overview of criminal procedure in the United States, contrasting it with criminal law and highlighting its purpose in balancing societal security and individual rights. They detail the stages of the criminal justice process, from investigation and arrest through trial, sentencing, and appeals. A key focus is placed on the constitutional protections afforded to defendants, particularly those found in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which cover areas such as unreasonable searches and seizures, protection against double jeopardy and self-incrimination, and the right to counsel and a fair trial. The texts also discuss the structure of federal and state court systems and the role of judicial decisions and precedent in shaping criminal procedure.This conversation delves into the intricate framework of criminal procedure in the United States, exploring its goals, processes, and the constitutional foundations that guide it. The discussion highlights the balancing act between public safety and individual rights, the various stages of a criminal case from investigation to trial, and the role of discretion in real-world applications of the law.TakeawaysCriminal procedure is distinct from criminal law, focusing on the rules of investigation and prosecution.The goals of criminal procedure include accuracy, efficiency, respect, fairness, and equality.The adversarial nature of the system emphasizes the importance of legal representation for defendants.The process involves multiple stages, including investigation, charging, arraignment, and trial.The Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, lays the foundation for criminal procedure.Court decisions and statutes further shape the application of criminal procedure.Discretion at various stages can lead to inconsistencies and potential biases in the system.Most criminal cases are resolved through plea bargaining rather than trial.The system strives for ideals of justice but faces real-world challenges.Understanding the gap between the law in books and law in action is crucial for evaluating the justice system.Sound Bites"It's a carefully constructed framework.""Accuracy, getting it right.""The right to counsel is crucial.""Most cases end with a plea deal.""The system isn't a perfect machine."criminal procedure, justice system, constitutional rights, law enforcement, criminal law, due process, trial rights, plea bargaining, legal framework, public safety

This lecture provides an overview of crucial constitutional rights within the realm of criminal procedure, extending from the moment an individual faces charges through potential post-conviction challenges. It details Sixth Amendment trial guarantees, including the rights to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, confrontation of witnesses, and compulsory process. The lecture then addresses the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy, explaining when it attaches and relevant doctrines like the same-elements test and dual sovereignty. Furthermore, it covers the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection considerations, particularly as they relate to sentencing and prosecution, before discussing the right to counsel at trial and on appeal. Finally, the lecture explores the avenues and limitations of post-conviction remedies, such as habeas corpus.This conversation delves into the essential aspects of trial rights, double jeopardy, due process, and post-conviction review, providing a comprehensive overview of key legal doctrines. It emphasizes the importance of the Sixth Amendment in ensuring fair trials, the complexities surrounding double jeopardy, the implications of the 14th Amendment on due process and equal protection, the right to counsel, and the intricacies of post-conviction remedies like habeas corpus.TakeawaysTrial rights are crucial for ensuring fairness in the legal process.The Sixth Amendment provides essential protections for defendants.Double jeopardy prevents multiple prosecutions for the same crime.The Blockburger test determines if two offenses are the same for double jeopardy.The dual sovereignty doctrine allows both state and federal prosecutions.Due process under the 14th Amendment ensures fairness in sentencing.The right to counsel extends beyond just the trial stage.Ineffective assistance of counsel can be challenged under Strickland.Habeas corpus allows for post-conviction challenges to legality of detention.AEDPA imposes strict limits on federal habeas petitions.Sound Bites"You can't systematically exclude groups.""Crawford changed the whole framework.""The key test is the Blockburger test."

This lecture provides an overview of crucial constitutional rights within the realm of criminal procedure, extending from the moment an individual faces charges through potential post-conviction challenges. It details Sixth Amendment trial guarantees, including the rights to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, confrontation of witnesses, and compulsory process. The lecture then addresses the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy, explaining when it attaches and relevant doctrines like the same-elements test and dual sovereignty. Furthermore, it covers the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection considerations, particularly as they relate to sentencing and prosecution, before discussing the right to counsel at trial and on appeal. Finally, the lecture explores the avenues and limitations of post-conviction remedies, such as habeas corpus.SummaryThis lecture series on Criminal Procedure delves into the essential rights and protections afforded to defendants under the U.S. Constitution. It covers the Sixth Amendment's trial rights, the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy protections, and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection guarantees. The discussion also highlights the importance of the right to counsel, post-conviction remedies, and emerging issues in criminal law, providing a comprehensive overview of the principles that govern the criminal justice system.TakeawaysThe Sixth Amendment guarantees a fair trial through various rights.Double jeopardy prevents multiple prosecutions for the same offense.Due process includes both procedural and substantive protections.The right to counsel is fundamental for a fair trial.Post-conviction remedies allow for challenging convictions.Emerging technologies pose new challenges to criminal procedure.The Equal Protection Clause ensures non-discriminatory enforcement of laws.The right to an impartial jury is crucial for justice.Procedural default can block federal review of claims.New evidence can lead to claims of actual innocence in court.Sound Bites"The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial.""Due process ensures fair procedures in adjudication.""Access to counsel is essential for a fair trial."Criminal Procedure, Trial Rights, Double Jeopardy, Due Process, Equal Protection, Right to Counsel, Post-Conviction Remedies, Legal Standards, Criminal Justice Reform

This lecture outlines criminal procedure, focusing on the stages from initial arrest through the pretrial process. It explains the constitutional standards for seizing an individual, differentiating between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and discusses Terry stops and arrest warrants. The text then details pretrial steps, including initial appearances, bail, grand jury proceedings, prosecutorial discretion, plea bargaining, and pretrial motions. Finally, it examines key constitutional protections like the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (including Miranda rights) and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at crucial stages, highlighting their interactions and exceptions.This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of criminal procedure, focusing on the critical pretrial phase and the interactions between law enforcement and individuals. It covers essential topics such as the definitions of seizures and arrests, the importance of constitutional amendments, the process of initial appearances and bail decisions, charging procedures, plea bargaining, pretrial motions, the right to a speedy trial, and the implications of Miranda rights and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The discussion aims to equip listeners with a solid understanding of these foundational legal concepts, essential for both exams and practical application in the field.TakeawaysUnderstanding the core principles of criminal procedure is essential.The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.Reasonable suspicion is required for brief investigatory stops.Probable cause is necessary for full custodial arrests.Exigent circumstances allow for warrantless arrests in emergencies.The initial appearance before a judge must happen promptly after arrest.Bail decisions balance the need for public safety and the defendant's rights.Plea bargaining is a common outcome in the criminal justice system.Pretrial motions can challenge the prosecution's case before trial.The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.Sound Bites"This is your essential guide to criminal procedure.""Reasonable suspicion lets them stop and ask questions briefly.""The key is the urgency, the impracticability of waiting.""The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial."criminal procedure, law enforcement, constitutional amendments, arrests, pretrial phase, Miranda rights, speedy trial, evidence suppression, plea bargaining, legal rights

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Dr. Elie Aoun, a forensic psychiatrist and assistant professor at Columbia University, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. The defense aims to have Dr. Aoun testify regarding Combs' mental state during the period of the alleged offenses, suggesting that Combs may have had diminished mental capacity. However, the government argues that Dr. Aoun's proposed testimony is inadmissible under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2, which govern the introduction of expert testimony related to a defendant's mental condition. Prosecutors contend that Dr. Aoun's opinions lack a reliable scientific basis and appear to be speculative, rendering them unsuitable for presentation to the jury.Additionally, the government asserts that allowing Dr. Aoun's testimony would effectively permit the defense to introduce a mental health defense without adhering to the procedural requirements mandated by law. They argue that the defense has not provided sufficient notice or evidence to support such a defense, and that Dr. Aoun's testimony would serve as a substitute for calling actual witnesses, thereby circumventing the rules of evidence. The prosecution maintains that admitting this testimony could mislead the jury and prejudice the government's case, and therefore, they urge the court to preclude Dr. Aoun from testifying at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.276.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Dr. Elie Aoun, a forensic psychiatrist and assistant professor at Columbia University, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. The defense aims to have Dr. Aoun testify regarding Combs' mental state during the period of the alleged offenses, suggesting that Combs may have had diminished mental capacity. However, the government argues that Dr. Aoun's proposed testimony is inadmissible under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2, which govern the introduction of expert testimony related to a defendant's mental condition. Prosecutors contend that Dr. Aoun's opinions lack a reliable scientific basis and appear to be speculative, rendering them unsuitable for presentation to the jury.Additionally, the government asserts that allowing Dr. Aoun's testimony would effectively permit the defense to introduce a mental health defense without adhering to the procedural requirements mandated by law. They argue that the defense has not provided sufficient notice or evidence to support such a defense, and that Dr. Aoun's testimony would serve as a substitute for calling actual witnesses, thereby circumventing the rules of evidence. The prosecution maintains that admitting this testimony could mislead the jury and prejudice the government's case, and therefore, they urge the court to preclude Dr. Aoun from testifying at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.276.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This lecture covers lawful arrests, pretrial procedures, and confession/interrogation law, building on Fourth Amendment search and seizure. Key topics include constitutional standards for stops, frisks (reasonable suspicion), and arrests (probable cause); pretrial steps from initial appearance to plea negotiations; and Fifth/Sixth Amendment safeguards concerning Miranda warnings, waiver, invocation, and right to counsel at critical stages. A seizure occurs when a reasonable person wouldn't feel free to leave, distinguishing temporary stops (reasonable suspicion, limited pat-down) from custodial arrests (probable cause, full procedures). The Terry stop allows brief stops and pat-downs based on articulable suspicion of criminal activity and a reasonable belief of being armed and dangerous, limited to weapon discovery. Arrests generally require a warrant based on probable cause from a neutral magistrate, with exceptions for exigent circumstances (fleeing suspect, public safety). Warrantless felony arrests in public are permitted with objective probable cause, respecting the individual's dignity and avoiding excessive force. The pretrial process begins with an initial appearance (charges, counsel, release). Bail is considered under the Eighth Amendment (no excessive bail), balancing offense seriousness, criminal history, and community risk, potentially involving release on recognizance, bonds, or preventive detention. Federal felony cases often require a grand jury indictment (probable cause), while other jurisdictions use prosecutorial information and preliminary hearings as a screen against unfounded prosecutions. Prosecutors have broad charging discretion and utilize plea bargaining (guilty plea for reduced charge/sentence) which raises concerns about coercion and unequal power. Pretrial motions, especially to suppress illegally obtained evidence (Fourth Amendment challenges), are crucial. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy trial. The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled self-incrimination during custodial interrogation (Miranda warnings: right to silence, use of statements, right to counsel, appointed counsel if indigent), requiring knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waivers based on totality of circumstances. Invoking the right to counsel or silence requires ceasing interrogation. Exceptions to Miranda include public safety and non-custodial questioning (voluntariness still applies). The Sixth Amendment guarantees counsel at critical stages after formal charges (indictment, arraignment, etc.), such as plea discussions, lineups, and hearings, requiring knowing and intelligent waivers. Massiah prohibits deliberate elicitation of incriminating statements from an indicted defendant without counsel. Elstad allows subsequent admissible statements after defective initial Miranda warnings if later warnings are proper and waiver is valid. Edwards' "bright line" rule requires ceasing interrogation upon invoking Miranda counsel until counsel is present or the suspect initiates further communication. The lecture concludes by summarizing these themes, leading to discussions on trial, sentencing, and post-conviction in the next session.

This lecture provides an overview of criminal procedure law, with a significant focus on the constitutional foundations and the specifics of the Fourth Amendment. It explores the sources of this law, including the Constitution, statutes, federal rules, and state law. The text then examines the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, discussing its purpose, the concept of a reasonable expectation of privacy, the definitions of search and seizure, and the warrant requirement with its core components like probable cause and particularity. Finally, it details numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement and the impact of the exclusionary rule and related doctrines.Key TakeawaysThe primary sources include the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes enacted by Congress, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, state constitutions, state legislative enactments, and judicial decisions interpreting these provisions.The fundamental purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protect individual privacy and dignity against arbitrary government intrusion and to channel law enforcement activity through neutral decision making.The two-part test asks whether the individual demonstrated an actual, subjective expectation of privacy, and whether that expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.A seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interest in property, considering factors like the officers' intention, the manner of taking custody, and the control exerted over the property.A valid search warrant requires a neutral and detached magistrate to find probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband will be found at a specified location and that the warrant particularly describes the place to be searched and items to be seized.The totality of the circumstances approach involves a practical, common-sense evaluation of all the information available to the magistrate, including the informant's reliability, the detail of the information, and any corroborating evidence, rather than a rigid formula.The plain view doctrine allows evidence in plain sight to be seized without a warrant if the officer is lawfully present where the evidence is located and its incriminating nature is immediately apparent.Voluntary consent by an individual with authority over the premises can justify a warrantless search, provided the consent is given freely and voluntarily without coercion.The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy that makes evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches or seizures inadmissible at trial, serving to deter police misconduct and preserve judicial integrity.Standing means that only individuals whose own Fourth Amendment rights have been violated can challenge a search or seizure, requiring them to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched or property seized.

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Dr. Elie Aoun, a forensic psychiatrist and assistant professor at Columbia University, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. The defense aims to have Dr. Aoun testify regarding Combs' mental state during the period of the alleged offenses, suggesting that Combs may have had diminished mental capacity. However, the government argues that Dr. Aoun's proposed testimony is inadmissible under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2, which govern the introduction of expert testimony related to a defendant's mental condition. Prosecutors contend that Dr. Aoun's opinions lack a reliable scientific basis and appear to be speculative, rendering them unsuitable for presentation to the jury.Additionally, the government asserts that allowing Dr. Aoun's testimony would effectively permit the defense to introduce a mental health defense without adhering to the procedural requirements mandated by law. They argue that the defense has not provided sufficient notice or evidence to support such a defense, and that Dr. Aoun's testimony would serve as a substitute for calling actual witnesses, thereby circumventing the rules of evidence. The prosecution maintains that admitting this testimony could mislead the jury and prejudice the government's case, and therefore, they urge the court to preclude Dr. Aoun from testifying at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.276.0_1.pdf

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Dr. Elie Aoun, a forensic psychiatrist and assistant professor at Columbia University, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. The defense aims to have Dr. Aoun testify regarding Combs' mental state during the period of the alleged offenses, suggesting that Combs may have had diminished mental capacity. However, the government argues that Dr. Aoun's proposed testimony is inadmissible under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2, which govern the introduction of expert testimony related to a defendant's mental condition. Prosecutors contend that Dr. Aoun's opinions lack a reliable scientific basis and appear to be speculative, rendering them unsuitable for presentation to the jury.Additionally, the government asserts that allowing Dr. Aoun's testimony would effectively permit the defense to introduce a mental health defense without adhering to the procedural requirements mandated by law. They argue that the defense has not provided sufficient notice or evidence to support such a defense, and that Dr. Aoun's testimony would serve as a substitute for calling actual witnesses, thereby circumventing the rules of evidence. The prosecution maintains that admitting this testimony could mislead the jury and prejudice the government's case, and therefore, they urge the court to preclude Dr. Aoun from testifying at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.276.0_1.pdf

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Dr. Elie Aoun, a forensic psychiatrist and assistant professor at Columbia University, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. The defense aims to have Dr. Aoun testify regarding Combs' mental state during the period of the alleged offenses, suggesting that Combs may have had diminished mental capacity. However, the government argues that Dr. Aoun's proposed testimony is inadmissible under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2, which govern the introduction of expert testimony related to a defendant's mental condition. Prosecutors contend that Dr. Aoun's opinions lack a reliable scientific basis and appear to be speculative, rendering them unsuitable for presentation to the jury.Additionally, the government asserts that allowing Dr. Aoun's testimony would effectively permit the defense to introduce a mental health defense without adhering to the procedural requirements mandated by law. They argue that the defense has not provided sufficient notice or evidence to support such a defense, and that Dr. Aoun's testimony would serve as a substitute for calling actual witnesses, thereby circumventing the rules of evidence. The prosecution maintains that admitting this testimony could mislead the jury and prejudice the government's case, and therefore, they urge the court to preclude Dr. Aoun from testifying at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.276.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Dr. Elie Aoun, a forensic psychiatrist and assistant professor at Columbia University, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. The defense aims to have Dr. Aoun testify regarding Combs' mental state during the period of the alleged offenses, suggesting that Combs may have had diminished mental capacity. However, the government argues that Dr. Aoun's proposed testimony is inadmissible under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2, which govern the introduction of expert testimony related to a defendant's mental condition. Prosecutors contend that Dr. Aoun's opinions lack a reliable scientific basis and appear to be speculative, rendering them unsuitable for presentation to the jury.Additionally, the government asserts that allowing Dr. Aoun's testimony would effectively permit the defense to introduce a mental health defense without adhering to the procedural requirements mandated by law. They argue that the defense has not provided sufficient notice or evidence to support such a defense, and that Dr. Aoun's testimony would serve as a substitute for calling actual witnesses, thereby circumventing the rules of evidence. The prosecution maintains that admitting this testimony could mislead the jury and prejudice the government's case, and therefore, they urge the court to preclude Dr. Aoun from testifying at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.276.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This lecture provides a comprehensive overview of the constitutional foundations of criminal procedure law, focusing on the Fourth Amendment. It explores the sources of criminal procedure, the significance of judicial interpretation, and the balance between law enforcement and individual rights. Key topics include the definitions of searches and seizures, warrant requirements, exceptions to these requirements, and the implications of modern technology on privacy rights. The lecture concludes with a discussion on the exclusionary rule and its impact on the justice system.TakeawaysThe Fourth Amendment establishes protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.Judicial decisions play a crucial role in interpreting constitutional provisions.The concept of reasonable expectation of privacy is central to Fourth Amendment analysis.Warrants must be issued by a neutral magistrate based on probable cause.Exceptions to the warrant requirement include searches incident to arrest and exigent circumstances.The exclusionary rule prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court.The good faith exception allows some leeway for law enforcement actions.Modern technology poses new challenges to Fourth Amendment protections.The open fields doctrine limits privacy rights in areas outside the home.Policy debates continue regarding the balance between law enforcement and individual rights.Criminal Procedure, Fourth Amendment, Searches, Seizures, Warrant Requirements, Exclusionary Rule, Privacy Rights, Law Enforcement, Constitutional Law, Judicial Interpretation

In a memorandum dated April 17, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team opposed a motion to quash a subpoena directed at Cassie Ventura, a key accuser in his upcoming federal trial. The defense argued that the subpoena, which sought drafts of Ventura's memoir, personal diaries, journals, and bank statements, was justified under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). They contended that these materials could contain information pertinent to Combs' defense, asserting that the requests were specific, relevant, and not oppressive. The defense emphasized that the subpoena aimed to uncover evidence that might challenge Ventura's credibility or provide context to her allegations.​Furthermore, Combs' attorneys addressed concerns about the breadth of the subpoena, arguing that it did not constitute a "fishing expedition" but was a targeted effort to obtain materials directly related to the case. They maintained that the requested documents could reveal inconsistencies or motivations behind Ventura's claims, thereby playing a crucial role in ensuring a fair trial. The memorandum cited legal precedents supporting the admissibility of such evidence when it bears directly on the issues at hand. Ultimately, the defense sought to demonstrate that the subpoena was a legitimate tool for gathering evidence essential to Combs' defense strategy.​to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.256.0.pdfshow lessBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a memorandum dated April 17, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team opposed a motion to quash a subpoena directed at Cassie Ventura, a key accuser in his upcoming federal trial. The defense argued that the subpoena, which sought drafts of Ventura's memoir, personal diaries, journals, and bank statements, was justified under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). They contended that these materials could contain information pertinent to Combs' defense, asserting that the requests were specific, relevant, and not oppressive. The defense emphasized that the subpoena aimed to uncover evidence that might challenge Ventura's credibility or provide context to her allegations.​Furthermore, Combs' attorneys addressed concerns about the breadth of the subpoena, arguing that it did not constitute a "fishing expedition" but was a targeted effort to obtain materials directly related to the case. They maintained that the requested documents could reveal inconsistencies or motivations behind Ventura's claims, thereby playing a crucial role in ensuring a fair trial. The memorandum cited legal precedents supporting the admissibility of such evidence when it bears directly on the issues at hand. Ultimately, the defense sought to demonstrate that the subpoena was a legitimate tool for gathering evidence essential to Combs' defense strategy.​to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.256.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In response to the Court's request during the November 22, 2024, hearing, defendant Sean Combs has submitted a letter addressing the permissible scope of his communications under the Court's order and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23.1. Combs' legal team outlines the types of interactions he is allowed to engage in, ensuring compliance with the Court's directives while upholding his First and Sixth Amendment rights. The letter emphasizes the importance of balancing the need to prevent potential jury tampering or undue influence with Combs' constitutional rights to free speech and a fair trial.The submission seeks to clarify the boundaries of acceptable communications, proposing guidelines that would allow Combs to maintain necessary personal and professional interactions without violating legal restrictions. By providing this detailed briefing, Combs' attorneys aim to assist the Court in establishing clear parameters that protect the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.(commercial at 11:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.85.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sean “Diddy” Combs' case is unfolding within the strict architecture of the federal criminal justice system, meaning every stage—from indictment through sentencing—is governed by the same procedural and constitutional rules described above. His arrest followed a lengthy investigation, likely involving sealed warrants, grand jury subpoenas, and cooperation from multiple agencies. Once federal authorities gathered enough evidence to establish probable cause, a grand jury returned an indictment, triggering his initial appearance in federal court. There, issues like bail, representation, and pretrial release were addressed under the Bail Reform Act. With a trial date now scheduled, the case has moved past the early procedural phases and is entering the critical stages of pretrial motions and evidentiary challenges, including potential Rule 12 motions by the defense to suppress evidence or challenge the sufficiency of the indictment.As Diddy's federal trial begins today, he now faces the full weight of the government's case under the high-stakes adversarial structure of federal criminal procedure. With plea negotiations reportedly rejected, the prosecution must now prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury. The courtroom will become a battleground for evidentiary rulings, cross-examinations, and strategic maneuvering, all governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure. Defense counsel will work to undermine the government's witnesses, challenge the admissibility of key materials, and inject doubt into the narrative being presented. If convicted, Diddy would then move into the sentencing phase, where the U.S. Probation Office will prepare a Presentence Investigation Report factoring in conduct enhancements and criminal history to produce an advisory Guidelines range. His sentence would ultimately be shaped by both the Guidelines and the judge's application of the § 3553(a) factors—bringing the full machinery of federal prosecution to bear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Sean “Diddy” Combs' case is unfolding within the strict architecture of the federal criminal justice system, meaning every stage—from indictment through sentencing—is governed by the same procedural and constitutional rules described above. His arrest followed a lengthy investigation, likely involving sealed warrants, grand jury subpoenas, and cooperation from multiple agencies. Once federal authorities gathered enough evidence to establish probable cause, a grand jury returned an indictment, triggering his initial appearance in federal court. There, issues like bail, representation, and pretrial release were addressed under the Bail Reform Act. With a trial date now scheduled, the case has moved past the early procedural phases and is entering the critical stages of pretrial motions and evidentiary challenges, including potential Rule 12 motions by the defense to suppress evidence or challenge the sufficiency of the indictment.As Diddy's federal trial begins today, he now faces the full weight of the government's case under the high-stakes adversarial structure of federal criminal procedure. With plea negotiations reportedly rejected, the prosecution must now prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury. The courtroom will become a battleground for evidentiary rulings, cross-examinations, and strategic maneuvering, all governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure. Defense counsel will work to undermine the government's witnesses, challenge the admissibility of key materials, and inject doubt into the narrative being presented. If convicted, Diddy would then move into the sentencing phase, where the U.S. Probation Office will prepare a Presentence Investigation Report factoring in conduct enhancements and criminal history to produce an advisory Guidelines range. His sentence would ultimately be shaped by both the Guidelines and the judge's application of the § 3553(a) factors—bringing the full machinery of federal prosecution to bear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Sean “Diddy” Combs' case is unfolding within the strict architecture of the federal criminal justice system, meaning every stage—from indictment through sentencing—is governed by the same procedural and constitutional rules described above. His arrest followed a lengthy investigation, likely involving sealed warrants, grand jury subpoenas, and cooperation from multiple agencies. Once federal authorities gathered enough evidence to establish probable cause, a grand jury returned an indictment, triggering his initial appearance in federal court. There, issues like bail, representation, and pretrial release were addressed under the Bail Reform Act. With a trial date now scheduled, the case has moved past the early procedural phases and is entering the critical stages of pretrial motions and evidentiary challenges, including potential Rule 12 motions by the defense to suppress evidence or challenge the sufficiency of the indictment.As Diddy's federal trial begins today, he now faces the full weight of the government's case under the high-stakes adversarial structure of federal criminal procedure. With plea negotiations reportedly rejected, the prosecution must now prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury. The courtroom will become a battleground for evidentiary rulings, cross-examinations, and strategic maneuvering, all governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure. Defense counsel will work to undermine the government's witnesses, challenge the admissibility of key materials, and inject doubt into the narrative being presented. If convicted, Diddy would then move into the sentencing phase, where the U.S. Probation Office will prepare a Presentence Investigation Report factoring in conduct enhancements and criminal history to produce an advisory Guidelines range. His sentence would ultimately be shaped by both the Guidelines and the judge's application of the § 3553(a) factors—bringing the full machinery of federal prosecution to bear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Sean “Diddy” Combs' case is unfolding within the strict architecture of the federal criminal justice system, meaning every stage—from indictment through sentencing—is governed by the same procedural and constitutional rules described above. His arrest followed a lengthy investigation, likely involving sealed warrants, grand jury subpoenas, and cooperation from multiple agencies. Once federal authorities gathered enough evidence to establish probable cause, a grand jury returned an indictment, triggering his initial appearance in federal court. There, issues like bail, representation, and pretrial release were addressed under the Bail Reform Act. With a trial date now scheduled, the case has moved past the early procedural phases and is entering the critical stages of pretrial motions and evidentiary challenges, including potential Rule 12 motions by the defense to suppress evidence or challenge the sufficiency of the indictment.As Diddy's federal trial begins today, he now faces the full weight of the government's case under the high-stakes adversarial structure of federal criminal procedure. With plea negotiations reportedly rejected, the prosecution must now prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury. The courtroom will become a battleground for evidentiary rulings, cross-examinations, and strategic maneuvering, all governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure. Defense counsel will work to undermine the government's witnesses, challenge the admissibility of key materials, and inject doubt into the narrative being presented. If convicted, Diddy would then move into the sentencing phase, where the U.S. Probation Office will prepare a Presentence Investigation Report factoring in conduct enhancements and criminal history to produce an advisory Guidelines range. His sentence would ultimately be shaped by both the Guidelines and the judge's application of the § 3553(a) factors—bringing the full machinery of federal prosecution to bear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sean “Diddy” Combs' case is unfolding within the strict architecture of the federal criminal justice system, meaning every stage—from indictment through sentencing—is governed by the same procedural and constitutional rules described above. His arrest followed a lengthy investigation, likely involving sealed warrants, grand jury subpoenas, and cooperation from multiple agencies. Once federal authorities gathered enough evidence to establish probable cause, a grand jury returned an indictment, triggering his initial appearance in federal court. There, issues like bail, representation, and pretrial release were addressed under the Bail Reform Act. With a trial date now scheduled, the case has moved past the early procedural phases and is entering the critical stages of pretrial motions and evidentiary challenges, including potential Rule 12 motions by the defense to suppress evidence or challenge the sufficiency of the indictment.As Diddy's federal trial begins today, he now faces the full weight of the government's case under the high-stakes adversarial structure of federal criminal procedure. With plea negotiations reportedly rejected, the prosecution must now prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury. The courtroom will become a battleground for evidentiary rulings, cross-examinations, and strategic maneuvering, all governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure. Defense counsel will work to undermine the government's witnesses, challenge the admissibility of key materials, and inject doubt into the narrative being presented. If convicted, Diddy would then move into the sentencing phase, where the U.S. Probation Office will prepare a Presentence Investigation Report factoring in conduct enhancements and criminal history to produce an advisory Guidelines range. His sentence would ultimately be shaped by both the Guidelines and the judge's application of the § 3553(a) factors—bringing the full machinery of federal prosecution to bear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sean “Diddy” Combs' case is unfolding within the strict architecture of the federal criminal justice system, meaning every stage—from indictment through sentencing—is governed by the same procedural and constitutional rules described above. His arrest followed a lengthy investigation, likely involving sealed warrants, grand jury subpoenas, and cooperation from multiple agencies. Once federal authorities gathered enough evidence to establish probable cause, a grand jury returned an indictment, triggering his initial appearance in federal court. There, issues like bail, representation, and pretrial release were addressed under the Bail Reform Act. With a trial date now scheduled, the case has moved past the early procedural phases and is entering the critical stages of pretrial motions and evidentiary challenges, including potential Rule 12 motions by the defense to suppress evidence or challenge the sufficiency of the indictment.As Diddy's federal trial begins today, he now faces the full weight of the government's case under the high-stakes adversarial structure of federal criminal procedure. With plea negotiations reportedly rejected, the prosecution must now prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury. The courtroom will become a battleground for evidentiary rulings, cross-examinations, and strategic maneuvering, all governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure. Defense counsel will work to undermine the government's witnesses, challenge the admissibility of key materials, and inject doubt into the narrative being presented. If convicted, Diddy would then move into the sentencing phase, where the U.S. Probation Office will prepare a Presentence Investigation Report factoring in conduct enhancements and criminal history to produce an advisory Guidelines range. His sentence would ultimately be shaped by both the Guidelines and the judge's application of the § 3553(a) factors—bringing the full machinery of federal prosecution to bear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Sean “Diddy” Combs' case is unfolding within the strict architecture of the federal criminal justice system, meaning every stage—from indictment through sentencing—is governed by the same procedural and constitutional rules described above. His arrest followed a lengthy investigation, likely involving sealed warrants, grand jury subpoenas, and cooperation from multiple agencies. Once federal authorities gathered enough evidence to establish probable cause, a grand jury returned an indictment, triggering his initial appearance in federal court. There, issues like bail, representation, and pretrial release were addressed under the Bail Reform Act. With a trial date now scheduled, the case has moved past the early procedural phases and is entering the critical stages of pretrial motions and evidentiary challenges, including potential Rule 12 motions by the defense to suppress evidence or challenge the sufficiency of the indictment.As Diddy's federal trial begins today, he now faces the full weight of the government's case under the high-stakes adversarial structure of federal criminal procedure. With plea negotiations reportedly rejected, the prosecution must now prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury. The courtroom will become a battleground for evidentiary rulings, cross-examinations, and strategic maneuvering, all governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure. Defense counsel will work to undermine the government's witnesses, challenge the admissibility of key materials, and inject doubt into the narrative being presented. If convicted, Diddy would then move into the sentencing phase, where the U.S. Probation Office will prepare a Presentence Investigation Report factoring in conduct enhancements and criminal history to produce an advisory Guidelines range. His sentence would ultimately be shaped by both the Guidelines and the judge's application of the § 3553(a) factors—bringing the full machinery of federal prosecution to bear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Sean “Diddy” Combs' case is unfolding within the strict architecture of the federal criminal justice system, meaning every stage—from indictment through sentencing—is governed by the same procedural and constitutional rules described above. His arrest followed a lengthy investigation, likely involving sealed warrants, grand jury subpoenas, and cooperation from multiple agencies. Once federal authorities gathered enough evidence to establish probable cause, a grand jury returned an indictment, triggering his initial appearance in federal court. There, issues like bail, representation, and pretrial release were addressed under the Bail Reform Act. With a trial date now scheduled, the case has moved past the early procedural phases and is entering the critical stages of pretrial motions and evidentiary challenges, including potential Rule 12 motions by the defense to suppress evidence or challenge the sufficiency of the indictment.As Diddy's federal trial begins today, he now faces the full weight of the government's case under the high-stakes adversarial structure of federal criminal procedure. With plea negotiations reportedly rejected, the prosecution must now prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury. The courtroom will become a battleground for evidentiary rulings, cross-examinations, and strategic maneuvering, all governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure. Defense counsel will work to undermine the government's witnesses, challenge the admissibility of key materials, and inject doubt into the narrative being presented. If convicted, Diddy would then move into the sentencing phase, where the U.S. Probation Office will prepare a Presentence Investigation Report factoring in conduct enhancements and criminal history to produce an advisory Guidelines range. His sentence would ultimately be shaped by both the Guidelines and the judge's application of the § 3553(a) factors—bringing the full machinery of federal prosecution to bear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Sean “Diddy” Combs' case is unfolding within the strict architecture of the federal criminal justice system, meaning every stage—from indictment through sentencing—is governed by the same procedural and constitutional rules described above. His arrest followed a lengthy investigation, likely involving sealed warrants, grand jury subpoenas, and cooperation from multiple agencies. Once federal authorities gathered enough evidence to establish probable cause, a grand jury returned an indictment, triggering his initial appearance in federal court. There, issues like bail, representation, and pretrial release were addressed under the Bail Reform Act. With a trial date now scheduled, the case has moved past the early procedural phases and is entering the critical stages of pretrial motions and evidentiary challenges, including potential Rule 12 motions by the defense to suppress evidence or challenge the sufficiency of the indictment.As Diddy's federal trial begins today, he now faces the full weight of the government's case under the high-stakes adversarial structure of federal criminal procedure. With plea negotiations reportedly rejected, the prosecution must now prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury. The courtroom will become a battleground for evidentiary rulings, cross-examinations, and strategic maneuvering, all governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure. Defense counsel will work to undermine the government's witnesses, challenge the admissibility of key materials, and inject doubt into the narrative being presented. If convicted, Diddy would then move into the sentencing phase, where the U.S. Probation Office will prepare a Presentence Investigation Report factoring in conduct enhancements and criminal history to produce an advisory Guidelines range. His sentence would ultimately be shaped by both the Guidelines and the judge's application of the § 3553(a) factors—bringing the full machinery of federal prosecution to bear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a memorandum dated April 17, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team opposed a motion to quash a subpoena directed at Cassie Ventura, a key accuser in his upcoming federal trial. The defense argued that the subpoena, which sought drafts of Ventura's memoir, personal diaries, journals, and bank statements, was justified under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). They contended that these materials could contain information pertinent to Combs' defense, asserting that the requests were specific, relevant, and not oppressive. The defense emphasized that the subpoena aimed to uncover evidence that might challenge Ventura's credibility or provide context to her allegations.​Furthermore, Combs' attorneys addressed concerns about the breadth of the subpoena, arguing that it did not constitute a "fishing expedition" but was a targeted effort to obtain materials directly related to the case. They maintained that the requested documents could reveal inconsistencies or motivations behind Ventura's claims, thereby playing a crucial role in ensuring a fair trial. The memorandum cited legal precedents supporting the admissibility of such evidence when it bears directly on the issues at hand. Ultimately, the defense sought to demonstrate that the subpoena was a legitimate tool for gathering evidence essential to Combs' defense strategy.​to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.256.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a memorandum dated April 17, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team opposed a motion to quash a subpoena directed at Cassie Ventura, a key accuser in his upcoming federal trial. The defense argued that the subpoena, which sought drafts of Ventura's memoir, personal diaries, journals, and bank statements, was justified under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). They contended that these materials could contain information pertinent to Combs' defense, asserting that the requests were specific, relevant, and not oppressive. The defense emphasized that the subpoena aimed to uncover evidence that might challenge Ventura's credibility or provide context to her allegations.​Furthermore, Combs' attorneys addressed concerns about the breadth of the subpoena, arguing that it did not constitute a "fishing expedition" but was a targeted effort to obtain materials directly related to the case. They maintained that the requested documents could reveal inconsistencies or motivations behind Ventura's claims, thereby playing a crucial role in ensuring a fair trial. The memorandum cited legal precedents supporting the admissibility of such evidence when it bears directly on the issues at hand. Ultimately, the defense sought to demonstrate that the subpoena was a legitimate tool for gathering evidence essential to Combs' defense strategy.​to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.256.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

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 […]

In a memorandum dated April 17, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team opposed a motion to quash a subpoena directed at Cassie Ventura, a key accuser in his upcoming federal trial. The defense argued that the subpoena, which sought drafts of Ventura's memoir, personal diaries, journals, and bank statements, was justified under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). They contended that these materials could contain information pertinent to Combs' defense, asserting that the requests were specific, relevant, and not oppressive. The defense emphasized that the subpoena aimed to uncover evidence that might challenge Ventura's credibility or provide context to her allegations.​Furthermore, Combs' attorneys addressed concerns about the breadth of the subpoena, arguing that it did not constitute a "fishing expedition" but was a targeted effort to obtain materials directly related to the case. They maintained that the requested documents could reveal inconsistencies or motivations behind Ventura's claims, thereby playing a crucial role in ensuring a fair trial. The memorandum cited legal precedents supporting the admissibility of such evidence when it bears directly on the issues at hand. Ultimately, the defense sought to demonstrate that the subpoena was a legitimate tool for gathering evidence essential to Combs' defense strategy.​to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.256.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a memorandum dated April 17, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team opposed a motion to quash a subpoena directed at Cassie Ventura, a key accuser in his upcoming federal trial. The defense argued that the subpoena, which sought drafts of Ventura's memoir, personal diaries, journals, and bank statements, was justified under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). They contended that these materials could contain information pertinent to Combs' defense, asserting that the requests were specific, relevant, and not oppressive. The defense emphasized that the subpoena aimed to uncover evidence that might challenge Ventura's credibility or provide context to her allegations.​Furthermore, Combs' attorneys addressed concerns about the breadth of the subpoena, arguing that it did not constitute a "fishing expedition" but was a targeted effort to obtain materials directly related to the case. They maintained that the requested documents could reveal inconsistencies or motivations behind Ventura's claims, thereby playing a crucial role in ensuring a fair trial. The memorandum cited legal precedents supporting the admissibility of such evidence when it bears directly on the issues at hand. Ultimately, the defense sought to demonstrate that the subpoena was a legitimate tool for gathering evidence essential to Combs' defense strategy.​to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.256.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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.

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.

This week on Everyday Injustice, we talk with UC Davis Law Professor Gabriel “Jack” Chin about the new Trump administration, Court Challenges, and potential unconstitutional actions. Chin is a teacher and scholar of Immigration Law, Criminal Procedure, and Race and Law. His scholarship has appeared in the Penn, UCLA, Cornell, and Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties law reviews and the Yale, Duke and Georgetown law journals among others. Among the areas of discussion: (1) birthright citizenship, (2) the Trump administration's policies, (3) USAID, (4) mass deportation. One question that emerges to what extent the courts will choose to stop Trump's agenda and to what extent the Trump administration will succeed in altering the balance of power.

At the heart of today's conversation is a fundamental question: Do we as citizens have to identify ourselves to the police during a stop? This isn't just a theoretical query; it stems from real-world implications of policies like stop, frisk, and identify. Steve, Bella, and Troy break down the nuances between criminal law and criminal procedure, tackling topics from the famous Terry v. Ohio case to reasonable suspicion and probable cause.But this episode isn't just about legal theory; it's also about the practical applications and real-world consequences of these laws. From historical viewpoints such as Rudy Giuliani's broken window theory" in New York to the social justice implications of these policing policies, our panel digs deep into the intersections of law, society, and individual rights.So, if you've ever wondered what your rights are when approached by the police or how legal standards like "reasonable suspicion" actually play out in everyday life, this episode is for you. Key Moments00:00 "Usurping: Rights During Police Stops"05:10 Ohio's Constitutional Rights Challenges06:28 Rudy Giuliani's Journey11:28 Orderliness Reduces Theft Behavior14:36 Community Policing Theory19:25 Police Encounter: Reasonable Suspicion Explained20:21 Legal Standards: Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause26:03 "Police ID Request and Rights"28:11 Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine31:17 Socratic Method Enhances Critical ThinkingKey TakeawaysUnderstanding Reasonable Suspicion: Our discussion honed in on the fine line between reasonable suspicion and probable cause. It's crucial to comprehend how these standards impact police stops and searches, especially in scenarios involving stop and frisk policies.The Real-World Balance: Bella and Troy underscore the balance between ensuring public safety and protecting constitutional freedoms. They highlight the importance of applying the 4th Amendment in practical, real-world contexts to safeguard citizens' rights.Learning Beyond Law School: Law school might equip you with foundational knowledge, but real-world experiences, like those discussed in our podcast, are vital. As Steve Palmer aptly puts it, law school teaches you to recognize how much you don't know, pushing you to explore and learn continuously.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 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

Get Joel's Book: Https://amzn.to/48GwbLxAll Things STS: Https://linktr.ee/stspodcastPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivorYouTube: Surviving The Survivor: #BestGuests in True Crime - YouTube#STSNation, Welcome to another episode of Surviving the Survivor, the podcast that promises to bring you the very #BestGuests in all of #TrueCrime.Accused healthcare CEO assassin Luigi Mangione faces both state and federal charges, including murder as an act of terrorism. This high-profile case raises complex legal questions about due process, public bias, and the growing tension between corporate America and societal frustrations. Best Guests: Professor Jo Potuto joined the faculty of University of Nebraska in 1974. She currently teaches Federal Jurisdiction, Constitutional Law, Sports Law, and Criminal Procedure. She also maintains a special interest in Conflict of Laws and Appellate Advocacy and, among other courses, has taught Mass Communications, Civil Procedure, Contract and Criminal Law. In 2003 Potuto received the Nebraska Alumni Outstanding Faculty Award. Professor Potuto is the author of three books – Prisoner Collateral Attacks: Habeas Corpus and Federal Prisoner Motion Practice; Winning Appeals; and Federal Criminal Jury Instructions (co-authored with Perlman and Saltzburg). Randy Zelin is a NYC-based former prosecutor turned criminal defense attorney with more than 30 years experience. He's tried cases against both DOJ and SEC. Randy is also an adjunct professor at Cornell Law appearing on Fox News, Fox Business Channel, CNN, CNN Headline News, Bloomberg, Newsmax, NewsNation and local network television #TrueCrime #TrueCrimeCommunity #CEOMurder #LuigiMangione #FreeLuigi #JusticeForBrianThompson #SurvivingTheSurvivor #TerrorismCharges