Podcasts about defendants

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.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In 2018, the tech and democracy activist Yaël Eisenstat joined Facebook as the head of Global Elections Integrity for political ads. Six months later, she left. She was disappointed and disillusioned at how Facebook financially profits from voter manipulation. This, of course, was years before Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement that Facebook's parent company, Meta, would get rid of all its fact checkers.Before joining Facebook, she had worked for years to strengthen and defend democracy—as an intelligence officer at the CIA, a diplomat at the State Department and a White House advisor. These days Eisenstat is a Senior Fellow at Cybersecurity for Democracy, working on policy solutions for how social media, AI-powered algorithms and generative AI affect political discourse, polarization and democracy.And, as she told our Amsterdam audience on Apri 23, 2024 at Pakhuis de Zwijger, she's hopeful that change will come one day. But it will be slow. Very slow.The evening was hosted by the chair of the Foundation for Democracy and Media, Yvonne Zonderop. Click here for the video of the event.Find out more about the John Adams Institute and join our community!Support the show

VLOG: US v SeanCombs, to final jury selection and opening arguments https://www.patreon.com/posts/diddy-docket-us-128274005https://matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/extra-in-sean-combs-jury-selection-8cebook: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DHP7YF19Bob Menendez prison June 17; Samourai Wallet crypto case; ex FBI McGonigal co-D, SDNY summon to State? UN bans Press

A Sermon Series in the Gospel of Mark

In 2014, the US government chose not to take a massive, rock-solid tax fraud case to trial. But why? This episode kicks off the tale of Daniel Rigmaiden, a hacker who exploited a legal loophole to regain his freedom. Find out how Rigmaiden's method for online connection, his Air Card, was both his downfall and his salvation. Take a deep dive into the data cell providers collect, how they share it with law enforcement, and the Fourth Amendment's role in protecting privacy. And tune in for Part II, where the real drama unfolds.01:02 The Rise of a Hacker03:04 The Air Card: A Game Changer08:17 How Cell Providers Track You10:46 The Fourth Amendment and Your Privacy18:33 The Stingray: A Controversial Surveillance ToolResourcesFourth Amendment PrimerUnited States of America v. Daniel David Rigmaiden, Government's Response to Defendant's Motion to SuppressVideo: Daniel Rigmaiden at Aaron Swartz Day 2017.Send us a textEveryday AI: Your daily guide to grown with Generative AICan't keep up with AI? We've got you. Everyday AI helps you keep up and get ahead.Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the showJoin our Patreon to listen ad-free!

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Power, fame, and now criminal charges. Hip-hop mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs is staring down the biggest trial of his life. What led to this moment, and how deep do the allegations go? news.com.au’s US correspondent, Benedict Brook, joins us to unpack the explosive case that could send one of the music industry’s biggest names to prison. For more, head to news.com.auSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, we're sharing an interview with Ángel, an ICE detainee currently incarcerated in Otero Detention Center in New Mexico. Ángel is a trans-masculine lesbian of Mapuche heritage, whose family moved hir to the US from Chile at the age of 7 and has lived undocumented since, attaining DACA status under Obama. During the 2020 George Floyd Uprising she pled guilty to charges related to arson of police vehicles in Little Rock, serving 15 months before moving to Chicago and where s/he was detained by ICE. Approaching 30 years old, the majority of which has been in the so-called USA, Angel made the hard choice to waive the right to fight deportation and has been in detention centers since on hir way to being sent to Chile to join hir mother and family now living there. For the hour, Ángel speaks about conditions at Prairieland and Otero detention centers, the conditions of hir fellow prisoners, the hurdles they face in access to healthcare, quality food, clean facilities, legal resources, access to communications with their families, ability to communicate needs and demands with staff and guards who only speak English, and other topics. Support hir Go Fund Me: https://www.gofundme.com/f/political-prisoner-facing-deportation If you want to learn more about 2020 Uprising prisoners (from 2022 & 2023), you can find our interview with one of the people running the website UprisingSupport.org linked in our show notes. . ... . .. Featured Track: Óyeme by Ana Tijoux from Vida  

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/8gU9569DwaUDay 5 of the Karen Read Retrial happened on April 29, 2025. The Cross Examination of Ian Whiffin continues with focusing on what was and wasn't included. Whiffin came under scrutiny, particularly when they admitted to not knowing the freezer's baseline temperature, the exact date of when he created his report or what the freezing temperature is in Fahrenheit. During Re-Direct, Whiffin demonstrated a tool he created for evaluating cell phone data.Surprisingly, Jen McCabe took the stand while Special Prosecutor, Hank Brennan, upped the drama by asking questions like, "And then what happened that changed everything?" Jen's testimony is clearer and more direct than in the previous trial. There have been some things that are not consistent with what she said in the first trial and we'll see how that will be confronted during Cross Examination. The Judge cut off Jen McCabe's story when Karen, Kerry Roberts and her found John O'Keefe's body in the snow and she was doing chest compressions to try to revive him. We'll pick up the rest of Direct Examination on Day 7.After the Jury was dismissed, Judge Cannone heard Brennan's Motion to Preclude ARCCA from Testifying New Opinions. The Judge Ruled in the Defense's favor and granted ARCCA to testify and enter in their report by May 7th though it wasn't without a tongue lashing. The Judge cited the Defendant's right to a fair trial as paramount even though she found that the Defense's Discovery Violations are ambushing the Prosecution's case. The Judge expects counsel comply with all rulings, rules of the court, all rules of professional conduct and no more nonsense!RESOURCESWhat You Need to Know About the Retrial - https://youtu.be/89Jpa8vz1RQ Karen Read Retrial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKOJlfL__9F027hlETVU-vo Karen Read Trial - 2024 - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKUeCUzApgsEuQRXu5IXeTSThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

In a devastating new order, Judge Paula Xinis, who is presiding over the Abrego Garcia unlawful deportation case, found the following: "Defendants (the Trump administration) - and their counsel (the DOJ lawyers) - well know that the falsehood lies . . . in their continued mischaracterization of the Supreme Court's Order. . . . Defendants' objection reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations".Glenn reviews the new order from Judge Xinis, and also discusses the implications for DOJ attorneys once a judge has made findings of "falsehoods" and "bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations".If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In a devastating new order, Judge Paula Xinis, who is presiding over the Abrego Garcia unlawful deportation case, found the following: "Defendants (the Trump administration) - and their counsel (the DOJ lawyers) - well know that the falsehood lies . . . in their continued mischaracterization of the Supreme Court's Order. . . . Defendants' objection reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations".Glenn reviews the new order from Judge Xinis, and also discusses the implications for DOJ attorneys once a judge has made findings of "falsehoods" and "bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations".If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This Day in Legal History: Mutiny on the BountyOn April 28, 1789, one of the most famous acts of rebellion at sea occurred aboard the HMS Bounty. Captain William Bligh and 18 loyal crew members were forcibly set adrift in the Pacific Ocean by mutineers led by Fletcher Christian. The incident exposed deep tensions over leadership, working conditions, and authority in the Royal Navy. British law at the time treated mutiny as a capital offense, reflecting the critical importance of discipline aboard ships. After the mutiny, an intense search for the culprits began, with some mutineers eventually captured and returned to England to stand trial.The ensuing court-martial proceedings offered early insight into naval justice and the balancing act between maintaining strict command and recognizing crew grievances. Defendants argued that Bligh's harsh leadership provoked the uprising, but the Admiralty was unwavering in its stance against insubordination. Of those captured, three were found guilty and hanged, while others were acquitted or pardoned. The legal handling of the mutiny reinforced the severe consequences for undermining maritime authority. It also prompted discussions about humane treatment of sailors, subtly influencing later reforms in naval discipline.The Mutiny on the Bounty became a lasting symbol in both legal and cultural history, illustrating how law functions as both a tool of control and a response to the realities of human endurance and dissent at sea.Seven Democratic senators on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee have requested information from the Justice Department regarding recent changes within its civil rights division under President Donald Trump's administration. In a letter sent Friday, they expressed concern over the reassignment of several career officials, suggesting these moves could be an attempt to pressure staff into leaving and shift the division's enforcement priorities. Since Trump's return to office and the appointment of Pam Bondi as Attorney General, the department has paused investigations into police misconduct, launched a gun rights investigation in Los Angeles, and altered its approach to transgender rights cases. It has also opened investigations into antisemitism related to pro-Palestinian protests at colleges. The senators emphasized the importance of nonpartisan career staff in maintaining the integrity of civil rights enforcement. About a dozen senior attorneys specializing in voting, police, and disability rights were among those reassigned. The Justice Department has not yet commented on the senators' letter.Democratic senators question US Justice Department on civil rights changes | ReutersThe U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration announced that federal law enforcement agencies raided a nightclub in Colorado Springs, arresting over 100 individuals who were in the U.S. illegally. The operation resulted in 114 arrests out of more than 200 people present at the venue, making it one of the largest immigration-related raids since President Donald Trump's second term began. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that the raid also led to the seizure of cocaine, methamphetamine, and "pink cocaine," and two individuals were arrested on outstanding warrants. Bondi mentioned links to gangs like Tren de Aragua and MS-13, although she did not directly confirm whether those arrested were affiliated with them. The DEA noted that occupants were given multiple warnings before the raid was executed. This action is part of an intensifying crackdown on illegal immigration under Trump's renewed immigration policies. Separately, ICE recently reported nearly 800 immigration-related arrests in Florida during a multi-agency operation.Over 100 migrants in the US illegally arrested in Colorado nightclub | ReutersThe Supreme Court has requested additional briefing in a case challenging the Affordable Care Act's mandate that insurers cover preventive services, like cancer screenings, at no cost. The justices specifically want the parties to address whether the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the legal authority to appoint members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which advises on covered treatments. During arguments on April 21, Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether the power to remove officials necessarily implies the power to appoint them, an issue the lower court had not considered. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that the task force's structure violated the Constitution's appointments clause, arguing its members must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Trump administration contends the task force members are merely "inferior officers" under the HHS Secretary's control. The case also involves objections by Texas businesses and residents to mandatory coverage of HIV prevention drugs, claiming unconstitutional imposition by unelected officials. Supplemental briefs are due by May 5, and while rare, this is not the first time the Court has asked for more information after oral arguments, as seen in past cases like Zubik v. Burwell and Citizens United v. FEC.Supreme Court Orders New Briefs After Obamacare Case Argued (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

​Kristina Khorram, who served as Sean "Diddy" Combs' chief of staff, has been implicated in multiple lawsuits alleging her involvement in Combs' purported criminal activities, including sex trafficking and abuse. In these lawsuits, Khorram is accused of facilitating the procurement of sex workers for Combs and managing operations related to alleged illicit activities. One lawsuit notably compared her role to that of Ghislaine Maxwell in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal network, suggesting she played a pivotal part in the alleged misconduct.In response to these allegations, Khorram has categorically denied any involvement in or condonation of such activities. In a statement to Rolling Stone, she expressed profound distress over the accusations, stating: "I have never condoned or aided and abetted the sexual assault of anyone. Nor have I ever drugged anyone." She further emphasized that the notion of her being implicated in such acts is "beyond upsetting, disturbing, and unthinkable," and expressed confidence that the allegations against her would be proven untrue.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

​Kristina Khorram, who served as Sean "Diddy" Combs' chief of staff, has been implicated in multiple lawsuits alleging her involvement in Combs' purported criminal activities, including sex trafficking and abuse. In these lawsuits, Khorram is accused of facilitating the procurement of sex workers for Combs and managing operations related to alleged illicit activities. One lawsuit notably compared her role to that of Ghislaine Maxwell in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal network, suggesting she played a pivotal part in the alleged misconduct.In response to these allegations, Khorram has categorically denied any involvement in or condonation of such activities. In a statement to Rolling Stone, she expressed profound distress over the accusations, stating: "I have never condoned or aided and abetted the sexual assault of anyone. Nor have I ever drugged anyone." She further emphasized that the notion of her being implicated in such acts is "beyond upsetting, disturbing, and unthinkable," and expressed confidence that the allegations against her would be proven untrue.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-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Forget world renowned economists and financial experts, it seems to have taken the CEOs of the biggest retailers in America to convince Trump to ease off the Chinese tariffs. The leaders of Target, Walmart and Home Depot met with Trump in the oval office yesterday and finally, Trump seems to be getting the message that his tariffs are bad for business. We'll explore that and more with award-winning journalist Gil Gross. Still no movement in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, despite calls from a judge to bring him back to America. Judge Paula Xinis gave the Trump administration an extension on the time she allotted them to show evidence that they are trying to bring him home while also letting them know she's far from pleased, writing: “Defendants have failed to respond in good faith, and their refusal to do so can only be viewed as willful and intentional noncompliance. That ends now," We will run the case past former federal prosecutor, and now defense attorney, David Katz.

​Kristina Khorram, who served as Sean "Diddy" Combs' chief of staff, has been implicated in multiple lawsuits alleging her involvement in Combs' purported criminal activities, including sex trafficking and abuse. In these lawsuits, Khorram is accused of facilitating the procurement of sex workers for Combs and managing operations related to alleged illicit activities. One lawsuit notably compared her role to that of Ghislaine Maxwell in Jeffrey Epstein's criminal network, suggesting she played a pivotal part in the alleged misconduct.In response to these allegations, Khorram has categorically denied any involvement in or condonation of such activities. In a statement to Rolling Stone, she expressed profound distress over the accusations, stating: "I have never condoned or aided and abetted the sexual assault of anyone. Nor have I ever drugged anyone." She further emphasized that the notion of her being implicated in such acts is "beyond upsetting, disturbing, and unthinkable," and expressed confidence that the allegations against her would be proven untrue.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.

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-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 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 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 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.

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

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 trialState Sen. Justin Eichorn arrested in Bloomington on suspicion of soliciting minorTrump says his administration is set to release JFK files with no redactions Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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

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

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.

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

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