Podcasts about Criminal procedure

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

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

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

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

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.

Reviewing Police Use of Deadly Force: Criminal Procedure Act Under Scrutiny - Crime Expert Chad Thomas by Radio Islam

The Criminal Procedure Act is currently under review, and proposals are being made to strengthen certain aspects of the act to ensure a more effective and victim-orientated criminal justice system.Member of the South African Law Commission, Advocate Jacob SkosanaSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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.

Lecture 3 of Criminal Law & Procedure focuses on constitutional safeguards in criminal cases, specifically the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as well as pretrial and trial procedures.The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, regulates confessions, and prohibits double jeopardy. Key aspects include:Miranda warnings must be given to suspects in custody before interrogation, informing them of their right to remain silent, right to an attorney, and that anything said can be used against them. These warnings apply only to custodial interrogations, where a reasonable person would not feel free to leave.Voluntary confessions are admissible, but those obtained through coercion or psychological manipulation are not.The privilege against self-incrimination protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves. This right does not extend to physical evidence.Double jeopardy prohibits multiple prosecutions or punishments for the same offense. However, there are exceptions, such as separate sovereignties, mistrials, and civil proceedings.The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel, a speedy trial, jury trials, and confrontation of witnesses.The right to counsel applies at all critical stages of prosecution, including arraignments, plea negotiations, trial, and sentencing6. This right was extended to indigent defendants in state courts by Gideon vs Wainwright.The right to a speedy trial prevents indefinite delays and is balanced against factors that could justify delays.Defendants have the right to an impartial jury, and racial discrimination in jury selection is prohibited by Batson vs Kentucky. Jury verdicts in criminal cases must be unanimous, per Ramos vs Louisiana.The Confrontation Clause ensures that defendants can cross-examine witnesses testifying against them.Pretrial and trial procedures covered include:Grand Juries determine probable cause for bringing formal charges in federal cases.Bail is set based on factors such as flight risk and danger to the public. The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail.Plea bargains resolve most criminal cases. These agreements must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.Discovery requires the prosecution to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense.The burden of proof at trial is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Sentencing is determined by judges based on guidelines.Post-conviction relief may be sought through appeals and habeas corpus petitions.

Summary of Criminal Procedure – Lecture 3 Introduction Lecture 3 focuses on constitutional protections in criminal proceedings, covering the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and pretrial and trial procedures. Key Topics: Fifth Amendment: Protection against self-incrimination, Miranda warnings, and double jeopardy. Sixth Amendment: Right to counsel, a speedy trial, an impartial jury, and confrontation of witnesses. Pretrial & Trial Procedures: Grand juries, bail, plea bargaining, discovery, burden of proof, sentencing, and post-conviction relief. I. The Fifth Amendment Protects individuals from coerced confessions and multiple prosecutions. A. Miranda Rights & Custodial Interrogation Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Suspects must be informed of right to remain silent and counsel. Failure to provide warnings may make confessions inadmissible. Exceptions: Public safety, spontaneous statements, and routine booking questions. B. Voluntary Confessions & Self-Incrimination Confessions must be voluntary—coercion makes them inadmissible. Exclusionary rule bars evidence obtained in violation of Miranda. Privilege against self-incrimination applies only to testimonial evidence. C. Double Jeopardy Prohibits multiple prosecutions or punishments for the same offense. Exceptions: Separate sovereigns doctrine, mistrials, and appeals. II. The Sixth Amendment Guarantees fair trial rights. A. Right to Counsel Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): Indigent defendants must be provided counsel. Applies at all critical stages, including plea negotiations and sentencing. Strickland v. Washington (1984): Defendants may claim ineffective assistance of counsel. B. Speedy & Public Trial Barker v. Wingo factors: Length, reason, defendant's assertion, and prejudice. Speedy Trial Act (1974): Federal trials must start within 70 days. C. Impartial Jury Batson v. Kentucky (1986): Prohibits racial discrimination in jury selection. Ramos v. Louisiana (2020): Criminal convictions require unanimous verdicts. D. Confrontation Clause Right to cross-examine witnesses. Bruton v. United States (1968): Co-defendant's confession cannot be used against another defendant. Maryland v. Craig (1990): Limited exceptions for child victims. III. Pretrial & Trial Procedures Focuses on probable cause, bail, plea deals, burden of proof, and sentencing. A. Grand Juries & Bail Grand juries determine probable cause, but defendants cannot present evidence. Bail must not be excessive (8th Amendment); based on flight risk, crime severity, and public safety. B. Plea Bargains & Discovery Most cases resolve through plea deals. Brady v. Maryland (1963): Prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence. C. Burden of Proof at Trial Prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence: Direct = witnesses, videos; Circumstantial = motive, behavior. D. Sentencing & Post-Conviction Relief Mandatory minimums limit judicial discretion. Death penalty restrictions: Roper v. Simmons (2005) bars execution of juveniles. Appeals & Habeas Corpus: Review constitutional errors. Wrongful Convictions: DNA evidence & Innocence Project help exonerate the falsely accused. Conclusion Today covered constitutional protections, trial rights, and post-conviction remedies. These safeguards ensure fairness, prevent wrongful convictions, and protect due process. Tomorrow, we will examine criminal appeals and habeas corpus petitions.

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

I. Elements of Crimes Actus Reus (The Guilty Act) A crime requires a voluntary act or an omission where a legal duty exists. Involuntary acts (e.g., seizures) do not qualify. Mens Rea (The Guilty Mind) Purpose: Defendant intends the criminal result. Knowledge: Defendant knows harm is almost certain. Recklessness: Conscious disregard of substantial risk. Negligence: Failure to recognize a substantial risk. Causation Actual Cause: But-for the defendant's actions, the harm would not have occurred. Proximate Cause: Harm must be a foreseeable result. Superseding Causes: Unforeseeable events can break liability. II. Crimes Against the Person Homicide Murder: Requires malice aforethought: intent to kill, intent to harm, extreme recklessness, or felony murder. Degrees of Murder: First-Degree: Premeditated or during a listed felony. Second-Degree: Unplanned but intentional, or reckless disregard for life. Manslaughter: Voluntary: Killing in the heat of passion due to provocation. Involuntary: Killing caused by criminal negligence or misdemeanor offense. Assault and Battery Battery: Unlawful application of force causing harm or offense. Assault: Attempted battery or act creating reasonable fear of harm. III. Crimes Against Property Larceny: Taking another's property with intent to permanently deprive. Embezzlement: Fraudulent conversion of property lawfully possessed. False Pretenses: Obtaining title through deception. Robbery: Larceny plus force or intimidation. Burglary: Unlawful entry into a structure with intent to commit a felony. Arson: Malicious burning of property. IV. Inchoate Offenses and Parties to Crime Attempt: Substantial step toward committing a crime with intent. Solicitation: Encouraging another to commit a crime. Conspiracy: Agreement plus overt act to commit a crime. Pinkerton Rule: Liability extends to foreseeable acts of co-conspirators. Accomplice Liability: Assisting or encouraging a crime with intent. Summary of Key Takeaways Crimes require actus reus (act), mens rea (intent), and causation. Crimes against persons involve direct harm, such as homicide and assault. Property crimes involve theft, destruction, or unlawful entry. Inchoate offenses address attempts and conspiracies. Accomplice liability extends punishment to those who assist crimes. This concludes Day 1 of Criminal Law & Procedure. Tomorrow, we will cover Defenses to Crimes and Criminal Procedure, focusing on constitutional protections and legal justifications.

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

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

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.(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.

Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Rights This document reviews the key themes and critical facts from the provided lecture excerpt, “Lecture 4 Constitutional Law: Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Rights.” The document focuses on the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and their impact on criminal procedure. I. Overview The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments form the cornerstone of criminal procedure in the U.S. Fourth Amendment: Protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, emphasizing the warrant requirement and exceptions. Fifth Amendment: Safeguards against self-incrimination, establishing Miranda rights and the Double Jeopardy Clause. Sixth Amendment: Guarantees crucial trial rights, including the right to counsel, speedy and public trial, confrontation, and compulsory process. II. Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure 1. What is a Search? The Supreme Court's interpretation of a "search" evolved from physical trespass to a focus on privacy. A search occurs when: The government intrudes on an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy (Katz v. United States). The government physically trespasses on property to obtain information. 2. What is a Seizure? Property: Occurs when the government significantly interferes with an individual's possession. Person: Occurs when a reasonable person would feel unable to leave an encounter with law enforcement (e.g., arrests, stops). 3. Reasonableness and the Warrant Requirement Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. A valid warrant requires: Probable cause Issuance by a neutral magistrate Particular description of the place and items/persons to be searched/seized. III. Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement Several exceptions permit warrantless searches and seizures: Exigent Circumstances: Imminent destruction of evidence, hot pursuit, public safety threats. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest: Search of arrestee and immediate area (limited for vehicles by Arizona v. Gant). Automobile Exception: Probable cause to believe a vehicle contains contraband/evidence. Plain View Doctrine: Seizure of evidence/contraband in plain view if incriminating nature is immediately apparent. Consent: Voluntary consent by a person with authority. Stop and Frisk (Terry Stops): Reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (less than probable cause), and a limited pat-down for weapons if the officer reasonably believes the person is armed and dangerous. Special Needs and Administrative Searches: Administrative inspections, border searches, drug testing, checkpoints. Inventory Searches: Routine cataloging of items in lawfully impounded vehicles/property. Community Caretaking Functions: Warrantless entries/searches for community welfare reasons. IV. Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment can be excluded. Derivative evidence ("fruit of the poisonous tree") can also be excluded. Exceptions: Good Faith Exception: Reliance on a facially valid, later invalidated warrant. Clerical Errors: Innocent clerical errors by court employees. V. Fifth Amendment: Self-Incrimination and Miranda Rights 1. Miranda Warnings: Required for suspects in custodial interrogation. Suspects must be informed of: Right to remain silent. Anything said can be used against them in court. Right to an attorney. Right to a court-appointed attorney if they cannot afford one. 2. Invoking and Waiving Miranda Rights: Invocation must be clear and unambiguous. Waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. 3. Public Safety Exception (New York v. Quarles): Allows questions before Miranda warnings if there is an immediate public safety concern. VI. Sixth Amendment: Right to Counsel and Other Trial Rights 1. Right to Counsel: Attaches at the initiation of formal adversarial proceedings and is offense-specific. 2. Critical Stages of Prosecution: Applies to: Post-indictment lineups and show-ups Preliminary hearings --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Congress, worried that TikTok may be unduly subject to Chinese government control, passed a law that would in effect stop TikTok from being made available in the U.S. unless it's sold off to a non-China-linked company. This morning (Dec. 6), the federal D.C. Circuit upheld the law against a First Amendment challenge (and some other legal challenges); Jane Bambauer and Eugene Volokh explain. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

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.(commercial at 13:52)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.(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.

How does European free speech law differ from American free speech law, when it comes to “hate speech,” blasphemy, and misinformation? Jane Bambauer and Eugene Volokh welcome Jacob Mchangama, who is CEO of The Future of Free Speech; research professor of political science at Vanderbilt; the author of Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media and other works on free speech; Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression; and a trained Danish lawyer who is one of the leading experts in comparative free speech law. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

Can you sue protesters who block the street in front of your business? Protesters who block your way to work? People who are trying to get you fired? Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer, who have written and taught about tort law as well as free speech law, discuss all these questions and more. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

Mr. Sean Combs' legal team, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f), has requested that the Court order the government to identify the alleged victims in the case. This is necessary for Combs to properly prepare for trial and for the defense to ensure adherence to Local Rule 23.1, which deals with media coverage and ensuring a fair trial. The defense is seeking clarity on the accusations to effectively challenge the charges against Mr. Combs(commercial at 7:14)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.10.15 - Combs Letter Motion re Disclosing Victims [final] (courtlistener.com)

Mr. Sean Combs' legal team, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f), has requested that the Court order the government to identify the alleged victims in the case. This is necessary for Combs to properly prepare for trial and for the defense to ensure adherence to Local Rule 23.1, which deals with media coverage and ensuring a fair trial. The defense is seeking clarity on the accusations to effectively challenge the charges against Mr. Combs(commercial at 7:14)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 2024.10.15 - Combs Letter Motion re Disclosing Victims [final] (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss calls to restrict misinformation, from the Sedition Act of 1798 to Hurricane Helene. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

On Thursday the 19th September, the Ministry of Justice opened consultation on changing jury trials to improve flexibility and increase thresholds for when individuals can opt to use a jury trial. The proposed changes would allow individuals to opt for jury trials up to and until their case review hearing, and increase the required seriousness for offences before a jury trial can be used. Producer Josef spoke to Associate Professor of Evidence and Criminal Procedure at the University of Auckland, Scott Optican, about jury trials, and the balancing of interests that comes with setting jury trial procedures.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in McIntosh v United States. In this case, the court considered this issue: May a district court enter a criminal forfeiture order when the time limit specified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has already passed? The case was decided on April 17, 2024. The Supreme Court held that a district court's failure to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)(B)'s requirement to enter a preliminary order imposing criminal forfeiture before sentencing does not bar a judge from ordering forfeiture at sentencing subject to harmless-error principles on appellate review. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. There are three types of time limits: jurisdictional deadlines, mandatory claim-processing rules, and time-related directives. Jurisdictional deadlines completely deprive a court of power to act if missed, while mandatory claim-processing rules regulate the timing of motions and claims, and if properly invoked, bar the relevant action after the deadline passes. Time-related directives, on the other hand, encourage prompt action but do not deprive an official of power to act if the deadline is missed. Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B) is a time-related directive for several reasons. First, the rule's language contemplates flexibility by allowing for exceptions when compliance is “impractical” and using indeterminate language like “sufficiently in advance.” Second, unlike other parts of Rule 32.2, this provision does not specify a consequence for noncompliance. Third, the rule governs the conduct of the court, not the litigants, which is more characteristic of time-related directives than claim-processing rules. Thus, a district court's failure to enter a preliminary forfeiture order before sentencing does not deprive it of the power to order forfeiture. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss the various rules the Court applies in obscenity cases and the forthcoming Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton decision.  Fun fact: Associate Justice Potter Stewart, who wrote the “I know it when I see it” line in a 1964 obscenity opinion, later concluded that any such obscenity test would be unconstitutionally vague. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

STS YouTube Channel: Surviving The Survivor: #BestGuests in True Crime - YouTubeIT'S HERE: STS HARDCOVER BOOK SIGNED COPIES FROM JOEL AND KARM: https://premierecollectibles.com/waldmanSTS Book on Audible: Https://www.audible.com/pd/Surviving-...STS Book on Amazon: Https://www.amazon.com/shop/surviving...STS Merch Store: https://www.bonfire.com/store/sts-store/STS Patreon: Https://patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivorSTS Website: https://survivingthesurvivor.com/All Things STS

STS YouTube Channel: Surviving The Survivor: #BestGuests in True Crime - YouTubeIT'S HERE: STS HARDCOVER BOOK SIGNED COPIES FROM JOEL AND KARM: https://premierecollectibles.com/waldmanSTS Book on Audible: Https://www.audible.com/pd/Surviving-...STS Book on Amazon: Https://www.amazon.com/shop/surviving...STS Merch Store: https://www.bonfire.com/store/sts-store/STS Patreon: Https://patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivorSTS Website: https://survivingthesurvivor.com/All Things STS

Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera filed a motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, arguing that his trial was compromised by juror misconduct. The motion cites a VICE News interview with an anonymous juror who claimed that jurors violated the judge's instructions by following media coverage of the trial and discussing the case before deliberations. The juror revealed that several jurors had accessed news articles and tweets related to the trial on smart devices, and they discussed these articles among themselves despite the judge's explicit orders not to do so. The juror also admitted that jurors read about allegations of Guzman drugging and sexually abusing underage women, although they purportedly disregarded these claims during deliberations.The defense argues that this misconduct resulted in an unfair trial, thus necessitating a new one. This claim focuses on the potential influence of external information on the jurors' impartiality and the possibility that pre-trial instructions were not adequately followed, thereby compromising the integrity of the trial.(commercial at 8:54)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EL CHAPO: "MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UPON AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING" - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera filed a motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, arguing that his trial was compromised by juror misconduct. The motion cites a VICE News interview with an anonymous juror who claimed that jurors violated the judge's instructions by following media coverage of the trial and discussing the case before deliberations. The juror revealed that several jurors had accessed news articles and tweets related to the trial on smart devices, and they discussed these articles among themselves despite the judge's explicit orders not to do so. The juror also admitted that jurors read about allegations of Guzman drugging and sexually abusing underage women, although they purportedly disregarded these claims during deliberations.The defense argues that this misconduct resulted in an unfair trial, thus necessitating a new one. This claim focuses on the potential influence of external information on the jurors' impartiality and the possibility that pre-trial instructions were not adequately followed, thereby compromising the integrity of the trial.(commercial at 8:51)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EL CHAPO: "MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UPON AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING" - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera filed a motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, arguing that his trial was compromised by juror misconduct. The motion cites a VICE News interview with an anonymous juror who claimed that jurors violated the judge's instructions by following media coverage of the trial and discussing the case before deliberations. The juror revealed that several jurors had accessed news articles and tweets related to the trial on smart devices, and they discussed these articles among themselves despite the judge's explicit orders not to do so. The juror also admitted that jurors read about allegations of Guzman drugging and sexually abusing underage women, although they purportedly disregarded these claims during deliberations.The defense argues that this misconduct resulted in an unfair trial, thus necessitating a new one. This claim focuses on the potential influence of external information on the jurors' impartiality and the possibility that pre-trial instructions were not adequately followed, thereby compromising the integrity of the trial.(commercial at 5:58)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EL CHAPO: "MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UPON AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING" - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera filed a motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, arguing that his trial was compromised by juror misconduct. The motion cites a VICE News interview with an anonymous juror who claimed that jurors violated the judge's instructions by following media coverage of the trial and discussing the case before deliberations. The juror revealed that several jurors had accessed news articles and tweets related to the trial on smart devices, and they discussed these articles among themselves despite the judge's explicit orders not to do so. The juror also admitted that jurors read about allegations of Guzman drugging and sexually abusing underage women, although they purportedly disregarded these claims during deliberations.The defense argues that this misconduct resulted in an unfair trial, thus necessitating a new one. This claim focuses on the potential influence of external information on the jurors' impartiality and the possibility that pre-trial instructions were not adequately followed, thereby compromising the integrity of the trial.(commercial at 5:57)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EL CHAPO: "MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UPON AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING" - DocumentCloud

Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera filed a motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, arguing that his trial was compromised by juror misconduct. The motion cites a VICE News interview with an anonymous juror who claimed that jurors violated the judge's instructions by following media coverage of the trial and discussing the case before deliberations. The juror revealed that several jurors had accessed news articles and tweets related to the trial on smart devices, and they discussed these articles among themselves despite the judge's explicit orders not to do so. The juror also admitted that jurors read about allegations of Guzman drugging and sexually abusing underage women, although they purportedly disregarded these claims during deliberations.The defense argues that this misconduct resulted in an unfair trial, thus necessitating a new one. This claim focuses on the potential influence of external information on the jurors' impartiality and the possibility that pre-trial instructions were not adequately followed, thereby compromising the integrity of the trial.(commercial at 8:54)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EL CHAPO: "MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UPON AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING" - DocumentCloud

Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera filed a motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, arguing that his trial was compromised by juror misconduct. The motion cites a VICE News interview with an anonymous juror who claimed that jurors violated the judge's instructions by following media coverage of the trial and discussing the case before deliberations. The juror revealed that several jurors had accessed news articles and tweets related to the trial on smart devices, and they discussed these articles among themselves despite the judge's explicit orders not to do so. The juror also admitted that jurors read about allegations of Guzman drugging and sexually abusing underage women, although they purportedly disregarded these claims during deliberations.The defense argues that this misconduct resulted in an unfair trial, thus necessitating a new one. This claim focuses on the potential influence of external information on the jurors' impartiality and the possibility that pre-trial instructions were not adequately followed, thereby compromising the integrity of the trial.(commercial at 8:54)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:EL CHAPO: "MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UPON AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING" - DocumentCloud

Radar Online recently lost a long-running lawsuit against the FBI over its failure to release documents related to Jeffrey Epstein following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The case, Radar Online LLC v. FBI, was decided by Judge Paul G. Gardephe in the Southern District of New York. The court found that the FBI had properly withheld certain records under FOIA Exemption 3, which protects information prohibited from disclosure by another federal statute..The FBI cited three statutes to justify withholding the documents: the Child Victims' and Child Witnesses' Rights Act, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which protects the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. The court agreed that these statutes were valid grounds for exemption, especially to protect the privacy and safety of minor victims involved in Epstein's crimes. The court also upheld the FBI's decision to withhold materials as attorney work product under Exemption 5, which protects documents prepared in anticipation of litigation​.Meanwhile, transparency is once again trash binned by the government and by the court.(commercial at 11:19)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:FBI Wins Fight to Keep its Files on Jeffrey Epstein Secret (knewz.com)