Podcasts about depositions

In this episode, Jim Garrity - the leading expert in the country on deposition strategies and tactics - rolls out another spectacular deposition strategy you won't find anywhere else. It's the application of the PACE Method to your deposition scheduling. It will change how you draft your deposition notices forever.PACE - an acronym for Primary, Alternate, Contingency, and Emergency - was devised by the U.S. Military to ensure that if the primary plan goes haywire, there is a Plan B: an immediate go-to backup. And a Plan C, and a Plan D. It sharply increases the odds of mission success because there are no debates or delays when one plan fails. Everyone switches to the next layer of redundancy.Here, Garrity tells you how to apply PACE to deposition scheduling, so that when your primary plan for deposing a witness - say, an in-person deposition - cannot proceed, you (and all other participants) immediately switch to your alternate plans.As always, thanks for listening to the number #1 podcast in the world devoted exclusively to deposition strategies and tactics for litigators handling civil, administrative, arbitrative, and criminal proceedings.

NBC host Savannah Guthrie's brother Cameron posts a direct plea to whoever may be holding their 84-year-old mother. Facing a looming contempt vote, Bill and Hillary Clinton agree to sit for filmed congressional depositions in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, with the threat of prosecution still on the table if they fail to appear. Newly released autopsy reports reveal the brutal final moments of Dr. Spencer Tepe and his wife Monique. President Trump delivers wide-ranging remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast.  Cozy Earth: Celebrate everyday love with Cozy Earth's Bamboo Pajamas—unbelievably soft comfort with an exclusive BOGO deal Jan 25–Feb 8. Shop now at https://cozyearth.com with code MEGYNBOGO! Relief Factor: Break up with pain—Relief Factor targets inflammation so you can move better and feel better; try the 3-Week QuickStart for just $19.95 at https://ReliefFactor.com or call 800-4-RELIEF. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Robach and Holmes cover the latest news headlines and entertainment updates and give perspective on current events in their daily “Morning Run.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Robach and Holmes cover the latest news headlines and entertainment updates and give perspective on current events in their daily “Morning Run.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Robach and Holmes cover the latest news headlines and entertainment updates and give perspective on current events in their daily “Morning Run.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Robach and Holmes cover the latest news headlines and entertainment updates and give perspective on current events in their daily “Morning Run.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Simon's live update for "Tonight With Andrew Marr" on the UK's LBC.#Clintons #Epstein #news #usnews #mandelson #andrew #lbc #simonmarks #hillary 

I'm talking about Depositions, the Minneapolis church protest, and more!

In this episode, Jim Garrity urges you once again (see Episode 7, Audiotaping Your Depositions) to independently audiorecord your depositions. Apart from all the prior, excellent reasons he discussed, there's a new one, and it stems from technical glitches that disrupt the reporter's audio and video feed in a remote deposition. Give this one a careful listen!SHOW NOTESMcGillvary v Riez, et al., Case No. 22-6430-MAS-JBD, 2025 WL 2962775 (D. New. Jersey Oct. 17, 2025) (memorandum order on, among other things, a motion to suppress the transcript of the plainest deposition and to compel production of the audio recording of the deposition, based on allegations that the transcript contained numerous errors and omissions) 

With most cases settling before trial, depositions have become the real battleground—and few people know that better than Carl Chamberlin. Carl has spent decades taking and defending depositions in private practice and teaching the craft for over 30 years. In a reprise of one of May the Record Reflect's most popular episodes, he's here to share how to kick things off the right way—from setting the stage with introductory matters to navigating preliminary and substantive questions. Topics3:22   The purpose of depositions6:20   Difference between gathering information and obtaining information10:38 Why depositions are important12:30 Physical settings for remote depositions14:15 The “usual stipulations”17:20 Getting commitments21:27 Commitments in remote depositions24:42 Preliminary questions29:51 Structure of substantive questioning33:30 First demo36:57 Key phrases for asking open-ended questions38:25 And ones to avoid43:01 Drilling down into a substantive topic44:18 Second demo1:04:19 Paying attention and listening1:06:40 Using exhibits1:10:15 Dealing with interruptions1:13:56 Carl's early depositions1:16:53 The Effective Deposition1:21:36 Signoff questionsQuote“We want to make our questions clear and concise. Simple. The clearer the question, the better the answer. The fewer the objections, the more powerful it is.” Carl ChamberlinResourcesCarl Chamberlin (LinkedIn)The Effective Deposition, Sixth Edition (book)

Exploring the Unique Experience of Connectionology Seminars with Ginger Jirik   In this episode of Legal Marketing Radio, host Chip LaFleur sits down with Ginger Jirik, the Executive Director of Connectionology Seminars of America. They delve into the unique aspects of Connectionology, including its history, growth, and the intimate nature of its seminars which foster deep networking opportunities. Ginger highlights upcoming events in Sun Valley, Idaho, and Italy, and introduces a new initiative—the Pain, Injury, and Damages Institute, set to launch in 2026. The discussion also touches on the pivotal role of technology and AI in modern legal practice and conference organization.   00:00 Welcome to Legal Marketing Radio 00:03 Introduction to Ginger Jirik and Connectionology 01:05 The Origins and Growth of Connectionology 02:29 Upcoming Events and Conferences 03:32 The Value of Intimate Conferences 06:54 Incorporating AI and Technology 09:32 Behind the Scenes of Organizing Conferences 13:57 Future Plans and Exciting Announcements 16:44 Conclusion and Farewell

In this episode, we break down Congress's decision to subpoena Bill and Hillary Clinton for sworn depositions in the escalating Epstein investigation. We explore the timing, political stakes, and how upcoming document releases could shape what their testimony reveals.Get the top 40+ AI Models for $20 at AI Box: ⁠⁠https://aibox.aiSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In our latest interview, defense attorney Bob Motta joins me to dissect the one thing the public never truly got to see in the Delphi murders case: the investigators themselves, speaking under oath. And what those depositions reveal isn't a unified, focused, evidence-driven investigative team — it's a fractured, inconsistent, internally conflicted system struggling under the weight of its own decisions. For years, the Delphi narrative has been kept clean and simple on the surface. But beneath that exterior is a record full of contradictions: investigators who cannot agree on whether the FBI was removed from the case… conflicting recollections about the Behavioral Analysis Unit's early assessment… witness statements reshaped in the search-warrant affidavit… third-party suspects dismissed despite disturbing statements and behavior… symbolic evidence at the crime scene left unexplored… and forensic gaps that defy basic homicide protocol. Bob walks us through all of it — the timeline manipulation, the altered witness descriptions, the failure to pursue leads, the missing documentation around the bullet, the sticks left in the woods for days, and the Odinism material that sat in the prosecutor's office for months before being disclosed. These are not minor mistakes. These are systemic failures with massive implications for Richard Allen's appeal. If you're looking for the polished, sanitized version of this case, this isn't it. This is the raw underside — the part the public didn't see, the part juries never heard, and the part that may very well determine whether this conviction withstands appellate scrutiny. When investigators contradict each other, forget key events, minimize crucial evidence, and reshape witness statements to fit a narrative, it's not just bad optics — it's a crisis of investigative integrity. And today, Bob and I break that crisis wide open. #Delphi #DelphiMurders #RichardAllen #TrueCrime #Depositions #LegalAnalysis #JusticeSystem #Investigations #CourtFilings #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

In our latest interview, defense attorney Bob Motta joins me to dissect the one thing the public never truly got to see in the Delphi murders case: the investigators themselves, speaking under oath. And what those depositions reveal isn't a unified, focused, evidence-driven investigative team — it's a fractured, inconsistent, internally conflicted system struggling under the weight of its own decisions. For years, the Delphi narrative has been kept clean and simple on the surface. But beneath that exterior is a record full of contradictions: investigators who cannot agree on whether the FBI was removed from the case… conflicting recollections about the Behavioral Analysis Unit's early assessment… witness statements reshaped in the search-warrant affidavit… third-party suspects dismissed despite disturbing statements and behavior… symbolic evidence at the crime scene left unexplored… and forensic gaps that defy basic homicide protocol. Bob walks us through all of it — the timeline manipulation, the altered witness descriptions, the failure to pursue leads, the missing documentation around the bullet, the sticks left in the woods for days, and the Odinism material that sat in the prosecutor's office for months before being disclosed. These are not minor mistakes. These are systemic failures with massive implications for Richard Allen's appeal. If you're looking for the polished, sanitized version of this case, this isn't it. This is the raw underside — the part the public didn't see, the part juries never heard, and the part that may very well determine whether this conviction withstands appellate scrutiny. When investigators contradict each other, forget key events, minimize crucial evidence, and reshape witness statements to fit a narrative, it's not just bad optics — it's a crisis of investigative integrity. And today, Bob and I break that crisis wide open. #Delphi #DelphiMurders #RichardAllen #TrueCrime #Depositions #LegalAnalysis #JusticeSystem #Investigations #CourtFilings #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

In our latest interview, defense attorney Bob Motta joins me to dissect the one thing the public never truly got to see in the Delphi murders case: the investigators themselves, speaking under oath. And what those depositions reveal isn't a unified, focused, evidence-driven investigative team — it's a fractured, inconsistent, internally conflicted system struggling under the weight of its own decisions. For years, the Delphi narrative has been kept clean and simple on the surface. But beneath that exterior is a record full of contradictions: investigators who cannot agree on whether the FBI was removed from the case… conflicting recollections about the Behavioral Analysis Unit's early assessment… witness statements reshaped in the search-warrant affidavit… third-party suspects dismissed despite disturbing statements and behavior… symbolic evidence at the crime scene left unexplored… and forensic gaps that defy basic homicide protocol. Bob walks us through all of it — the timeline manipulation, the altered witness descriptions, the failure to pursue leads, the missing documentation around the bullet, the sticks left in the woods for days, and the Odinism material that sat in the prosecutor's office for months before being disclosed. These are not minor mistakes. These are systemic failures with massive implications for Richard Allen's appeal. If you're looking for the polished, sanitized version of this case, this isn't it. This is the raw underside — the part the public didn't see, the part juries never heard, and the part that may very well determine whether this conviction withstands appellate scrutiny. When investigators contradict each other, forget key events, minimize crucial evidence, and reshape witness statements to fit a narrative, it's not just bad optics — it's a crisis of investigative integrity. And today, Bob and I break that crisis wide open. #Delphi #DelphiMurders #RichardAllen #TrueCrime #Depositions #LegalAnalysis #JusticeSystem #Investigations #CourtFilings #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

In our latest interview, defense attorney Bob Motta joins me to dissect the one thing the public never truly got to see in the Delphi murders case: the investigators themselves, speaking under oath. And what those depositions reveal isn't a unified, focused, evidence-driven investigative team — it's a fractured, inconsistent, internally conflicted system struggling under the weight of its own decisions. For years, the Delphi narrative has been kept clean and simple on the surface. But beneath that exterior is a record full of contradictions: investigators who cannot agree on whether the FBI was removed from the case… conflicting recollections about the Behavioral Analysis Unit's early assessment… witness statements reshaped in the search-warrant affidavit… third-party suspects dismissed despite disturbing statements and behavior… symbolic evidence at the crime scene left unexplored… and forensic gaps that defy basic homicide protocol. Bob walks us through all of it — the timeline manipulation, the altered witness descriptions, the failure to pursue leads, the missing documentation around the bullet, the sticks left in the woods for days, and the Odinism material that sat in the prosecutor's office for months before being disclosed. These are not minor mistakes. These are systemic failures with massive implications for Richard Allen's appeal. If you're looking for the polished, sanitized version of this case, this isn't it. This is the raw underside — the part the public didn't see, the part juries never heard, and the part that may very well determine whether this conviction withstands appellate scrutiny. When investigators contradict each other, forget key events, minimize crucial evidence, and reshape witness statements to fit a narrative, it's not just bad optics — it's a crisis of investigative integrity. And today, Bob and I break that crisis wide open. #Delphi #DelphiMurders #RichardAllen #TrueCrime #Depositions #LegalAnalysis #JusticeSystem #Investigations #CourtFilings #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

This week, join us as we revisit our episode on The Do's and Don'ts of Depositions. Original Air Date: July 9, 2021. Whether you are testifying in your personal capacity or on behalf of an insurance company, being deposed can be nerve-wracking. Proficient opposing counsel will work to find inconsistencies and prey on weak testimony to discredit a witness, and both sides will judge the witness to evaluate settlement positions. Lack of preparation can mean missing out on resolving the matter before trial, and can harm the case before the jury is even seated.  But it doesn't have to be that way! This week, Rebecca welcomes special guest, Mark Demian, for a how-to guide for deponents or witness who are being deposed regarding an insurance claim. Mark provides simple and effective guidelines to encourage successful and effective testimony.

They're baaaaack! In-person depositions, that is. In this episode, Jim Garrity discusses two brand-new court rulings that reflect a growing trend among judges to enforce noticed in-person depositions of parties and key witnesses. It's a subtle but striking shift away from remote depositions, which took root during the COVID pandemic. Jim discusses the rulings in detail, as well as an interesting observation by an Illinois federal judge about the behavioral psychology that favors face-to-face confrontations. Finally, Jim offers practical guidance on arguments to make for and against remote depositions in your cases, including the two most powerful arguments to make when seeking an order requiring a deponent to appear in person.SHOW NOTESJames, et al. v. Thomas, Case No. 1:24-CV-00061-RGJ-LLK, 2025 WL 2945597 (W. D. Ky. Oct. 17, 2025) (denying motion for protective order sought by three plaintiffs - who reside in New York, New Jersey, and Florida - to avoid traveling to Kentucky for their depositions)Crutchfield v. Experience Information Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-CV-5697, 2025 WL 293-8760 (N. D. Ill. Oct. 16, 2025) (denying motion for protective order, filed by Florida-based plaintiff, that sought to avoid an in-person deposition in Chicago)

Let us hear from you!Written discovery is slow, filtered, and easily obstructed. Learn why a deposition—a face-to-face, real-time interview under oath—is the most important tool in preparing for a custody trial. Discover the strategic value of essentially unlimited follow-up questions, reasons why you may want a videographer, and the attorney's ethical duty to uncover all facts, both good and bad, about both parents to help the court determine what's in the child's best interest. 

Another Saturday, another duo of previews and predictions, as well as some "News Of The Week", to kick off a triple header of shows from WWE, TNA and New Japan Pro Wrestling, for Episode 445 of the YLP Podcast!On this week's episode of the pod, Mr. YLP Himself brings a modified version of the "News Of The Week", including news on Raja Jackson officially being charged with two counts of battery stemming from the incident at KnokX Pro Wrestling a couple months ago, as well as Stephanie McMahon being deposed in the current shareholders case against WWE.Also on this week's episode, Mr. YLP promised to bring you a duet of previews and predictions, and I can tell you personally that he has followed through on that promise. He breaks his thoughts and opinions on both TNA Bound For Glory and NJPW King Of Pro Wrestling, including his predictions for the IWGP world title match between Zack Sabre Jr. and Konosuke Takeshita, and TNA world title match between Trick Williams and Mike Santana.EMAIL ME AT: younglionsperspective@gmail.comFOLLOW ME ON: Instagram - @ylp_podcast | X - @YLPerspectiveSNAG YOUR YLP & WAR MERCH HERE: wrestle-addict-radio- shop.fourthwall.com

Another Saturday, another duo of previews and predictions, as well as some "News Of The Week", to kick off a triple header of shows from WWE, TNA and New Japan Pro Wrestling, for Episode 445 of the YLP Podcast!On this week's episode of the pod, Mr. YLP Himself brings a modified version of the "News Of The Week", including news on Raja Jackson officially being charged with two counts of battery stemming from the incident at KnokX Pro Wrestling a couple months ago, as well as Stephanie McMahon being deposed in the current shareholders case against WWE.Also on this week's episode, Mr. YLP promised to bring you a duet of previews and predictions, and I can tell you personally that he has followed through on that promise. He breaks his thoughts and opinions on both TNA Bound For Glory and NJPW King Of Pro Wrestling, including his predictions for the IWGP world title match between Zack Sabre Jr. and Konosuke Takeshita, and TNA world title match between Trick Williams and Mike Santana.EMAIL ME AT: younglionsperspective@gmail.comFOLLOW ME ON: Instagram - @ylp_podcast | X - @YLPerspectiveSNAG YOUR YLP & WAR MERCH HERE: wrestle-addict-radio- shop.fourthwall.com

This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of civil discovery, focusing on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and New York state law. It emphasizes the importance of understanding Rule 26 as the foundation of discovery, the concept of proportionality, and the various tools available for gathering information. The discussion also covers the duties of disclosure, the role of expert testimony, and the significance of e-discovery in modern litigation. Key best practices for managing electronically stored information (ESI) and the potential consequences of failing to meet discovery obligations are highlighted, making this a vital resource for law students and practitioners alike.TakeawaysCivil discovery is critical for aspiring lawyers.Rule 26 is the central nervous system of discovery.Proportionality is essential in determining the scope of discovery.Automatic disclosures streamline the discovery process.Expert testimony requires detailed disclosures under Rule 26.The meet and confer process is mandatory and strategic.Depositions and interrogatories are key tools for gathering information.Requests for production must clearly specify ESI needs.Understanding privilege is crucial in discovery.Cost management is vital to avoid excessive litigation expenses.civil discovery, FRCP, e-discovery, legal process, litigation, Rule 26, proportionality, discovery tools, legal obligations, attorney-client privilege

Depositions can be a minefield—and not just because of the facts. In this episode of May the Record Reflect, trial attorney Whitney Untiedt returns to share her expert strategies for navigating the disruptive behaviors of difficult counsel and witnesses. From talkers and interrupters to charmers and egomaniacs, Whitney breaks down the types of jerks you'll encounter and how to stay focused, professional, and in control. Whether you're taking or defending a deposition, this episode offers practical tools, real-world stories, and a reminder that your attitude is your greatest ally.Topics4:52     Obstreperous behaviors   9:45      When the jerk is the witness12:30    Strategies for handling witnesses16:28    Preparing for opposing counsel18:27    In-the-moment responses23:16    Socialized for niceness27:29    Supporting your client31:45    What not to do37:39    Rules about lawyer conduct43:53    Remote versus in-person depositions52:51    Why do lawyers act like jerks57:57    A war story1:01:01  Florida programs1:07:01  Signoff questionsQuote“The worst jerks are the ones that kill you with kindness than the ones who try to come at you with a butcher knife.” Whitney UntiedtResourcesWhitney Untiedt (bio)Deposition Skills: Florida (program)Jayme Cassidy (bio)Building Trial Skills: Florida (program) 

(THIS IS A REPLAY)This week we cover “Opening, Focus Groups, and Depositions” with J.David Stradley.Contact J. David Stradley at:phone: (919) 424-9400 • fax: (919) 845-9745email: stradley@whiteandstradley.com3105 Charles B. Root WyndRaleigh, NC 27612

President Trump takes a walk on the White House roof. Texas Democrats continue to whine from out of state about the redrawing of the state's congressional map. Texas state Rep. Jolanda Jones (D) has incendiary words about President Trump. The real reason why Texas is redrawing its congressional map. Democrat Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) vows to impeach Donald Trump … but over what? Trump appears to endorse a JD Vance/Marco Rubio ticket as his heir apparent in 2028. Congresswoman has no idea who the U.S. border czar is. HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy makes a major announcement regarding mRNA vaccines. Subpoenas have been issued for some big names … but will Congress actually do anything to them? Why the spike in pizza orders near the Pentagon? Big developments between the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine? Vladimir Putin's daughter is posting a lot about her father on social media. Big announcement coming later today from President Trump. Why is Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) so angry all the time? Very memorable Coinbase ad. European Union about to scan private messages of internet users? So touching fentanyl isn't that big a problem after all? Alec Baldwin foot rub. Alec Baldwin's parental award is waiting. 00:00 Pat Gray UNLEASHED! 00:33 President Trump on the White House Roof 04:05 Jolanda Jones on Trump Being a "PDF-File" 06:47 Jolanda Jones on the "Modern Holocaust" 08:15 Jasmine Crockett Stands with Losers 09:58 Mitch Little Doesn't Play the CNN Game 13:43 Pat Fallon Explains Redistricting 17:21 Al Green will Challenge Trump's Presidency 18:59 Donald Trump 2028? 19:52 LA28 – Trump Receives Olympic Medals 20:53 LA28 – JD Vance and Marco Rubio for 2028? 23:17 Marco Rubio's Ears 25:19 Elissa Slotkin Doesn't Know who Tom Homan is? 27:22 RFK Jr. CANCELS mRNA Contracts 32:08 Chewing the Fat 40:35 Pat Gray BINGO! Winner 41:44 More Chewing the Fat 48:20 US Congressional Democrats are Losing It! 56:01 Big Balls Beat Up in Washington DC 57:11 Depositions are Set for Obama's Administration 1:03:42 Pentagon Pizza Index 1:09:43 Zohran Mamdani & Elizabeth Warren Team-Up 1:12:17 UK Coinbase Ad 1:16:49 Houston Man Shoots Intruder, and Gets Arrested?! 1:19:19 Revisiting the SC Police Fentanyl Incident 1:26:52 Alec Baldwin & Hilaria Baldwin's Relationship 1:30:08 Alec Baldwin – "Rude, Thoughtless lil Pig" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Are deposition expenses busting your budget? In this episode, Jim Garrity spotlights a clever strategy conceived by a southern California litigator to sharply cut the costs of deposition transcripts. It's yet another effort by trial lawyers to combat the insane costs of stenographic reporting, and one worth trying. The show notes point to seventeen relevant filings on this issue, four federal rules, and a website for a service that is actively helping lawyers cut deposition costs.Like this podcast? Our production crew LOVES 5-star reviews. They're free, fast to leave, and provide us the kind of appreciative good vibes we crave. Would you mind taking ten seconds and clicking on the five-star rating? Thanks!SHOW NOTES:Note: All filings listed below are from the case Black v. City of San Diego, Case No. 21-cv-1990-RBM-JLB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2025)Plaintiff's Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology According To FRCP Rule 30(b)(3)(A) (initial application by Plaintiff) PACER Doc. 153Defendants' Opposition To Plaintiffs Application For Leave To Prepare Deposition Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 160.Declaration Of Casey Stark In Support Of Plaintiffs Motion For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology According To FRCP 30(b)(3)(A), PACER DOC. 153-1Defendant Tutterow's Notice Of Joinder In Defendant City Of San Diego's Opposition To Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition, PACER Doc. 162.Defendants Supplement To Opposition To Plaintiffs Application For Leave To Prepare Deposition Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 164Plaintiffs Reply To Opposition To Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology According To FRCP Rule 30(b)(3)(A), PACER Doc. 165Second Supplemental Declaration Of Casey Stark In Support Of Plaintiff Motion For Leave To Conduct Deposition. Etc., PACER Doc. 170Defendants Second Supplement To Opposition To Plaintiffs Application For Leave To Prepare Deposition Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 171Order (Magistrate Judge) Denying Plaintiff's Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition By Video And To Prepare Transcript Using Voice Recognition Technology, PACER Doc. 172Plaintiff's Notice Of Objection To Order Denying Application For Leave To Conduct Deposition, Etc. PACER Doc. 173 (appealing magistrate judge's order to district judge)Defendant's Response To Plaintiff's Objection To Magistrate's Order Denying Claims Application For Leave, PACER Doc. 174Plaintiffs Opposition To Defendants Response To Player's Objection To Magistrate's Order Denying Plaintiff's Application, Etc., PACER Doc. 175Order (District Judge) Overruling Plaintiff's Objections, PACER Doc. 178Order Granting Joint Motion For Protective Order, PACER Doc. 32 (providing that certain information was to remain confidential)Modified Protective Order, PACER Doc. 156Readback.legal (reporting agency dedicated to reducing deposition -related costs; interview of Readback's Chief Legal Officer in podcast episode 87)1993 Committee Note to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (noting that where a deposition isn't stenographically recorded, transcripts are often later prepared by counsels' own law firmsFed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(3)(a) (allowing lawyers to capture deposition testimony by stenographic means only, audio only, video only, or any combination of the three)FRCP 26(a)(3)(A)(ii) and FRCP 32(c) (providing that if counsel chooses to record a deposition by video only and plan to present it at trial or hearing, they must provide a transcript of the testimony to the other parties and the court)Readback.legal (innovative and budget-friendly service advertised as "certified, court-admissible deposition service built for legal professionals who need clarity, speed, and accuracy, without relying on outdated stenography")

AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports on a House panel seeking more information on the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. dives into an often overlooked but critical aspect of witness testimony: behavior. He explains that body language and facial expression are the first things jurors process when evaluating a witness on video, and they play a major role in shaping perceptions of credibility, likability, and trustworthiness. Bill urges attorneys to coach their witnesses to maintain “job interview” demeanor — sitting upright, hands in front, and wearing a neutral, professional facial expression throughout the course of the entire deposition. Bill emphasizes the importance of behavioral feedback during prep, not just strategic or content-based feedback. Emotional responses, especially under pressure, tend to surface first in posture and facial expression. Signs of stress, fatigue, or cognitive overload like slumping, shifting, or tense expressions can signal vulnerability to opposing counsel and trigger even more aggressive questioning. Bill warns that without proper training, these behavioral “tells” can escalate into full-blown fight, flight, or freeze responses from the witness, which can derail testimony, and which jurors can misinterpret as dishonesty or defensiveness. To combat this, Bill recommends incorporating systematic desensitization into witness training, especially when preparing for tough topics or bad facts. Witnesses should be repeatedly exposed to negative stimuli and learn to maintain their composure through mock questioning. He also reminds attorneys that breaks should be scheduled every 45 minutes to avoid fatigue-induced behavioral breakdowns. Professional demeanor for witnesses must be practiced and reinforced just as much as content because how a witness looks and behaves can make or break their credibility. 

You say you want a deposition? Plaintiff attorneys often request and are sometimes successful in deposing corporate CEOs and other chief executives. But there are many times when defense attorneys want to spare the C-suite from what can be high-risk and time-consuming exercises for someone whose knowledge or expertise may have little or nothing to do with the facts and issues in a case. In this episode, I talk with Rachel M. Lary, a litigator with a nationwide practice at Lightfoot, Franklin & White, about the Apex Doctrine—a legal principle that protects high-ranking executives from being deposed unless certain conditions are met. Rachel explains how courts weigh an executive's actual knowledge of a case, the availability of less intrusive discovery, and how judges have ruled on the doctrine around the country. (Her firm's technologist, Sam McAllister, created an interactive map showing state-by-state treatment of the Apex Doctrine. We interviewed Sam in 2023.)Listen in and you will see why Fortune 500 companies rely on Rachel to represent them as national litigation counsel. I appreciate her sharing her insights on the podcast. I also appreciate that Rachel agreed to give a video tour of her remarkably neat office, which is what she thought I requested. I have a degree in communication, and maybe I should brush up. Rachel is both knowledgeable and a good sport. As always, if you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedInIf you have comments or want to get involved in one of our projects, drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. 

Blake Lively is delaying depositions, yet again, as Justin Baldoni's team accuses her of disrupting the Discovery process in their legal battle. What's going on with Kelly Clarkson? Rumors of her talk show coming to an end and an abrupt cancellation of her Vegas residency, staffers speak out! Plus, Erika Jayne has a new man, Kamala Harris's lost interview revealed, and Katy Perry spotted with Orlando Bloom after their breakup announcement.    Thicker, Fuller Hair Starts with the ROOTS Bundle! Click www.twc.health/nofilter and use code NOFILTER for 15% Off + Free Shipping on every order!   Bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to Soul today! Go to www.GetSoul.com and use the code NOFILTER for 30% off.   Shop outdoor furniture, grills, lawn games, and WAY more for WAY less. Head to www.Wayfair.com right now to explore a HUGE outdoor selection.    Get your tour tickets to see No Filter with Zack Peter LIVE: https://www.x1entertainment.com/zackpeter    No Filter NYC Tix (8/3): https://citywinery.com/new-york-city/events/no-filter-with-zack-peter-featuring-special-gues-lqhi1v    Shop New Merch now: https://merchlabs.com/collections/zack-peter?srsltid=AfmBOoqqnV3kfsOYPubFFxCQdpCuGjVgssGIXZRXHcLPH9t4GjiKoaio   Book a personalized message on Cameo: https://v.cameo.com/e/QxWQhpd1TIb   Listen to The Pop Report: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-pop-report/id1746150111   Watch Disaster Daters: https://open.spotify.com/show/3L4GLnKwz9Uy5dT8Ey1VPi   Join the Zack Pack Community to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs3Zs51YaK-xw2U5ypi5eqg/join   Couldn't get enough? Follow @justplainzack or @nofilterwithzack

Sponsored by Ro! Go to RO DOT CO SLASH RUSHHOUR for your free insurance check.

Depositions are a key building block in legal disputes, especially for cases that proceed to trial. According to veteran trial lawyer John Farrell, properly handling an exhibit so it's admissible at trial is an overlooked skill that can, and should, be practiced until it becomes second nature. In this episode, John reveals eight crucial steps for handling documents that ensure your deposition flows smoothly and exhibits are admitted for trial. He breaks down the process step by step, gives the exact sample language that ensures exhibits are properly marked and admitted, and suggests ways to keep court reporters and judges pleased with your professionalism. Topics3:59  Asking questions before marking a document  5:35  When witnesses want to see a document first7:48  Making deposition exhibits admissible at trial8:30  Eight steps for handling exhibits: Step 19:36  Step 210:35  Step 312:08  Demonstrations of marking different documents25:26  Step 4 , and helping the court reporter27:59  Step 5, and the important question to ask your witness29:12  Step 6, and two more important questions32:15  Step 733:37  Step 835:35  Three-article series on depositions37:23  Signoff questions Quote“‘Bears the word' . . . is the safe phrase that judges like to hear.” John FarrellResourcesJohn Farrell (bio)Deposition articles (1, 2, 3)Refreshing Recollection and Impeachment (article)

Live and Learn with Katie, Learn Something New!Ever felt your heart race before a court date, mediation, or deposition? You're not alone—and you don't have to face it on adrenaline alone. ​In this Live & Learn episode, special guest Jeanine Tripodi reveals proven, real-world strategies for keeping your cool and making sharp decisions when the pressure is on. ​Learn how to break the cycle of spiraling thoughts, discover why “just stay calm” never works in survival mode, and walk away with a pre-hearing routine to help you show up clear-headed and confident. ​If you're a mom navigating divorce, custody battles, or tough co-parenting conversations, this is your roadmap to emotional resilience when it matters most.​Connect with Jeanine here: https://www.facebook.com/JeanineBTripodi​Watch “Babe, Take a Seat” here: https://shorturl.at/r0Jrw​Brought to you by Team EvoAZ at eXp Realty and MOMnation! ​Connect and Follow us at https://direct.me/momnationaz or http://MOMnationUSA.com​This episode is prerecorded.

Gil's upcoming oral arguments will be available on Teams June 24, 2025. #LIVESTREAMONTEAMSRafi's Depositions are still on the calendar. Fingers crossed! #RAFIVSGIL. #OBSESSEDJezuz finally communicates with Raees. Of course, Raees attempts to bully our co-host.   #RMWARNERNo more games. The IRS is in receipt of  information about potential tax evaders at RLG.  #KICKBACKSGil runs into Bobby Anthony at lunch.  #OASAWitness tampering? RAEES DOESN'T KNOW MESSI testifies in public court that Raees Mohamed is WHOISGILNEGRETE.COM. #CHECKMATEMESSI hand delivers to Gil in open court several text messages between her and Raees Mohamed. #GOTEMMESSI also identifies PUBLIC ENEMY #1 as also being behind WHOISGILNEGRETE.COM #CONFIRMED

Traditionally, litigators seeking to understand an individual's or organization's devices - specifically, how they store, access, manage, and delete information - have either asked a deponent to testify from memory or arranged for a costly forensic inspection instead. In this episode, Jim spotlights a fantastic middle ground: requiring a deponent (individual or 30(b)(6) rep) to bring their devices to the deposition and demonstrate their functions and programs or apps during a videotaped examination. This technique was just approved by a federal judge in a pending class action against the ride-sharing company Uber. It's one all litigators should be using. As Jim says in the episode, devices are where information now lives. Lawyers should be more aggressive in their pursuit of discovery related to devices an individual or entity owns and how they access, store, manage, and delete data.SHOW NOTESIN RE: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PASSENGER SEXUAL ASSAULT LITIGATION, No. 23-MD-03084-CRB (LJC), 2025 WL 1393216 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2025); See Joint Discovery Letter Brief on Plaintiff's 30(b)(6) deposition notice seeking device demonstration is Document 2957; Order Resolving Discovery Letter Regarding Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions is Document 2995.Section 9.43, Physical Demonstrations By Deponents, p. 357-359, in the book 10,000 Depositions Later - The Premier Litigation Guide For Superior Deposition Practice: A User's Guide and Handbook on Deposition Tips, Tactics and Strategies for Civil, Administrative and Arbitrative Litigation, 4th Edition, 615 pp., by Jim Garrity, Esq., available on Amazon and just about everywhere else books are sold.

In a wild Friday night ride, a revolving crew of Badlands hosts breaks down the newly released Biden interview tapes and spirals into the absurdity of the President's rambling tales of Mongolian horse races, sumo wrestlers, and archery contests. The crew debates whether Biden's dementia has led him to accidentally confess to crimes, while floating theories about Beau Biden's death and the deeper implications of Biden's obsession with his son during document-related questioning. The show doesn't stop there, James O'Keefe's latest “scoops” from Epstein's island come under fire for being more fluff than fact, while drone footage from Rusty Shackelford reignites speculation about tunnels, temples, and coverups. A spirited debate on Biden body doubles, SCOTUS rulings on immigration, and Matt Walsh's controversial comments keeps the energy high. Throw in some AI-generated Stephen Hawking superhero art, accusations of landline-based seduction, and the usual raucous banter, and you've got another classic Liberty Den episode: unpredictable, unfiltered, and unapologetically Badlands.

Join Academy Past President and host of The Mentor Esq. podcast, Andrew J. Smiley, Esq., for the second CLE in his series: Federal Court Confidence. In this episode, Andrew focuses on preparing for and conducting effective depositions in federal court personal injury cases — covering procedural differences, strategic insight, and practical tips from decades of experience. Earn 1 Professional Practice Credit with The New York State Academy of Trial Lawyers. Masters Program Eligible - Negligence To view the materials for this episode, click here. To enter the code for CLE credit, click here. Contact Andrew Smiley at Andrew@thementoresq.com For more in-depth discussions and other topics such as these, please listen to the podcast, The Mentor Esq., which is available on all major podcast platforms.

Donna Adelson's trial could be delayed after an avalanche of new evidence hits defense lawyers. Charlie and Wendi Adelson's canceled depositions add new twists to an already tangled case. #STSNation, Welcome to Surviving the Survivor, the show that brings you the very #BestGuests in all of #TrueCrime on trending criminal cases. The case that launched it all — the murder of FSU law professor Dan Markel — is entering another chaotic phase. With a new hearing set for Wednesday, Donna Adelson's defense is reeling from an alleged discovery dump of 80,000 emails and digital files. Meanwhile, Charlie Adelson's and Wendi Adelson's depositions have reportedly been canceled, and Donna's team has hired their own digital forensic expert to wade through the mountain of evidence. Will this force a delay in Donna Adelson's highly anticipated trial? Will the defense use the discovery chaos to press for a continuance? And what does it mean for the overall strategy as the clock ticks? #BestGuests: • Professor Jo Potuto, Professor Emerita, University of Nebraska Law School • R. Timothy Jansen, famed Tallahassee criminal defense attorney•Dave Aronberg, former Florida State Attorney for Palm Beach County and current defense attorney

In this episode we learn that mediation didn't resolve the parties differences. We find out that Brandon has avoided being deposed. Raees Mohamed may soon be replaced as Brandon Rafi's lead counsel on the bomb threat case. Rafi employees are being supplemented to the lawsuit to question their involvement with Mr. Rafi and RLG. 

Have Blake Lively & Taylor Swift made amends? Is this a sign a settlement is coming?! A source reveals the latest on their friendship. Plus, Prince Harry is not happy with Meghan Markle using their kids to promote her new brand As Ever. Plus, let's talk Kenya Moore's exit from RHOA, Jed Wallace's case against Blake Lively, and The White Lotus Season 3 finale.    Spike Detox your body! Use code NOFILTER for 15% Off + Free Shipping on every order. www.twc.health/nofilter    Upgrade how you see the world and how the world sees you. Go to www.paireyewear.com and use code NOFILTER for 15% off your first pair.   Shop New "Justice for Justin" and "Mommy Sleuth" Merch now: https://merchlabs.com/collections/zack-peter?srsltid=AfmBOoqqnV3kfsOYPubFFxCQdpCuGjVgssGIXZRXHcLPH9t4GjiKoaio    Book a personalized message on Cameo: https://v.cameo.com/e/QxWQhpd1TIb    Listen to The Pop Report: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-pop-report/id1746150111    Watch Disaster Daters: https://open.spotify.com/show/3L4GLnKwz9Uy5dT8Ey1VPi    Join the Zack Pack Community to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs3Zs51YaK-xw2U5ypi5eqg/join    Couldn't get enough? Follow @justplainzack or @nofilterwithzack

Delligatti v. United States, No. 23-825 (U.S. Mar. 21, 2025)crime of violence; force through omission; New York attempted murder; Castleman; Stokeling; meaning of “use”; limits of Borden; bodily injury; “ordinary meaning”   Ayala Chapa v. Bondi, No. 21-60039 (5th Cir. Mar. 24, 2025)temporary appellate IJs; temporary Board member; Santos Zacaria; INA §  103(g)(1); Attorney General authority; ultra vires argument  Yocom, et al. v. USCIS, et al., No. 22-0839 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2025)discovery to challenge I-130 denial; INA § 204(c); deposition of ex-wife; deposition of USCIS; no requirement to submit sworn statement; Munoz; coercive behavior; due process violationSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Cerenade"Leader in providing smart, secure, and intuitive cloud-based solutions"Click me!The Pen & Sword College (formerly The Clinic at Sharma-Crawford Attorneys at Law) Use Promo Code: ImmReview2025Link to Nonprofit: https://thepen-and-swordkc.org/ Link to books:https://www.rekhasharmacrawford.com/ Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me!Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

Investigative journalists Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell provide updates on the case of Chris Skinner's suspicious death, Buster Murdaugh's defamation case, Johnnie James' suspicious/not suspicious death and the capital murder charge against Lee Gilley for the death of his pregnant wife Christa Bauer Gilley. [3:37] Hear the latest developments in the tragic and suspicious 2021 drowning death of Chris Skinner, the quadriplegic husband of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, “Pastor” John-Paul Miller's girlfriend, Suzi. In 2024 — after watching video footage of Skinner's final moments and seeing that it didn't seem like his drowning was an “accident” — Mandy and Liz called on the Myrtle Beach Coroner's Office to reopen its investigation into Skinner's death.  This past week, that second investigation was finally announced publicly.  [18:21] Also on the episode, Buster Murdaugh calls on a federal judge to reconsider his order to split Murdaugh's defamation case against Netflix, Warner Brothers and other defendants. Buster's argument? He'll be presenting evidence to the court proving that he didn't kill Stephen Smith — a gay teenager left for dead on a Hampton County road — including DEPOSITIONS of people who have “personal knowledge” of the events that led to Stephen's death in July 2015. Will Buster end up the hero in bringing justice to the Stephen Smith case?  [33:35] Plus, an update on men's rights fan Lee Gilley, who is accused of killing his wife and unborn baby in Houston, Texas, and lying about it. Why is it taking the state so long to indict him and should we be concerned?  [50:42] Finally, a correction in the Jane Doe No. 1 case against JP Miller and an appeal for information. Let's dive in...

In this episode, Jim Garrity spotlights a new ruling on a little-known but powerful tool: the use of depositions as affidavits. As Garrity discusses, a deposition does not need to meet the requirements of trial-oriented Fed. R. Civ. P. 32 (which requires a showing that the party against whom the deposition is offered had notice and a chance to examine the deposition) when it is offered in proceedings that allow testimony by affidavit, such as at summary judgment.SHOW NOTESSurety v. Co. v. Dwight A. Herald, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00086-GNS-HBB, 2025 WL 627523 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 26, 2025) (deposition/examination under oath of witness taken in underlying state-court personal injury could be used in federal declaratory judgment actions at summary judgment time, as deposition meets form of affidavit)Diamonds Plus, Inc. v. Kolber, et al., 960 F. 2d 765 (8th Cir. 1992) (deposition need not be admissible at trial to be properly considered in opposition to motions for summary judgment; deposition inadmissible at trial because one of the defendants did not receive proper notice and did not attend the deposition was properly used to create issues of fact justifying denial of summary judgment)Hoover v. Switlik Parachute Co., 663 F.2d 964, 966-67 (9th Cir. 1981) (“Rule 56 ... plainly allows consideration of “affidavits” and we find nothing which requires that term to be construed within the limitations of Rule 32(a).”).First Gaston Bank of North Carolina v. City of Hickory, 691 S.E.2d 715 (Ct. App. N.C. 2010) (citing cases rejecting proposition that FRCP 32 limits use of depositions in proceedings where evidence in affidavit form is admissible; pointing out that to the extent a party objects that they didn't have an opportunity to cross-examine a witness whose deposition from some other cases being offered, “the same objection can frequently be made as to affidavits filed in connection with motions for summary judgment”)Tingey v. Radionics, 193 F. App'x 747, 765–66 (10th Cir. 2006) (reversing summary judgment where trial court, relying on FRCP 32, excluded from consideration in opposition to summary judgment a deposition that plaintiff took of physician in separate state proceeding, where defendant was not party to that proceeding and had not been given notice of deposition; depositions can be used as affidavits in proceedings where affidavits are admissible; to illustrate, “[p]arties may file affidavits in support of summary judgment without providing notice or an opportunity to cross-examine the affiant. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The “remedy” for this non-confronted affidavit testimony is to file an opposing affidavit, not to complain that one was not present and permitted to cross-examine when the affidavit was signed. For this reason, the Ninth Circuit has permitted a party to introduce deposition testimony for summary judgment purposes against a party who was not present at the deposition, by construing the deposition as an affidavit. Hoover v. Switlik Parachute Co., 663 F.2d 964, 966–67 (9th Cir.1981)”)Nippon Credit Bank, Ltd. v. Matthews, 291 F.3d 738, 751 (11th Cir. 2002) (without analyzing scope and extent of application of FRCP 32, court broadly said that “Depositions are generally admissible provided that the party against whom they are admitted was present, represented, or reasonably noticed, Fed.R.Civ.P. 32(a), and are specifically allowed in consideration of summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A deposition taken in a different proceeding is admissible if the party against whom it is offered was provided with an opportunity to examine the deponent. Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(1).”)Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) (explicitly allowing citation to depositions for or against summary judgment)8 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2142 (1970))) (as are at least as good as affidavits and should be usable whenever an affidavit would be permissible, even where the conditions or requirements for use at trial under rule 32 are not met) 

The days of Musk and Trump playing fast and lose with the facts of what DOGE is and what it is doing may be coming to an end, as a federal judge has had enough with the “opaque” structure of DOGE and has ordered that 4 DOGE employees sit for depositions under oath to explain to the Court what it does and who is in charge at each agency. Michael Popok explains that this order won't just help the labor union who brought this case but will be used by lawyers and judges in the other more than a dozen DOGE related cases to lock the Trump Administration to stop the lies. Save your smile and your bank account with Remi! Get up to 50% off your custom-fit mouth guard at https://ShopRemi.com/LEGALAF today! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Art of Divorce Depositions: Strategy, Preparation, and SuccessIn this episode of the season-long "Your Divorce Case" series, Seth and Pete tackle one of the most crucial elements of divorce proceedings: depositions. As Seth notes, depositions are where cases can be won or lost, making this episode essential listening for anyone facing divorce proceedings.The discussion reveals the strategic chess game that unfolds during depositions, from how attorneys prepare their clients to the careful dance of questions and answers. Seth shares insights from his years of experience, explaining why depositions are his favorite part of legal proceedings and how proper preparation can make all the difference. The episode covers everything from the basic structure of a deposition to advanced techniques for handling difficult questions, all while emphasizing the importance of authenticity and honesty in your responses.Questions we answer in this episode:What rules should I follow when answering deposition questions?How do attorney objections work during a deposition?What rights do I have if questioning becomes hostile?Key Takeaways:Listen carefully and only answer exactly what's askedTake your time reviewing documentsStay authentic - don't try to outsmart the processThis episode provides invaluable insights for anyone facing a deposition, offering both practical guidance and strategic understanding. Seth's enthusiasm for the deposition process, combined with real-world examples, makes complex legal concepts accessible and actionable for listeners.Links & NotesTune in to our Deposition Prep episode!Schedule a consult with SethGot a question you want to ask on the show? Click here! (00:00) - Welcome to How to Split a Toaster (00:26) - Depositions (00:56) - What Is a Deposition? (02:41) - An Art, Not a Science (03:36) - Who Is Present? (04:02) - Questions and Answers and Objections (07:34) - Recorded vs. Live (09:10) - Strategy (13:39) - What You Can't Do (16:05) - Attorney Client Privilege (18:11) - Preparing the Client (20:33) - It's an Interview, Not a Conversation (23:00) - How Much Coaching Works (25:11) - Recording Types (27:27) - Understand the Theme of Your Case (30:33) - Ethical Considerations (32:44) - Take Your Time (35:33) - Making Mistakes (36:53) - Wrap Up

In this episode, Jim Garrity talks about a tactic of some examining lawyers that should, but often doesn't, draw objections that their questions are “argumentative.” So, what is an improper, argumentative question or examination? Here, we're not talking about the questioner's tone or demeanor, i.e., arguing in the classic sense of yelling and bickering with the deponent. We're talking about questions where lawyers aren't really asking a question designed to elicit facts but are instead injecting their own commentary or viewpoint, or injecting insults, taunts, wisecracks, or similar language. "Argumentative" objections are objections to the form, and must be timely made or are waived.SHOW NOTESPeople v. Pawar, No. G037097, 2007 WL 477949, at *2 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2007) (“[W]ere they lying” queries are improper if they are merely argumentative. (Chatman, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 381, 384.) In Chatman, the prosecutor asked the defendant how the safe at a store was opened. (Id. at p. 379.) The defendant replied “he could not say; he never touched the safe,” eliciting the prosecutor's query, “ ‘Well, is the safe lying about you?' “ (Ibid.) The Supreme Court held the question of whether an inanimate object was “lying” was argumentative , defining argumentative inquiry as “speech to the jury masquerading as a question” which “does not seek to elicit relevant, competent testimony, or often any testimony at all.” (Id. at p. 384.))Faile v. Zarich, No. HHDX04CV5015994S, 2008 WL 2967045, at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 10, 2008) (Webster's. . . in the closest relevant definition, defines “argumentative” as “consisting of or characterized by argument: containing a process of reasoning: controversial”)Pardee v. State, No. 06-11-00226-CR, 2012 WL 3516485, at *6 (Tex. App. Aug. 16, 2012) (Steven Goode, et al., Texas Practice Series: Courtroom Handbook on Texas Evidence § 611 cmt. 12 (2012); see United States v. Yakobowicz, 427 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir.N.Y.2005) (defining argumentative as “summation-like remarks by counsel during the presentation of evidence”); accord Eddlemon v. State, 591 S.W.2d 847, 851 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (trial court did not abuse discretion in finding the question, “You don't believe your own offense report?” argumentative). In other words, an argumentative objection concerns whether counsel is attempting to “argue” the case, not whether the counsel is “arguing” with the witness”)United States v. Yakobowicz, 427 F.3d 144, 151 (2d Cir. 2005) (“During the presentation of evidence one of the most commonly sustained objections is that a particular question is argumentative, Fed.R.Evid. 611(a) advisory committee's note to Subdivision (a) to 1972 Proposed Rules, and any summation-like remarks by counsel during the presentation of evidence are improper and subject as a routine matter to being stricken, Mauet & Wolfson, supra, at 30”)Pardee v. State, No. 06-11-00226-CR, 2012 WL 3516485, at *6 (Tex. App. Aug. 16, 2012) ("Many common law objections—including the objection of “argumentative”—are incorporated in the Texas Rules of Evidence. The common law argumentative objection is now governed by Tex.R. Evid. 611 which concerns the mode of interrogation and presentation. The argumentative objection is an objection commonly used, but not commonly understood. Pardee argues the objection should have been sustained because the State was “arguing” with the defendant. Argumentative, though, does not concern counsel's demeanor or tone. Professors Wellborn, Goode, and Sharlot explain the argumentative objection as follows: Counsel may not, in the guise of asking a question, make a jury argument or attempt to summarize, draw inferences from, or comment on the evidence. In addition, questions that ask a witness to testify as to his own credibility are improper.")People v. Chatman, 38 Cal. 4th 344, 384, 133 P.3d 534, 563 (2006) The prosecutor's question about whether the safe was “lying” requires a different analysis. The question was argumentative. An argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question. The questioner is not seeking to elicit relevant testimony. Often it is apparent that the questioner does not even expect an answer. The question may, indeed, be unanswerable. The prosecutor's question whether “the safe [was] lying” is an example. An inanimate object cannot “lie.” Professor Wigmore has called cross-examination the “greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” (5 Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourne rev. ed.1974) § 1367, p. 32.) The engine should be allowed to run, but it cannot be allowed to run amok. An argumentative question that essentially talks past the witness, and makes an argument to the jury, is improper because it does not seek to elicit relevant, competent testimony, or often any testimony at all. Defendant had already explained he had no explanation for the safe being open. Asking whether the safe was “lying” could add nothing to this testimony”)People v. Imbach, No. E040190, 2008 WL 510482, at *7–8 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2008) ("The prosecutor asked, “You found that to be inappropriate but not your other son's addiction to child pornography?” When defendant objected that the question was argumentative, the trial court overruled that objection. Defendant asserted the second “argumentative” objection when defendant's mother said she did not know how to answer that question and the prosecutor asked, “Is that because you didn't want to know?” The trial court sustained the defendant's objection to this second question. Both questions are argumentative, because they both are speeches by the prosecutor masquerading as questions. (Chatman, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 384.) The trial court should have sustained both objections. However, we cannot say that by asking those two questions the prosecutor engaged in misconduct.")People v. Peoples, 62 Cal. 4th 718, 793–94, 365 P.3d 230, 288 (2016) (“Defendant observes that the prosecutor asked numerous argumentative questions when cross-examining defense witnesses. To list a few examples, the prosecutor asked defense expert Dr. Lisak, “how many hours are you into them for?” He said to defense expert Dr. Buchsbaum, “Let's quit guessing for awhile and look at the facts.” He said to defense expert Dr. Wu, “It's a pain in the butt to get these test scores.” And he asked prosecution expert Dr. Mayberg, “Did you have a heart attack last night when you looked at the raw data?”)People v. Burns, No. D081051, 2024 WL 2144151, at *15–17 (Cal. Ct. App. May 14, 2024), review denied (July 17, 2024) (excessive repetition of a question simply to make a point can cross line into improper argument”; “Burns makes a strong argument that the prosecutor's repetitive questioning regarding the drunk tank incident became argumentative. “An argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question. The questioner is not seeking to elicit relevant testimony. Often it is apparent that the questioner does not even expect an answer. The question may, indeed, be unanswerable.” (People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 384.) “An argumentative question that essentially talks past the witness, and makes an argument to the jury, is improper because it does not seek to elicit relevant, competent testimony, or often any testimony at all.” (Ibid.) Instead, it may be aimed at agitating or belittling the witness (People v. Lund (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 1119, 1148), or designed to engage the witness in an argument (People v. Johnson (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1236)”)People v. Mazen, No. B300193, 2021 WL 164356, at *5 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2021) The court overruled defendant's argumentative objection to the following question: “Would [accidentally placing the car in neutral] been important information to tell [Morales]?” The court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled the objection. The question sought to elicit relevant testimony regarding defendant's theory that Mario was hit by accident (CALCRIM No. 510). (See People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 384 [“[a]n argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question” and does not seek to elicit relevant testimony].)”People v. Singh, No. H042511, 2018 WL 1046260, at *28 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2018) (“Each question anticipated an answer and was answerable; none was “a speech to the jury masquerading as a question”)People v. Basler, No. D068047, 2015 WL 9437926, at *23 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2015) ("Fung appears to identify three categories of objectionable questioning during his cross-examination by the prosecutor. The first category involves apparent sarcasm by the prosecutor. For example, after Fung provided additional details about his fight with another inmate while incarcerated, the prosecutor said, “Okay. You left that part out a couple of minutes ago; right?” Referencing the same fight, the prosecutor made light of Fung's claim of self-defense: “Did you have to defend yourself against him, too?” As another example, when Fung was discussing the extent of his injuries following the fight, the prosecutor said, “So, that's about how badly you were hurt? It looked like something you get by falling off a skateboard?” The court sustained objections to each of these questions, and a number of others, as argumentative." Also from Basler: "As we have noted, Fung contends the first two categories of questions were impermissibly argumentative. “An argumentative question is a speech to the jury masquerading as a question. The questioner is not seeking to elicit relevant testimony. Often it is apparent that the questioner does not even want an answer. The question may, indeed, be unanswerable.... An argumentative question that essentially talks past the witness, and makes an argument to the jury, is improper because it does not seek to elicit relevant, competent testimony, or often any testimony at all.” (People v. Chatman (2006)”)People v. Nanez, No. F064574, 2014 WL 1928307, at *14–15 (Cal. Ct. App. May 15, 2014) (citing examples of argumentative examination by prosecutor including (a) the prosecutor's remark “Convenient” when a witness said they did not remember a particular fact, and (b) when prosecutor commented on witnesses testimony by saying “So that's the lie you're going with?”, and (c) when prosecutor asked witness “You wouldn't tell us if you're lying, of course, right?” and when witness said he would, prosecutor replied “There's another lie,” causing court to strike prosecutor's comment from the record)People v. Strebe, No. D057947, 2011 WL 2555653, at *7 (Cal. Ct. App. June 28, 2011) (trial courses sustained objection to question as argumentative where prosecutor asked witness “Do you remember anything about that evening that might be detrimental to your case?” In essence arguing to jury that witness was lying and only selectively remembered favorable facts)People v. Higgins, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 856, 873–74 (Ct. App. 2011), as modified (Jan. 21, 2011), as modified on denial of reh'g (Feb. 4, 2011) (guilty verdict reversed in part due to argumentative questions; among other jabs; in case where defendant explained his conduct as motived by depression due to death of his daughter's friend, prosecutor asked, “You'd agree with me that it's pretty pathetic if you're using the memory of a dead 17–year–old kid as an excuse in this trial, wouldn't you? Would you agree with me? Is that the legacy that you want [the dead teen] to have?”; other examples of prosecutor's argumentative questions included “Oh, the door was unlocked,” and “Isn't that convenient that all of a sudden, right after you've committed the crimes, that that's when you come to?”; further held, “The rule is well established that the prosecuting attorney may not interrogate witnesses solely ‘for the purpose of getting before the jury the facts inferred therein, together with the insinuations and suggestions they inevitably contained, rather than for the answers”)People v. Dixon, No. D047342, 2007 WL 2745207, at *10 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2007)  Dixon asked Hernandez who had taken the photographs near the time of the injury. Hernandez testified that the audio-visual person at his school had taken photographs of his injury. Dixon then asked, “Is it computer enhancement? Those could be computer enhanced-.” The prosecutor interrupted, “That's argumentative.” The court sustained the prosecutor's objection")United States v. Browne, No. SACR 16-00139-CJC, 2017 WL 1496912, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2017) (For each witness, the Court did not end Defense counsel's cross-examination until it became excessively cumulative and argumentative, at which time the Court was well within its authority to restrain the questioning pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 611(a).”)Beving v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. 3:18-CV-00040, 2020 WL 6051598, at *12 (S.D. Iowa Sept. 8, 2020) (Defendant may object to prejudicial or argumentative references to counsel at trial as permitted by the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Fed. Rs. Evid. 403, 611(a)(3).)FRE 403: Argumentative questions may be viewed as unfairly prejudicial, misleading, or wasting time.FRE 611(a)(3), Witnesses and Presenting Evidence ((a) Control by the Court; Purposes. The court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: (1) make those procedures effective for determining the truth; (2) avoid wasting time; and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.FRCP 30, Depositions, (d) Duration; Sanction; Motion to Terminate or Limit. (3) Motion to Terminate or Limit, (A) Grounds. At any time during a deposition, the deponent or a party may move to terminate or limit it on the ground that it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party. 

Ellen Greenberg May Finally Get Justice With New Depositions & Discovery-2024 Year in Review This is the " The Year in Review," where we delve into the true stories behind this year's most compelling headlines. Your host, Tony Brueski, joins hands with a rotating roster of guests, sharing their insights and analysis on a collection of intriguing, perplexing, and often chilling stories that have dominated the news.    This is not your average news recap. With the sharp investigative lens of Tony and his guests, the show uncovers layers beneath the headlines, offering a comprehensive perspective that traditional news can often miss. From high-profile criminal trials to in-depth examinations of ongoing investigations, this podcast takes listeners on a fascinating journey through the world of true crime and current events.    Throughout the past year, we've followed and dissected cases such as P. Diddy, Karen Read, Scott Peterson, Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrand, the Delphi Murders, Kouri Richins, Bryan Kohberger, Rex Heuermann, Alex Murdaugh, Chad and Lori Daybell, and the Adelson family. Each episode navigates through these stories, illuminating their details with factual reporting, expert commentary, and engaging conversation. Tony and his guests discuss each case's nuances, complexities, and human elements, delivering a multi-dimensional understanding to their audience.    Whether you are a dedicated follower of true crime, or an everyday listener interested in the stories shaping our world, the "The Year in Review" brings you the perfect balance of intrigue, information, and intelligent conversation. Expect thoughtful analysis, informed opinions, and thought-provoking discussions beyond the 24-hour news cycle. 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 

This is the " The Year in Review," where we delve into the true stories behind this year's most compelling headlines. Your host, Tony Brueski, joins hands with a rotating roster of guests, sharing their insights and analysis on a collection of intriguing, perplexing, and often chilling stories that have dominated the news.    This is not your average news recap. With the sharp investigative lens of Tony and his guests, the show uncovers layers beneath the headlines, offering a comprehensive perspective that traditional news can often miss. From high-profile criminal trials to in-depth examinations of ongoing investigations, this podcast takes listeners on a fascinating journey through the world of true crime and current events.    Throughout the past year, we've followed and dissected cases such as P. Diddy, Karen Read, Scott Peterson, Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrand, the Delphi Murders, Kouri Richins, Bryan Kohberger, Rex Heuermann, Alex Murdaugh, Chad and Lori Daybell, and the Adelson family. Each episode navigates through these stories, illuminating their details with factual reporting, expert commentary, and engaging conversation. Tony and his guests discuss each case's nuances, complexities, and human elements, delivering a multi-dimensional understanding to their audience.    Whether you are a dedicated follower of true crime, or an everyday listener interested in the stories shaping our world, the "The Year in Review" brings you the perfect balance of intrigue, information, and intelligent conversation. Expect thoughtful analysis, informed opinions, and thought-provoking discussions beyond the 24-hour news cycle. 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

The Unrelenting Questions: The Death of Ellen Greenberg The snowstorm outside was relentless, blanketing Philadelphia in a quiet, suffocating stillness. It was January 26, 2011—the kind of day where the world seems to pause, leaving everyone confined to their warm apartments, sipping coffee, watching the flakes tumble. But for Ellen Greenberg, the quiet of her kitchen hid something darker, something that would ignite over a decade of questions, heartbreak, and accusations. Twenty Wounds and a Locked Door Twenty stab wounds. A ten-inch knife still buried in her chest. And a locked door that her fiancé Samuel Goldberg claimed he had to break down. When Goldberg's call came through to 911 that day, his voice was frantic. He'd been at the gym, he told police. He'd forgotten his keys, locked himself out, and after she didn't answer his increasingly desperate knocks, he forced his way in. What he found, he insisted, shattered him: Ellen lying on the kitchen floor, her body surrounded by blood. He claimed he tried CPR, helpless as his fiancée slipped further beyond reach. From the beginning, the scene defied logic. Ellen Greenberg, 27, a beloved teacher, had 20 stab wounds—ten to the back of her head and neck, ten more to her chest, abdomen, and stomach. Yet, almost inexplicably, the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's Office initially called her death a homicide. Then, after a meeting with police and prosecutors, that ruling was quietly changed to suicide. A Family's Relentless Fight For years, Ellen's death has been a study in contradictions. The Greenberg family's quiet suburban lives were upended as they fought against a system that seemed more determined to close the case than solve it. Ellen's parents, Joshua and Sandee, poured their grief into action. They hired forensic experts, pathologists, and lawyers. They combed through every detail. And still, all these years later, their daughter's death certificate reads: Suicide. But now, 13 years later, there's a new twist. Sam Goldberg, the fiancé who found her, has broken his silence, offering his first public comments on a case that has followed him like a shadow. In a statement to CNN, Goldberg remained resolute: “When Ellen took her own life, it left me bewildered. She was a wonderful and kind person who had everything to live for.” Everything to live for. It's the phrase that lingers, heavy and uncomfortable, because it doesn't align with what those 20 stab wounds reveal. Those wounds, each cruel and deliberate, were not simply injuries—they were evidence. Evidence that something far worse had taken place in that kitchen. The Forensics That Refuse to Be Ignored Goldberg's statement paints a picture of himself as another victim—the man who lost his future wife to an unseen darkness and then endured relentless suspicion. “In the years that have passed,” he wrote, “I have had to endure the pathetic and despicable attempts to desecrate my reputation by creating a narrative that embraces lies, distortions, and falsehoods.” But the Greenbergs aren't buying it—not then, not now. And neither are the growing number of forensic experts and legal analysts who have scrutinized the case. How does someone stab themselves twenty times? How does a woman—right-handed, according to her family—plunge a knife into her neck, her back, her heart? The geometry alone boggles the mind. Dr. Wayne Ross, a forensic pathologist hired by the Greenbergs, examined the evidence with a police officer of similar size and build as Ellen. They tried to replicate the movements. “We gave her the knife to see if she could actually contort herself in these positions,” Ross explained during a detailed forensic analysis conducted for the Greenbergs' legal team. “And she couldn't.” And then there's Ellen's spinal cord. Lyndsey Emery, another forensic pathologist, later revealed what may be the most chilling fact of all: Ellen's spinal cord had been severed. Two deep, forceful stabs to the neck. Her brain had been pierced. That alone, experts agree, would have left her paralyzed or dead. “No hemorrhaging,” Emery testified in a deposition, referring specifically to the wounds on Ellen's spinal cord. “No pulse.” This key statement, confirmed during legal proceedings, underscores the medical evidence that Ellen's fatal injuries left her unable to continue any self-inflicted harm. The implication was clear: Ellen could not have inflicted the other wounds on herself after those injuries. She would have been physically incapable of it. The Doorman Who Wasn't There The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision to hear the Greenbergs' case marks a rare victory. For the first time, a court acknowledged that Ellen's death may have been more than a tragic misunderstanding—that maybe, just maybe, there had been a rush to judgment. But there's more. Depositions uncovered another key piece of the puzzle—one involving Goldberg's story about breaking down the apartment door. According to police at the time, a doorman claimed he had witnessed Goldberg forcing his way in. That detail became critical, helping authorities conclude Ellen's death was a suicide. Except, years later, the doorman said otherwise. In a signed statement, he revealed he was never there. Security cameras from the building confirmed it: the doorman had been at his post the entire time. The Parents Who Won't Give Up Ellen's parents remain adamant that their daughter was not suicidal. Yes, she had been diagnosed with anxiety, but the psychiatrist who treated her, Dr. Ellen Berman, stated unequivocally that Ellen showed no signs of suicidal intent. Friends noticed a change in her demeanor before her death, describing her as nervous and deferential—a far cry from the confident woman they had once known. Ellen's parents later discovered she had removed her engagement ring that day. She had packed her valuables, including her makeup, as if she were planning to leave. Joshua Greenberg insists in an interview, “She was going to come home. She had a plan.” This statement, made publicly and sourced from verified reports, reflects the family's enduring belief that Ellen's actions that day were not those of someone intending to take her own life. A Story Without an Ending The answers remain elusive, but the Greenbergs aren't giving up. They've uncovered a timeline riddled with inconsistencies, a crime scene marred by contamination, and a ruling built on shaky foundations. And now, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's intervention, they may finally have their chance to tear down the wall of silence that has surrounded this case. As for Sam Goldberg, his life has moved on. He's married now, living in New York, raising two children. To his supporters, he is a grieving fiancé who has been unfairly maligned. To the Greenbergs, he remains an enigma, a man at the center of a story that refuses to rest. Joshua Greenberg expressed his frustration plainly in an interview: “There's been a mistake—a big f**king mistake.” His voice, heavy with the weight of 13 years of unanswered questions and legal battles, carried a mixture of grief, anger, and determination. The snow has long since melted, but the questions remain—lingering, unanswered, like the quiet storm that began it all. 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

The Unrelenting Questions: The Death of Ellen Greenberg The snowstorm outside was relentless, blanketing Philadelphia in a quiet, suffocating stillness. It was January 26, 2011—the kind of day where the world seems to pause, leaving everyone confined to their warm apartments, sipping coffee, watching the flakes tumble. But for Ellen Greenberg, the quiet of her kitchen hid something darker, something that would ignite over a decade of questions, heartbreak, and accusations. Twenty Wounds and a Locked Door Twenty stab wounds. A ten-inch knife still buried in her chest. And a locked door that her fiancé Samuel Goldberg claimed he had to break down. When Goldberg's call came through to 911 that day, his voice was frantic. He'd been at the gym, he told police. He'd forgotten his keys, locked himself out, and after she didn't answer his increasingly desperate knocks, he forced his way in. What he found, he insisted, shattered him: Ellen lying on the kitchen floor, her body surrounded by blood. He claimed he tried CPR, helpless as his fiancée slipped further beyond reach. From the beginning, the scene defied logic. Ellen Greenberg, 27, a beloved teacher, had 20 stab wounds—ten to the back of her head and neck, ten more to her chest, abdomen, and stomach. Yet, almost inexplicably, the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's Office initially called her death a homicide. Then, after a meeting with police and prosecutors, that ruling was quietly changed to suicide. A Family's Relentless Fight For years, Ellen's death has been a study in contradictions. The Greenberg family's quiet suburban lives were upended as they fought against a system that seemed more determined to close the case than solve it. Ellen's parents, Joshua and Sandee, poured their grief into action. They hired forensic experts, pathologists, and lawyers. They combed through every detail. And still, all these years later, their daughter's death certificate reads: Suicide. But now, 13 years later, there's a new twist. Sam Goldberg, the fiancé who found her, has broken his silence, offering his first public comments on a case that has followed him like a shadow. In a statement to CNN, Goldberg remained resolute: “When Ellen took her own life, it left me bewildered. She was a wonderful and kind person who had everything to live for.” Everything to live for. It's the phrase that lingers, heavy and uncomfortable, because it doesn't align with what those 20 stab wounds reveal. Those wounds, each cruel and deliberate, were not simply injuries—they were evidence. Evidence that something far worse had taken place in that kitchen. The Forensics That Refuse to Be Ignored Goldberg's statement paints a picture of himself as another victim—the man who lost his future wife to an unseen darkness and then endured relentless suspicion. “In the years that have passed,” he wrote, “I have had to endure the pathetic and despicable attempts to desecrate my reputation by creating a narrative that embraces lies, distortions, and falsehoods.” But the Greenbergs aren't buying it—not then, not now. And neither are the growing number of forensic experts and legal analysts who have scrutinized the case. How does someone stab themselves twenty times? How does a woman—right-handed, according to her family—plunge a knife into her neck, her back, her heart? The geometry alone boggles the mind. Dr. Wayne Ross, a forensic pathologist hired by the Greenbergs, examined the evidence with a police officer of similar size and build as Ellen. They tried to replicate the movements. “We gave her the knife to see if she could actually contort herself in these positions,” Ross explained during a detailed forensic analysis conducted for the Greenbergs' legal team. “And she couldn't.” And then there's Ellen's spinal cord. Lyndsey Emery, another forensic pathologist, later revealed what may be the most chilling fact of all: Ellen's spinal cord had been severed. Two deep, forceful stabs to the neck. Her brain had been pierced. That alone, experts agree, would have left her paralyzed or dead. “No hemorrhaging,” Emery testified in a deposition, referring specifically to the wounds on Ellen's spinal cord. “No pulse.” This key statement, confirmed during legal proceedings, underscores the medical evidence that Ellen's fatal injuries left her unable to continue any self-inflicted harm. The implication was clear: Ellen could not have inflicted the other wounds on herself after those injuries. She would have been physically incapable of it. The Doorman Who Wasn't There The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision to hear the Greenbergs' case marks a rare victory. For the first time, a court acknowledged that Ellen's death may have been more than a tragic misunderstanding—that maybe, just maybe, there had been a rush to judgment. But there's more. Depositions uncovered another key piece of the puzzle—one involving Goldberg's story about breaking down the apartment door. According to police at the time, a doorman claimed he had witnessed Goldberg forcing his way in. That detail became critical, helping authorities conclude Ellen's death was a suicide. Except, years later, the doorman said otherwise. In a signed statement, he revealed he was never there. Security cameras from the building confirmed it: the doorman had been at his post the entire time. The Parents Who Won't Give Up Ellen's parents remain adamant that their daughter was not suicidal. Yes, she had been diagnosed with anxiety, but the psychiatrist who treated her, Dr. Ellen Berman, stated unequivocally that Ellen showed no signs of suicidal intent. Friends noticed a change in her demeanor before her death, describing her as nervous and deferential—a far cry from the confident woman they had once known. Ellen's parents later discovered she had removed her engagement ring that day. She had packed her valuables, including her makeup, as if she were planning to leave. Joshua Greenberg insists in an interview, “She was going to come home. She had a plan.” This statement, made publicly and sourced from verified reports, reflects the family's enduring belief that Ellen's actions that day were not those of someone intending to take her own life. A Story Without an Ending The answers remain elusive, but the Greenbergs aren't giving up. They've uncovered a timeline riddled with inconsistencies, a crime scene marred by contamination, and a ruling built on shaky foundations. And now, with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's intervention, they may finally have their chance to tear down the wall of silence that has surrounded this case. As for Sam Goldberg, his life has moved on. He's married now, living in New York, raising two children. To his supporters, he is a grieving fiancé who has been unfairly maligned. To the Greenbergs, he remains an enigma, a man at the center of a story that refuses to rest. Joshua Greenberg expressed his frustration plainly in an interview: “There's been a mistake—a big f**king mistake.” His voice, heavy with the weight of 13 years of unanswered questions and legal battles, carried a mixture of grief, anger, and determination. The snow has long since melted, but the questions remain—lingering, unanswered, like the quiet storm that began it all. 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