Podcasts about defendants

Join us, as we examine the strange death of Barbara Kendhammer—a loving mother whose life ended under bizarre and tragic circumstances.  You'll hear how such an unimaginable misfortune, as described by Barbara's husband, led to investigators uncovering troubling inconsistencies that cast doubt on his story and raised serious questions. How to support: For extra perks including exclusive content, early release, and ad-free episodes - Go to - Patreon How to connect: Website Instagram Facebook Twitter Please check out our sponsors and help support the podcast: Nutrafol - Start your hair growth journey with Nutrafol. For a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners ten dollars off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to Nutrafol.com and enter the promo code MADNESS Mint Mobile - For premium wireless plans starting at $15 a month go to mintmobile.com/madness Cremo - Head to Target or Target.com to find Cremo's new line of antiperspirants and deodorants in the Italian Bergamont and Palo Santo scents. IQBAR - IQBAR is offering our special podcast listeners twenty percent off all IQBAR products, plus get FREE shipping. To get your twenty percent off, text MADNESS to 64000. Gabb - Protecting your kids has never been easier. For the best deals, sign up to Gabb today – no contract required – at GABB.com/MADNESS. Terms and conditions apply. Shopify - Sign up for a one-dollar-per-month trial period at shopify.com/madness Quince - Upgrade your wardrobe with pieces made to last with Quince. Go to Quince.com/madness for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Research & Writing: Ryan Deininger Editing: Aiden Wolf Sources: Mystery on County Road M: 48 Hours Kendhammer Appeal Appeal.pdf News 8000 Winona Daily News WXOW Todd Kendhammer Trial Prosecution Opening Statements Todd Kendhammer Trial Defense Opening Statements Todd Kendhammer Trial Day 1 Dashcam Video is Played Todd Kendhammer Trial Day 2 Part 1 Forensic Pathologist Kathleen McCubbin Testifies Todd Kendhammer Trial Day 2 Part 2 Sgt Mark Yehle Testifies Todd Kendhammer Trial Day 3 Part 1 Defendants Police Interview Todd Kendhammer Trial Day 3 Part 2 Defendant's Police Interview Tod Kendhammer Trial Day 4 Part 1 DNA Analyst Kevin Scott Testifies Todd Kendhammer Trial Day 4 Part 2 Forensic Scientist Nick Stahlke Testifies Todd Kendhammer Trial Day 5 Part 1 Glass Expert Mark Meshulam Testifies Todd Kendhammer Trial Day 5 Part 2 Dr Barry Bates Human Factors Expert Testifies Todd Kendhammer Trial Day 6 Part 1 Todd Kendhammer Testifies Todd Kendhammer Trial Day 6 Part 2 Todd Kendhammer Testifies Todd Kendhammer Trial Day 7 Part 1 Kendhammer Friends and Family Testify Todd Kendhammer Trial Day 7 Part 2 Jared Loging Testifies Todd Kendhammer Trial Prosecution Closing Arguments Todd Kendhammer Trial Defense Closing Arguments Todd Kendhammer Trial Prosecution Rebuttal Todd Kendhammer Trial Sentencing Hearing Barbara Kendhammer Obituary

​In Case No. 24-CV-07774 (JPO), the defendants, including Sean Combs and associated entities, have filed a Memorandum of Law supporting their Motion to Dismiss the complaint brought by the plaintiff, John Doe. The defendants argue that the plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient factual basis and fail to meet the necessary legal standards to proceed. They contend that the claims are speculative and do not establish the required elements to support causes of action against them.Additionally, the defendants assert that certain claims are barred by statutes of limitations and that the plaintiff has not demonstrated any applicable exceptions to these time constraints. They also challenge the appropriateness of the plaintiff proceeding under a pseudonym without prior court approval, emphasizing the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings. Based on these arguments, the defendants request that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.629907.58.0.pdf

​In Case No. 24-CV-07774 (JPO), the defendants, including Sean Combs and associated entities, have filed a Memorandum of Law supporting their Motion to Dismiss the complaint brought by the plaintiff, John Doe. The defendants argue that the plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient factual basis and fail to meet the necessary legal standards to proceed. They contend that the claims are speculative and do not establish the required elements to support causes of action against them.Additionally, the defendants assert that certain claims are barred by statutes of limitations and that the plaintiff has not demonstrated any applicable exceptions to these time constraints. They also challenge the appropriateness of the plaintiff proceeding under a pseudonym without prior court approval, emphasizing the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings. Based on these arguments, the defendants request that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.629907.58.0.pdf

New York City's public advocate released a report showing Black women are nine times more likely to die from pregnancy or childbirth than white women in the city. Plus, defense lawyers have developed backdoor legal maneuvers to move their clients to the front of the line for mental health services. Also, criminal justice experts say the Adams administration is not doing enough to shutter Rikers Island on time. Meanwhile, many residents of the Garden State say the search for affordable housing is a timely one. And finally, it's been 60 years since Mayor Robert Wagner signed New York City's Landmarks Law, beginning an era of historic preservation across the city.

[03:15] Power Showers: The Debate Over Water Flow & Conservation[06:15] Art vs. Probation: Can Creativity Survive Supervision?[13:40] Navigating Confusing PFR Reporting Rules in Michigan[21:21] Challenging Missouri’s SORA: What Went Wrong?[44:48] Gorsuch and Alito: A Threat to Defendants’ Rights? https://www.registrymatters.co/podcast/rm337-missouri-jane-doe-v-michael-turner-et-al/Email us: registrymatterscast@gmail.comSupport us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/registrymattersJoin the Discord server: https://discord.gg/6FnxwAQm57Want to support Registry Matters with some...

“The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any.” (Mark 14:55 NIV) The prosecution of Jesus offers a case study in injustice, hypocrisy, and evil. After He was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was taken to the house of Annas, a former high priest. Annas interrogated Him briefly and then sent Him to the house of Caiaphas, the current high priest. Caiaphas had assembled the Sanhedrin, the ruling religious body in Israel, to hear testimony. He had hoped to include the testimonies of false witnesses who were willing to lie about Jesus, but none of them could get their stories straight. Instead, he used testimony from two men who said, “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the Temple of God and rebuild it in three days’” (Matthew 26:61 NLT). The high priest demanded that Jesus tell them if He was the Messiah. “Jesus replied, ‘You have said it. And in the future you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God’s right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven’” (verse 64 NLT). He gave His enemies all they needed to convict Him of blasphemy. It didn’t matter to them that He spoke the truth. “‘Guilty!’ they shouted. ‘He deserves to die!’” (verse 66 NLT). The Sanhedrin made its verdict official a short time later. But it didn’t have the authority to carry out the death sentence. Only Roman authorities could do that. So the Jewish leaders sent Jesus to the Roman governor, Pilate. Pilate could find no reason to execute Him. When he learned that Jesus had started His ministry in Galilee, Pilate sent Him to Herod, the ruler of Galilee, who happened to be in Jerusalem at that time. Herod asked a lot of questions, and then ridiculed and mocked Jesus, but could find no reason to pass judgment on Him. So he sent him back to Pilate. Meanwhile, the Jewish leaders had organized a mob to demand that Jesus be crucified. Pilate tried to explain that he could find no guilt in Jesus. He had Jesus flogged to try to satisfy the mob’s bloodlust. But it didn’t work. Through it all, Jesus used an unorthodox but highly effective legal strategy—effective, that is, if your aim is to be found guilty and put to death. He remained silent. Aside from a few sentences, He refused to engage His accusers or answer their charges, even though almost every part of His trial was illegal and unjust. In doing so, He fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 53:7: “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth” (NIV). In terms of human justice, Jesus’ trials were a farce. But He was interested in justice of another kind. Jesus did exactly what He needed to do to ensure that God’s justice was satisfied. Because of our sins, the only way for it to be satisfied was for an innocent person to endure God’s wrath. And He was the only innocent person. Jesus was still in complete control. He had outsmarted and outmaneuvered the religious leaders at every turn in His ministry. He could have shamed His accusers and exposed the hypocrisy of His judges. And that’s why He remained silent. He was forcing their hand. He was giving them no choice but to crucify Him. A key takeaway from this epic miscarriage of justice is that one day the Defendant will be the Judge. One day all of us will stand before the Lord to give an account of our lives. And our eternal fate will be determined by a single question: Who do you say He is? Reflection question: How can we respond to people who try to discredit Jesus? Discuss Today's Devo in Harvest Discipleship! — Listen to the Greg Laurie Podcast Become a Harvest PartnerSupport the show: https://harvest.org/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this poignant episode of Wrestling Soup, host Jeff Lippman pays tribute to the late Kevin Castle, a cherished member of the wrestling podcast community. Reflecting on their friendship, Jeff emphasizes the importance of estate planning, sharing valuable insights on how to manage legal affairs, even in the absence of wealth. He discusses the necessity of wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, encouraging listeners to take charge of their own legacies. The episode also touches on the ongoing legal developments in the ring boy case, providing a detailed analysis of jurisdictional issues and the intricacies of the defendants' arguments. With a blend of personal anecdotes and legal wisdom, this episode serves as both a tribute to Kevin and a reminder to prioritize one's affairs.00:00 Tribute to Kevin Castle02:15 The Importance of Estate Planning05:40 Understanding Wills and Powers of Attorney10:25 Navigating Medical Directives15:00 Reflections on Kevin's Legacy20:10 Legal Updates on the Ring Boy Case25:30 Jurisdictional Challenges Explained30:45 Defendants' Arguments in Detail35:00 Closing Thoughts and RemembranceBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/wrestling-soup--1425249/support.

Jake Lang spent 1,467 days inside a horrific prison in DC; 900 of those days were in complete solitary confinement—a place that can either crush a man or turn him into an unbreakable warrior for God's Kingdom! Jake was pardoned by President Trump, and now, just months after being free, he joins us to share his story, his courage, and his big news!

(WATCH THIS EPISODE ON YOUTUBE) **CONTENT WARNING: GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS OF TORTURE** On March 15, 2025, President Trump announced the Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Aragua was conducting "irregular warfare" against the United States and that members would be deported under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The Trump Administration quickly began deporting people allegedly affiliated with the gang—without any semblance of due process—via direct flights to a notoriously deadly El Salvadoran prison. A few days later, the Trump Administration told a federal judge it was invoking the "state secrets privilege" to refuse to provide any information to the Courts about these flights, the people they've put on them, or what (if any) evidence they had to support doing so. As attorneys in this still-ongoing court battle [J.G.G. v. Trump (2025)] fight to stop Trump's unsanctioned deportations under the AEA, new legal questions abound: Is the Executive Branch blatantly violating Judicial orders? Are we in a Constitutional crisis yet? What is the Alien Enemies Act? What is the state secrets privilege? Were Administrations already abusing it before Trump? Can the Trump administration invoke the privilege to "disappear" whoever they choose? What happens now? Reb gives you everything she knows on all of those topics and more. This is J.G.G. v. Trump (2025), United States v. Reynolds (1953), FBI v. Fazaga (2022), and United States v. Zubaydah (2022). **IMPORTANT NOTE**: This episode is expected to go live on April 3, 2025, the same day the parties in J.G.G. v. Trump (2025) are set to appear in a hearing before Judge Boasberg on his Order to Defendants to show cause why they did not violate the Court's Temporary Restraining Orders. Judge Boasberg is expected to rule on the DOJ's invocation of the state secrets privilege sometime thereafter. The case is ongoing and any further updates beyond April 2 will not be covered in this episode because Reb cannot time travel. Yet. *** Follow @RebuttalPod on Instagram and Twitter! Follow @Rebmasel on TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter! *** 0:00 - Content Warning 0:32 - Intro / Necessary Context 6:40 - Background on J.G.G. v. Trump (2025) 8:25 - Secrets secrets are no fun 9:45 - A photo op isn't a secret y'all 13:30 - The Alien Enemies Act of 1798?? Really??? 24:18 - Everyone is probably just stupid 27:06 - DRAMA (WITH TIMESTAMPS) OF (LIKELY) COURT ORDER VIOLATIONS 41:15 - Constitutional crisis incoming 42:20 - Trump admin loves to tweet (themselves to hell) 47:52 - The Hail Mary 53:20 - THE STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE 53:45 - United States v. Reynolds (1953) 58:10 - The state secrets privilege is...messy 1:05:14 - ABUSE OF THE PRIVILEGE POST-9/11 1:11:30 - CIA "black sites" (TORTURE IN POLAND) 1:14:50 - FBI v. Fazaga (2022) 1:15:05 - TORTURE IN POLAND 1:16:50 - United States v. Zubaydah (2022) 1:20:43 - GORSUCH DISSENT IS...FIRE? 1:24:09 - CONTENT WARNING (TORTURE) 1:26:07 - Zubaydah wants to depose his torturers 1:30:00 - His torturers don't STFU about being torturers 1:39:02 - Gorsuch concludes with a BANG 1:42:10 - The wrong administration 1:43:05 - CAN THE TRUMP ADMIN SUCCESSFULLY USE THE PRIVILEGE? 1:46:18 - SIDEBAR: Another Judge CHEWED THEM UP 1:51:14 - REB'S REBUTTAL  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Montanans with severe mental illnesses that are accused of crimes can languish in jail for more than a year as they wait for a bed at the state psychiatric hospital. New legislation would build a facility for those patients in eastern Montana.

Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! This is the last of three episodes in which we review the substantive Civil Procedure law we've covered on the podcast. We're concluding this series by tracking how a civil lawsuit unfolds, from pleadings to judgment.  In this episode, we discuss: Starting a lawsuit: pleadings and service of process Defendant's response and Rule 12 motions Amendments and pre-trial resolutions Joinder of parties Final judgment and post-judgment motions Resources: Private Bar Exam Tutoring (https://barexamtoolbox.com/private-bar-exam-tutoring/) Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Atlantic_Corp._v._Twombly) Ashcroft v. Iqbal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Iqbal) Podcast Episode 208: Listen and Learn – Motions to Dismiss a Case (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-208-listen-and-learn-motions-to-dismiss-a-case/) Podcast Episode 286: Listen and Learn – Conclusory Pleadings Under Rule 12(b)(6) (Civ Pro) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-286-listen-and-learn-conclusory-pleadings-under-rule-12b6-civ-pro/) Podcast Episode 203: Listen and Learn – Motions for Summary Judgment (Civ Pro) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-203-listen-and-learn-motions-for-summary-judgment-civ-pro/) Podcast Episode 262: Listen and Learn – Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motions for New Trial (Civ Pro) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-262-listen-and-learn-motions-for-judgment-as-a-matter-of-law-and-motions-for-new-trial-civ-pro/) Podcast Episode 145: Listen and Learn – Permissive Joinder and Required Joinder (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-145-listen-and-learn-permissive-joinder-and-required-joinder/) Podcast Episode 153: Listen and Learn – More Types of Joinder (Civ Pro) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-153-listen-and-learn-more-types-of-joinder-civ-pro/) Podcast Episode 148: Listen and Learn – Claim and Issue Preclusion (Civil Procedure) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-148-listen-and-learn-claim-and-issue-preclusion-civil-procedure/) Download the Transcript (https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-306-spotlight-on-civil-procedure-part-3-the-civil-lawsuit/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on  Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

​In Case No. 24-CV-07774 (JPO), the defendants, including Sean Combs and associated entities, have filed a Memorandum of Law supporting their Motion to Dismiss the complaint brought by the plaintiff, John Doe. The defendants argue that the plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient factual basis and fail to meet the necessary legal standards to proceed. They contend that the claims are speculative and do not establish the required elements to support causes of action against them.Additionally, the defendants assert that certain claims are barred by statutes of limitations and that the plaintiff has not demonstrated any applicable exceptions to these time constraints. They also challenge the appropriateness of the plaintiff proceeding under a pseudonym without prior court approval, emphasizing the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings. Based on these arguments, the defendants request that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.629907.58.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In Case No. 24-CV-07774 (JPO), the defendants, including Sean Combs and associated entities, have filed a Memorandum of Law supporting their Motion to Dismiss the complaint brought by the plaintiff, John Doe. The defendants argue that the plaintiff's allegations lack sufficient factual basis and fail to meet the necessary legal standards to proceed. They contend that the claims are speculative and do not establish the required elements to support causes of action against them.Additionally, the defendants assert that certain claims are barred by statutes of limitations and that the plaintiff has not demonstrated any applicable exceptions to these time constraints. They also challenge the appropriateness of the plaintiff proceeding under a pseudonym without prior court approval, emphasizing the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings. Based on these arguments, the defendants request that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.629907.58.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ryan Adamsfalse

​In a recent ruling, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed most claims in a lawsuit filed by six anonymous women against the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) and several officials, alleging complicity in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The court determined it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants such as former Governors John de Jongh and Kenneth Mapp, former Attorney General Vincent Frazer, and former Senators Celestino White and Carlton Dowe, leading to the dismissal of claims against them. Additionally, claims against former First Lady Cecile de Jongh were barred due to a prior settlement agreementHowever, the court allowed claims against Delegate to Congress Stacey Plaskett to proceed, citing sufficient ties to New York through alleged activities such as visiting Epstein's New York residence and soliciting campaign donations there. The court found plausible allegations under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and negligence claims, asserting that Plaskett's alleged receipt of financial and political support from Epstein in exchange for favorable political actions warranted further proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge Dismisses Jane Does' Epstein Complaint Against All But Plaskett | St. Thomas Source

In this episode, I sit down with law student Troy for a really interesting chat about how criminal prosecution works, particularly when a victim isn't willing to testify. We look at what rights victims have in the legal system and how the state can still move forward with a case even if the victim isn't cooperating. We also take a look at laws like Marcy's Law in Ohio and how they impact things. Our conversation covers how these legal rules come into play in high-pressure situations and sheds light on important topics like evidence and confrontation rights. Plus, we discuss the unique challenges prosecutors face. Whether you're studying law or just curious about how criminal defense operates, this episode gives you a fascinating glimpse into the stuff you might not learn in law school but will definitely encounter in the field.Key Moments04:19 Prosecutors Shifting to Victims' Input06:42 "The Burning Bed" Synopsis11:23 Courtroom Debate: Prosecutor vs. Victim Rights14:15 "Matlock Moment in Court Dramas"16:56 Confrontation and Defendant's Rights19:25 Proving Guilt Without Victim Testimony22:29 Jury Doubt and Confrontation Clause27:15 "Mastering Rules Before Creativity"Here's what you'll discoverVictim's Role: Understand the implications of Marcy's Law and how victim input is dynamically shaping courtroom decisions - but not always as a deciding factor.Confrontation Conundrum: Gain clarity on the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and its critical role in ensuring defendants can question their accusers in court, which is fundamental to fair trials.Evidential Challenges: Learn about how the absence of victim testimony creates hurdles for the prosecution and how hearsay exceptions can or cannot overcome these obstacles.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 Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

​In a recent ruling, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed most claims in a lawsuit filed by six anonymous women against the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) and several officials, alleging complicity in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The court determined it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants such as former Governors John de Jongh and Kenneth Mapp, former Attorney General Vincent Frazer, and former Senators Celestino White and Carlton Dowe, leading to the dismissal of claims against them. Additionally, claims against former First Lady Cecile de Jongh were barred due to a prior settlement agreementHowever, the court allowed claims against Delegate to Congress Stacey Plaskett to proceed, citing sufficient ties to New York through alleged activities such as visiting Epstein's New York residence and soliciting campaign donations there. The court found plausible allegations under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and negligence claims, asserting that Plaskett's alleged receipt of financial and political support from Epstein in exchange for favorable political actions warranted further proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge Dismisses Jane Does' Epstein Complaint Against All But Plaskett | St. Thomas SourceBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​In a recent ruling, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed most claims in a lawsuit filed by six anonymous women against the Government of the United States Virgin Islands (USVI) and several officials, alleging complicity in Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The court determined it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants such as former Governors John de Jongh and Kenneth Mapp, former Attorney General Vincent Frazer, and former Senators Celestino White and Carlton Dowe, leading to the dismissal of claims against them. Additionally, claims against former First Lady Cecile de Jongh were barred due to a prior settlement agreementHowever, the court allowed claims against Delegate to Congress Stacey Plaskett to proceed, citing sufficient ties to New York through alleged activities such as visiting Epstein's New York residence and soliciting campaign donations there. The court found plausible allegations under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and negligence claims, asserting that Plaskett's alleged receipt of financial and political support from Epstein in exchange for favorable political actions warranted further proceedings.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Judge Dismisses Jane Does' Epstein Complaint Against All But Plaskett | St. Thomas SourceBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case CR29-22-2805, the defense filed a Reply to the State's Objection to the Defendant's Motion for Change of Venue. This motion is part of the ongoing legal proceedings against Bryan Kohberger, who is accused of the murder of four University of Idaho students. The defense argued that due to the extensive media coverage and the intense public interest in the case, finding an impartial jury within Latah County would be nearly impossible. They contend that moving the trial to another venue is necessary to ensure a fair trial.The State, however, objected to this motion, asserting that the pretrial publicity, while extensive, does not automatically disqualify the ability to empanel an impartial jury. The defense's reply emphasized that the local community's involvement and the saturation of the case in the media have created a prejudiced environment, making a fair trial in the current venue untenable.The reply also referenced surveys and expert opinions that support the argument for a change of venue. The defense further criticized the State's reliance on the voir dire process (jury selection) as an adequate safeguard against bias, arguing that the overwhelming public sentiment in the area would not be adequately addressed merely through questioning potential jurors.This back-and-forth on the motion reflects the high stakes and contentious nature of the pretrial proceedings, with both sides preparing for a legal battle that hinges on ensuring the trial's fairness amidst widespread public interest.(commercial at 7:43)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

​In State v. Bryan Kohberger, the prosecution responded to Defendant's Motion in Limine #13, which sought to prevent the State from using Kohberger's alleged autism diagnosis as an aggravating factor during sentencing. The prosecution clarified that they do not intend to present Kohberger's autism as an aggravating circumstance to justify the death penalty. However, they reserve the right to challenge the defense's portrayal of autism as a mitigating factor. Citing legal precedents, the State argued that while mental health conditions should not be used to increase culpability, they can be examined to assess the weight of mitigating evidence presented by the defense. Therefore, they requested the court deny the motion, allowing them to rebut any claims that Kohberger's autism diminishes his responsibility for the alleged crimes.​In State v. Bryan Kohberger, the defense filed Motion in Limine #8, seeking to exclude any evidence not previously disclosed under Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b), which pertains to the admissibility of prior bad acts to prove character. The defense argued that introducing such evidence without proper notice would be prejudicial and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial.​In response, the prosecution contended that they have complied with all disclosure requirements and that any evidence presented falls within the permissible scope of Rule 404(b). They asserted that the evidence in question is directly relevant to establishing motive, intent, or identity, rather than merely suggesting a propensity for criminal behavior. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, allowing the jury to consider all pertinent evidence that meets legal standards.​In State v. Bryan Kohberger, the defense filed Motion in Limine #14, aiming to exclude certain statistical analyses related to DNA evidence from being presented at trial. The defense argued that the methodologies used were either unreliable or could mislead the jury, potentially violating Kohberger's right to a fair trial.In response, the prosecution contended that the statistical analyses in question adhere to established scientific standards and are commonly accepted in forensic investigations. They emphasized that such analyses are crucial for interpreting DNA evidence and can assist the jury in understanding the weight of the genetic findings. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, asserting that excluding this evidence would hinder the jury's ability to fully evaluate the forensic aspects of the case.to contact me:boobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-REDACTED-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-14-RE-Statistical-Analysis.pdf031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-13-RE-Conditions-Aggravators.pdf031025+States+Response+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+Re+Unnoticed+404b+Evidence.pdf

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #2, which sought to exclude or limit the testimony of twenty-two of the State's expert witnesses on the grounds of vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The State asserted that it had complied with Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and the applicable Idaho Rules of Evidence by providing detailed disclosures for each expert, outlining their anticipated testimony, the facts and data supporting their opinions, and their qualifications. The State emphasized that any disagreements with the experts' anticipated testimony should be addressed through cross-examination and rebuttal expert testimony, rather than exclusion. Additionally, the State highlighted its good-faith effort to comply with the Court's scheduling orders and instructions, noting that the Defendant had ample opportunity to review and respond to the State's disclosures, and had not demonstrated any actual prejudice resulting from the disclosures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-2-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #2, which sought to exclude or limit the testimony of twenty-two of the State's expert witnesses on the grounds of vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The State asserted that it had complied with Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and the applicable Idaho Rules of Evidence by providing detailed disclosures for each expert, outlining their anticipated testimony, the facts and data supporting their opinions, and their qualifications. The State emphasized that any disagreements with the experts' anticipated testimony should be addressed through cross-examination and rebuttal expert testimony, rather than exclusion. Additionally, the State highlighted its good-faith effort to comply with the Court's scheduling orders and instructions, noting that the Defendant had ample opportunity to review and respond to the State's disclosures, and had not demonstrated any actual prejudice resulting from the disclosures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-2-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf

​In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #6, which sought to preclude the use of terms like "touch DNA" and "contact DNA" during trial. The defense argued that these terms could mislead the jury into believing that DNA presence conclusively indicates direct contact, without considering other means of transfer. The State countered that such terminology is commonly accepted in forensic science and that its experts should be permitted to use these terms to accurately describe the nature of the DNA evidence. They emphasized that the defense would have the opportunity to cross-examine the State's experts on the limitations and interpretations of "touch" or "contact" DNA evidence, ensuring that the jury receives a comprehensive understanding of the evidence presented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-6-RE-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdf

​In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #6, which sought to preclude the use of terms like "touch DNA" and "contact DNA" during trial. The defense argued that these terms could mislead the jury into believing that DNA presence conclusively indicates direct contact, without considering other means of transfer. The State countered that such terminology is commonly accepted in forensic science and that its experts should be permitted to use these terms to accurately describe the nature of the DNA evidence. They emphasized that the defense would have the opportunity to cross-examine the State's experts on the limitations and interpretations of "touch" or "contact" DNA evidence, ensuring that the jury receives a comprehensive understanding of the evidence presented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-6-RE-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdf

​In State v. Bryan Kohberger, the prosecution responded to Defendant's Motion in Limine #13, which sought to prevent the State from using Kohberger's alleged autism diagnosis as an aggravating factor during sentencing. The prosecution clarified that they do not intend to present Kohberger's autism as an aggravating circumstance to justify the death penalty. However, they reserve the right to challenge the defense's portrayal of autism as a mitigating factor. Citing legal precedents, the State argued that while mental health conditions should not be used to increase culpability, they can be examined to assess the weight of mitigating evidence presented by the defense. Therefore, they requested the court deny the motion, allowing them to rebut any claims that Kohberger's autism diminishes his responsibility for the alleged crimes.​In State v. Bryan Kohberger, the defense filed Motion in Limine #8, seeking to exclude any evidence not previously disclosed under Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b), which pertains to the admissibility of prior bad acts to prove character. The defense argued that introducing such evidence without proper notice would be prejudicial and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial.​In response, the prosecution contended that they have complied with all disclosure requirements and that any evidence presented falls within the permissible scope of Rule 404(b). They asserted that the evidence in question is directly relevant to establishing motive, intent, or identity, rather than merely suggesting a propensity for criminal behavior. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, allowing the jury to consider all pertinent evidence that meets legal standards.​In State v. Bryan Kohberger, the defense filed Motion in Limine #14, aiming to exclude certain statistical analyses related to DNA evidence from being presented at trial. The defense argued that the methodologies used were either unreliable or could mislead the jury, potentially violating Kohberger's right to a fair trial.In response, the prosecution contended that the statistical analyses in question adhere to established scientific standards and are commonly accepted in forensic investigations. They emphasized that such analyses are crucial for interpreting DNA evidence and can assist the jury in understanding the weight of the genetic findings. The prosecution requested that the court deny the defense's motion, asserting that excluding this evidence would hinder the jury's ability to fully evaluate the forensic aspects of the case.to contact me:boobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-REDACTED-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-14-RE-Statistical-Analysis.pdf031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-13-RE-Conditions-Aggravators.pdf031025+States+Response+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+Re+Unnoticed+404b+Evidence.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #2, which sought to exclude or limit the testimony of twenty-two of the State's expert witnesses on the grounds of vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The State asserted that it had complied with Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and the applicable Idaho Rules of Evidence by providing detailed disclosures for each expert, outlining their anticipated testimony, the facts and data supporting their opinions, and their qualifications. The State emphasized that any disagreements with the experts' anticipated testimony should be addressed through cross-examination and rebuttal expert testimony, rather than exclusion. Additionally, the State highlighted its good-faith effort to comply with the Court's scheduling orders and instructions, noting that the Defendant had ample opportunity to review and respond to the State's disclosures, and had not demonstrated any actual prejudice resulting from the disclosures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-2-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #2, which sought to exclude or limit the testimony of twenty-two of the State's expert witnesses on the grounds of vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The State asserted that it had complied with Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and the applicable Idaho Rules of Evidence by providing detailed disclosures for each expert, outlining their anticipated testimony, the facts and data supporting their opinions, and their qualifications. The State emphasized that any disagreements with the experts' anticipated testimony should be addressed through cross-examination and rebuttal expert testimony, rather than exclusion. Additionally, the State highlighted its good-faith effort to comply with the Court's scheduling orders and instructions, noting that the Defendant had ample opportunity to review and respond to the State's disclosures, and had not demonstrated any actual prejudice resulting from the disclosures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-2-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #2, which sought to exclude or limit the testimony of twenty-two of the State's expert witnesses on the grounds of vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The State asserted that it had complied with Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and the applicable Idaho Rules of Evidence by providing detailed disclosures for each expert, outlining their anticipated testimony, the facts and data supporting their opinions, and their qualifications. The State emphasized that any disagreements with the experts' anticipated testimony should be addressed through cross-examination and rebuttal expert testimony, rather than exclusion. Additionally, the State highlighted its good-faith effort to comply with the Court's scheduling orders and instructions, noting that the Defendant had ample opportunity to review and respond to the State's disclosures, and had not demonstrated any actual prejudice resulting from the disclosures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-2-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #2, which sought to exclude or limit the testimony of twenty-two of the State's expert witnesses on the grounds of vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The State asserted that it had complied with Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and the applicable Idaho Rules of Evidence by providing detailed disclosures for each expert, outlining their anticipated testimony, the facts and data supporting their opinions, and their qualifications. The State emphasized that any disagreements with the experts' anticipated testimony should be addressed through cross-examination and rebuttal expert testimony, rather than exclusion. Additionally, the State highlighted its good-faith effort to comply with the Court's scheduling orders and instructions, noting that the Defendant had ample opportunity to review and respond to the State's disclosures, and had not demonstrated any actual prejudice resulting from the disclosures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-2-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf

​In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #6, which sought to preclude the use of terms like "touch DNA" and "contact DNA" during trial. The defense argued that these terms could mislead the jury into believing that DNA presence conclusively indicates direct contact, without considering other means of transfer. The State countered that such terminology is commonly accepted in forensic science and that its experts should be permitted to use these terms to accurately describe the nature of the DNA evidence. They emphasized that the defense would have the opportunity to cross-examine the State's experts on the limitations and interpretations of "touch" or "contact" DNA evidence, ensuring that the jury receives a comprehensive understanding of the evidence presented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-6-RE-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #6, which sought to preclude the use of terms like "touch DNA" and "contact DNA" during trial. The defense argued that these terms could mislead the jury into believing that DNA presence conclusively indicates direct contact, without considering other means of transfer. The State countered that such terminology is commonly accepted in forensic science and that its experts should be permitted to use these terms to accurately describe the nature of the DNA evidence. They emphasized that the defense would have the opportunity to cross-examine the State's experts on the limitations and interpretations of "touch" or "contact" DNA evidence, ensuring that the jury receives a comprehensive understanding of the evidence presented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-6-RE-Reference-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

With special guest Ken Katkin, Professor of Constitutional Law at Salmon P. Chase School of Law and Chief Custodian of Trash Flow Radio (WAIF-FM). Ken will help us gauge how far we are from a full-blown Constitutional Crisis due to Trump 2.0's norm-breaking, lawlessness and defiance of the courts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Our roundup episodes summarize brand-new, deposition-related court rulings from around the country. We cover four new rulings in this episode on crucial issues:You can successfully oppose even otherwise taxable deposition costs, when an adversary prevails, by making these fairness-based argumentsFRCP 30(b)(6) topic lists must be proportionate to the case, as a court ruled when refusing to evaluate a list of 503 topicsThe rule of sequestration does not apply in federal civil cases and the majority of states, but you may succeed in getting a court to impose it if you can show one of these "plus" factorsIn-person depositions are still a thing, and should not be treated as unusual or requiring an extraordinary showingAs always, thanks for listening! And remember - these episodes are always free and contain no advertising. What's the catch? Only that we'd ask you to leave us a 5-star rating wherever you download your podcasts. Those ratings are deeply motivating to, and deeply appreciated by, our research and production staff. And be sure to check out the book on which this podcast is based - 10,000 Depositions Later: The Premier Litigation Guide for Superior Deposition Practice. Now in its 4th edition at 625 pages, available on Amazon and almost everywhere books are sold.SHOW NOTESLUV N' CARE v. LINDSEY LAURAIN, ET AL, No. CV 3:16-00777, 2025 WL 622334, at *8 (W.D. La. Feb. 26, 2025) (while courts cannot award costs not explicitly identified in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, courts do have discretion to deny award of otherwise recoverable costs where fairness or other considerations dictate)NATHEN W. BARTON, Plaintiff, v. REAL INNOVATION INC. et al., Defendant., No. 3:24-CV-05194-DGE, 2025 WL 606167, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 25, 2025) See 36-page notice (Case 3:24-cv-05194-DGE Document 51-1 Filed 01/14/25 Page 1 of 36 (contains 503 actual questions, not topics)MARK WRIGHT-AHERN, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF CLERMONT, Defendant., No. 5:24-CV-173-MMH-PRL, 2025 WL 605059, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2025) (rule of sequestration does not apply to depositions, absent particularized showing of specific facts warranting the relief; the correct procedure for seeking to exclude a person from deposition is to seek a protective order); see also Order (from same case, awarding fees and explaining sequestration concept in depositions), CM/ECF Document No. 31, filed Jan. 31, 2025)UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. The M/Y Amadea, a Motor Yacht Bearing Int'l Mar. Org. No. 1012531, Defendant., No. 23 CIV. 9304 (DEH), 2025 WL 754124, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2025) (ordering witness to travel overseas to United States for in-person deposition, finding that while remote depositions are the new normal, there remains nothing unusual about insisting that a key witness appear in person)

Plaintiff John Doe, represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, files this complaint against Defendant Sean Combs. The allegations are based on personal knowledge and information. Plaintiff asserts claims against Combs, detailing specific grievances and legal grounds for action. The complaint outlines the nature of the alleged wrongdoing, including factual and legal bases for holding Combs accountable.This lawsuit seeks relief for the harm allegedly caused by Combs, requesting appropriate legal remedies. The complaint establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting evidence, and sets forth claims that Plaintiff intends to prove in court. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks justice and compensation for the alleged misconduct by Defendant.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.1.0.pdf

Plaintiff John Doe, represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, files this complaint against Defendant Sean Combs. The allegations are based on personal knowledge and information. Plaintiff asserts claims against Combs, detailing specific grievances and legal grounds for action. The complaint outlines the nature of the alleged wrongdoing, including factual and legal bases for holding Combs accountable.This lawsuit seeks relief for the harm allegedly caused by Combs, requesting appropriate legal remedies. The complaint establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting evidence, and sets forth claims that Plaintiff intends to prove in court. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks justice and compensation for the alleged misconduct by Defendant.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.1.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

MN House Democrats voted down a bill that would have provided money to pregnancy resource centers. Much was mined here in terms of The Mystery and what it's really about. In climate news, the great tri-state tornado of 1925 remains the country's worst storm. The latest Feeding our Future defendant would be funny if it wasn't so spendy. Johnny Heidt with guitar news. Heard On The Show: Closing arguments underway in Feeding Our Future trial State Sen. Justin Eichorn arrested in Bloomington on suspicion of soliciting minor Trump says his administration is set to release JFK files with no redactions Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

​In the case of Doe v. Combs et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08054-MKV, the defendants, including Sean Combs (also known as "P. Diddy") and associated business entities, filed a Memorandum of Law supporting their Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The plaintiff, identified as "Jane Doe," alleges that Combs raped her and threatened her life in 2004. She asserts a claim under the New York City Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act, which includes a provision that temporarily revives claims that otherwise would be barred by the statute of limitations.The defendants' motion to dismiss likely argues procedural and substantive grounds, such as the expiration of the statute of limitations and potential deficiencies in the plaintiff's allegations. They may also contend that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, possibly challenging the sufficiency of evidence or the applicability of the cited legal provisions. The court's decision on this motion will determine whether the case proceeds to discovery and trial or is dismissed at this preliminary stage.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630450.57.0.pdf

​In the case of Doe v. Combs et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08054-MKV, the defendants, including Sean Combs (also known as "P. Diddy") and associated business entities, filed a Memorandum of Law supporting their Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The plaintiff, identified as "Jane Doe," alleges that Combs raped her and threatened her life in 2004. She asserts a claim under the New York City Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act, which includes a provision that temporarily revives claims that otherwise would be barred by the statute of limitations.The defendants' motion to dismiss likely argues procedural and substantive grounds, such as the expiration of the statute of limitations and potential deficiencies in the plaintiff's allegations. They may also contend that the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, possibly challenging the sufficiency of evidence or the applicability of the cited legal provisions. The court's decision on this motion will determine whether the case proceeds to discovery and trial or is dismissed at this preliminary stage.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630450.57.0.pdf

​In Case No. 24-CV-08808-JAV, the defendants, including Sean Combs, have filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint brought against them by the plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe. In their memorandum supporting this motion, the Combs defendants argue that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that the plaintiff has not demonstrated an "injury in fact" necessary for standing. They contend that the alleged injuries are speculative and not concrete or imminent, as required by legal standards.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsources:gov.uscourts.nysd.632024.32.0.pdf

​In Case No. 24-CV-08808-JAV, the defendants, including Sean Combs, have filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint brought against them by the plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe. In their memorandum supporting this motion, the Combs defendants argue that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that the plaintiff has not demonstrated an "injury in fact" necessary for standing. They contend that the alleged injuries are speculative and not concrete or imminent, as required by legal standards.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsources:gov.uscourts.nysd.632024.32.0.pdf

Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson dropped a bombshell in a newly filed motion—Bryan Kohberger's defense team isn't disputing that his DNA was found on the knife sheath at the crime scene. Instead, they're setting up an argument that someone else could have planted it there. That's right—the cornerstone of the prosecution's forensic evidence might just be the battleground where the defense makes its stand. “Instead of challenging the conclusion that the DNA on the knife sheath belonged to Defendant, the defense's expert disclosures reveal that the defense plans to argue the DNA on the knife sheath does not prove Defendant was ever at the crime scene and the knife sheath itself could have been planted by the real perpetrator,” Thompson wrote. This argument flips the script in a case where DNA was expected to be the smoking gun. The defense isn't saying the lab got it wrong. They're saying that finding Kohberger's DNA on the sheath doesn't automatically mean he was in the house when the murders happened. And the next logical step? The suggestion that someone else put it there. The problem? Many of the court documents that lay out exactly how the defense plans to support this theory are sealed. That means right now, there's no way to compare Thompson's claim against what the defense has actually submitted in court filings. Kohberger, the 29-year-old criminology Ph.D. student, is charged with four counts of first-degree murder in the brutal slayings of University of Idaho students Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen, and Kaylee Goncalves. The attack, which took place in the early morning hours of November 13, 2022, inside an off-campus rental home, shocked the small town of Moscow, Idaho, and quickly became a national headline. Kohberger has never spoken publicly about the case. When asked to enter a plea last year, he stood silent, prompting the judge to enter a not-guilty plea on his behalf. If convicted, he could face the death penalty. Prosecutors say they matched Kohberger's DNA to the knife sheath using investigative genetic genealogy, or IGG. This controversial technique, which compares crime scene DNA against public ancestry databases to find potential family connections, has been a key factor in cracking cold cases. But Kohberger's defense team fought hard to keep IGG evidence out of the courtroom, arguing that its use in his case was flawed. Their request was denied last month, though prosecutors have since stated they won't introduce IGG at trial. Instead, they'll present it as a “tip” that led them to Kohberger as a suspect. Now, with the trial set to begin on August 11 and expected to last more than three months, the stage is set for an intense legal battle. The prosecution is relying on forensic evidence, including the knife sheath, while the defense is signaling that they're going to challenge the very meaning of that evidence. It's a high-stakes gamble that could shape the outcome of one of the most closely watched murder trials in years. #BryanKohberger #IdahoMurders #TrueCrime #DNAEvidence Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson dropped a bombshell in a newly filed motion—Bryan Kohberger's defense team isn't disputing that his DNA was found on the knife sheath at the crime scene. Instead, they're setting up an argument that someone else could have planted it there. That's right—the cornerstone of the prosecution's forensic evidence might just be the battleground where the defense makes its stand. “Instead of challenging the conclusion that the DNA on the knife sheath belonged to Defendant, the defense's expert disclosures reveal that the defense plans to argue the DNA on the knife sheath does not prove Defendant was ever at the crime scene and the knife sheath itself could have been planted by the real perpetrator,” Thompson wrote. This argument flips the script in a case where DNA was expected to be the smoking gun. The defense isn't saying the lab got it wrong. They're saying that finding Kohberger's DNA on the sheath doesn't automatically mean he was in the house when the murders happened. And the next logical step? The suggestion that someone else put it there. The problem? Many of the court documents that lay out exactly how the defense plans to support this theory are sealed. That means right now, there's no way to compare Thompson's claim against what the defense has actually submitted in court filings. Kohberger, the 29-year-old criminology Ph.D. student, is charged with four counts of first-degree murder in the brutal slayings of University of Idaho students Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen, and Kaylee Goncalves. The attack, which took place in the early morning hours of November 13, 2022, inside an off-campus rental home, shocked the small town of Moscow, Idaho, and quickly became a national headline. Kohberger has never spoken publicly about the case. When asked to enter a plea last year, he stood silent, prompting the judge to enter a not-guilty plea on his behalf. If convicted, he could face the death penalty. Prosecutors say they matched Kohberger's DNA to the knife sheath using investigative genetic genealogy, or IGG. This controversial technique, which compares crime scene DNA against public ancestry databases to find potential family connections, has been a key factor in cracking cold cases. But Kohberger's defense team fought hard to keep IGG evidence out of the courtroom, arguing that its use in his case was flawed. Their request was denied last month, though prosecutors have since stated they won't introduce IGG at trial. Instead, they'll present it as a “tip” that led them to Kohberger as a suspect. Now, with the trial set to begin on August 11 and expected to last more than three months, the stage is set for an intense legal battle. The prosecution is relying on forensic evidence, including the knife sheath, while the defense is signaling that they're going to challenge the very meaning of that evidence. It's a high-stakes gamble that could shape the outcome of one of the most closely watched murder trials in years. #BryanKohberger #IdahoMurders #TrueCrime #DNAEvidence Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson dropped a bombshell in a newly filed motion—Bryan Kohberger's defense team isn't disputing that his DNA was found on the knife sheath at the crime scene. Instead, they're setting up an argument that someone else could have planted it there. That's right—the cornerstone of the prosecution's forensic evidence might just be the battleground where the defense makes its stand. “Instead of challenging the conclusion that the DNA on the knife sheath belonged to Defendant, the defense's expert disclosures reveal that the defense plans to argue the DNA on the knife sheath does not prove Defendant was ever at the crime scene and the knife sheath itself could have been planted by the real perpetrator,” Thompson wrote. This argument flips the script in a case where DNA was expected to be the smoking gun. The defense isn't saying the lab got it wrong. They're saying that finding Kohberger's DNA on the sheath doesn't automatically mean he was in the house when the murders happened. And the next logical step? The suggestion that someone else put it there. The problem? Many of the court documents that lay out exactly how the defense plans to support this theory are sealed. That means right now, there's no way to compare Thompson's claim against what the defense has actually submitted in court filings. Kohberger, the 29-year-old criminology Ph.D. student, is charged with four counts of first-degree murder in the brutal slayings of University of Idaho students Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen, and Kaylee Goncalves. The attack, which took place in the early morning hours of November 13, 2022, inside an off-campus rental home, shocked the small town of Moscow, Idaho, and quickly became a national headline. Kohberger has never spoken publicly about the case. When asked to enter a plea last year, he stood silent, prompting the judge to enter a not-guilty plea on his behalf. If convicted, he could face the death penalty. Prosecutors say they matched Kohberger's DNA to the knife sheath using investigative genetic genealogy, or IGG. This controversial technique, which compares crime scene DNA against public ancestry databases to find potential family connections, has been a key factor in cracking cold cases. But Kohberger's defense team fought hard to keep IGG evidence out of the courtroom, arguing that its use in his case was flawed. Their request was denied last month, though prosecutors have since stated they won't introduce IGG at trial. Instead, they'll present it as a “tip” that led them to Kohberger as a suspect. Now, with the trial set to begin on August 11 and expected to last more than three months, the stage is set for an intense legal battle. The prosecution is relying on forensic evidence, including the knife sheath, while the defense is signaling that they're going to challenge the very meaning of that evidence. It's a high-stakes gamble that could shape the outcome of one of the most closely watched murder trials in years. #BryanKohberger #IdahoMurders #TrueCrime #DNAEvidence Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

​In Case No. CR01-24-31665, the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #11, which sought to exclude evidence related to Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG). The Defendant indicated an intention to exclude IGG evidence and not to call expert witnesses on the matter. In light of this, the State agreed not to introduce IGG evidence or related expert testimony. Instead, the State proposed to present that law enforcement received a "tip," without specifying its source or content, which led to the identification of the Defendant. ​This approach aims to streamline the trial by focusing on direct evidence linking the Defendant to the crime, while avoiding potential complexities and disputes surrounding the IGG process. By mutually agreeing to exclude IGG evidence, both parties seek to prevent unnecessary confusion or prejudice that could arise from discussing the investigative techniques used during the investigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031025+States+Response+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+Re+Exclude+IGG+Evidence.pdf

​In Case No. CR01-24-31665, the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #11, which sought to exclude evidence related to Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG). The Defendant indicated an intention to exclude IGG evidence and not to call expert witnesses on the matter. In light of this, the State agreed not to introduce IGG evidence or related expert testimony. Instead, the State proposed to present that law enforcement received a "tip," without specifying its source or content, which led to the identification of the Defendant. ​This approach aims to streamline the trial by focusing on direct evidence linking the Defendant to the crime, while avoiding potential complexities and disputes surrounding the IGG process. By mutually agreeing to exclude IGG evidence, both parties seek to prevent unnecessary confusion or prejudice that could arise from discussing the investigative techniques used during the investigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031025+States+Response+Defendants+Motion+in+Limine+Re+Exclude+IGG+Evidence.pdf

Defendants at the heart of one of the 1990s' most controversial cases are hoping to regain their freedom while another defendant in Wisconsin's release was threatened. Plus, the embattled pastor at the heart of the Mica Miller case faces new allegations. This week's episode is Prior Case Updates. Get your fan code today, and grab your tickets starting Feb. 7 to join us for CrimeWave at Sea 2025 - https://crimewaveatsea.com/sinister Click here for this week's show notes. Click here to sign up for our Patreon and receive hundreds of hours of bonus content. Please click here to leave a review and tell us what you think of the show. Please consider supporting the companies that support us! -Stop putting off those doctors appointments and go to Zocdoc.com/CREEPY to find and instantly book a top-rated doctor today. -OneSkin is redefining the aging process with their proprietary OS-01 peptide. Get 15% off with code CREEPY at oneskin.co. -Get started with Allara Health's compassion-first expert care today with 25% off your first month when you go to allarahealth.com/CREEPY. -Hero Bread is offering 10% off your order. Go to hero.co and use code CREEPY at checkout.

Alaska has spawned a long list of serial killers from the gold rush era in the early 1900s to the present day. Is Brian Steven Smith the latest member of this notorious fraternity? I did an episode on this case several months ago, but a great deal has happened with it since then. Smith's first two murder cases have moved through the court system, and the police have released information suggesting he has more victims. Sources Batts, Amber. “Anchorage police ignored warnings, let Brian Steven Smith keep killing.” August 18, 2024. This is How We Rise. Boots, Michelle Theriault. “Anchorage jury sees horrific video evidence of woman's slaying.” February 13, 2024. Anchorage Daily News. Boots, Michelle Theriault. “Are you guys in a rush?: Smith interrupted police interview to confess to second killing.” February 15, 2024. Anchorage Daily News. Boots, Michelle Theriault. “As Smith murder trial begins, a new explanation of how digital card showing killing got to police.” February 6, 2024. Anchorage Daily News. Boots, Michelle Theriault. “Daughter of homicide victim testifies in Smith trial.” February 8, 2024. Anchorage Daily News. Boots, Michelle Theriault. “Defendant in hotel killing indicted on additional charges: FBI ‘actively' assisting investigation – Court documents filed this week indicate an active, wide-ranging investigation that may extend beyond Alaska.” October 15, 2019. Anchorage Daily News. Boots, Michelle Theriault. “Homemade silencers, Clorox and latex gloves: what police found in Brian Smith's home and truck.” February 21, 2024. Anchorage Daily News. Boots, Michelle Theriault. “'I have something to show you': Murder suspect texted Anchorage man in hours after hotel room killing, met him at Hillside park.” February 22, 2024. Anchorage Daily News. Boots, Michelle Theriault. “Judge rules graphic video of killing can't be shown to Smith trial jurors --- yet.” February 9, 2024. Anchorage Daily News. Boots, Michelle Theriault. “Jurors see interrogation video in which Smith admits to dumping body.” February 14, 2024. Anchorage Daily News. Boots, Michelle Theriault. “Jury in Smith trial hears how railroad workers discovered body.” February 16, 2024. Anchorage Daily News. Boots, Michelle Theriaul. “Family of missing Alaska woman believes she may be Brian Smith's third victim.” July 28, 2024. Anchorage Daily News. Boots, Michelle Theriault. “Prosecutor says he ‘targeted the most vulnerable, and videos will prove it.' His defense says the evidence isn't so clear-cut.” February 7, 2024. Anchorage Daily News. Boots, Michelle Theriault. “Smith found guilty on all charges in double murder trial.” February 22, 2024. Anchorage Daily News. Boots, Michelle Theriault. “Victim's family members and activists pack court hearing of man accused of killing two Alaska Native women – Veronica Abouchuk's family members filled the courtroom as Brian Steven Smith pleaded not guilty to her murder.” October 22, 2019. Anchorage Daily News. Brown, Lee. “Wife of ‘memory card' murder suspect Brian Smith shocked at his ‘dark' side.” October 24, 2019. New York Post. Deliso, Meredith, and Dhanika Pineda, “How a stolen phone led to a murder trial for deaths of 2 Alaska Native women.” February 9, 2024. ABC News. Hollander, Zac. “Anchorage man accused of hotel killing charged in the death of another woman – Brian Steven Smith, 48, now faces murder charges in the deaths of two women.” October 17, 2019. Anchorage Daily News. Hollander, Zac and M.T. Boots. “Videos and photos show brutal attack of woman in Anchorage hotel room by man charged in her death, charges say – A 48-year-old Anchorage man was charged with murder in the death of a woman whose body was found along the Seward Highway south of Anchorage last week.” October 9, 2019. Anchorage Daily News. Kuhn, Jonson. “APD says photos do not prove Alaska Native woman was murdered by Brian Smith.” July 29, 2024. KTUU. Ortiz, Aimee.

Listen to this week's episode of the Dateline: True Crime Weekly podcast with Andrea Canning. A California jury hears chilling details about the murder of hairstylist Fabio Sementilli from the man who admits he helped kill him. In Kansas, the lead detective on a double murder case is called to the witness stand by the woman charged with the murders. She's representing herself. We've got the latest on the investigation into the death of Hollywood actor Gene Hackman. Plus, NBC News' Vicky Nguyen is back with tips on how to avoid travel scams. Find out more about the cases covered each week here:www.datelinetruecrimeweekly.com

7 Hours and 59 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Here are episodes 17 throught the Livestream Q&A of the World War 2 series with Thomas777 in one audio file.Episode 17: The Nuremberg Proceedings Part 1 w/ Thomas777Episode 18: The Nuremberg Proceedings Part 2 w/ Thomas777Episode 19: The Nuremberg Proceedings Part 3 - The Defendants w/ Thomas777Episode 20: The Trial of Hermann Göring Part 1 w/ Thomas777Episode 21: The Trial of Hermann Göring Part 2 - The Cross-Examination w/ Thomas777Episode 22: The Final Episode in the WW2 Series - The Verdicts at Nuremberg w/ Thomas777Livestream Q&AThomas' SubstackThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

February 26, 1924. 10 Defendants enter a courtroom in Munich. They are being charged with an attempted coup. They tried to overthrow the government of the Weimar Republic… and almost succeeded. All eyes are on the second defendant to enter the room. When the judge reads this man's name into the record, he identifies him as a Munich writer named Adolf Hitler. Today: Hitler's first attempt to seize power. How did his 1923 coup fail? And why would Hitler later say that this failure was “perhaps the greatest good fortune of my life?” Thank you to Thomas Weber for speaking with us for this episode, author of the book Becoming Hitler: The Making of a Nazi. Thank you also to our guest Peter Ross Range, author of 1924: The Year that Made Hitler. We also read David King's book The Trial of Adolf Hitler in researching this episode–it's a great resource if you want to learn more about this story. **This episode originally aired February 21, 2022. To stay updated: historythisweekpodcast.com To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices