Podcasts about Eighth Amendment

on todays show Maddie breaks down the legal case of  Corinne Thomas et al. vs. Humboldt County, California, where landowners face harsh penalties for alleged cannabis activities. One petitioner was fined $1.8 million to demolish a garage. The plaintiffs argue the fines violate the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause and the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial. The case highlights the lack of due process and bias in county hearings. The Supreme Court is considering the appeal, focusing on the Seventh Amendment. Additionally, the conversation touched on the potential impact of Trump's economic policies and the challenges faced by New Orleans' prison system. The discussion centered on the impending departure of Scott Adams, who is known for his common-sense approach and humor in his podcasts. Adams, who has been diagnosed with cancer, plans to continue working until he can no longer do so. The conversation also touched on the difficulty of replacing Rush Limbaugh and the impact of his passing. Additionally, there was a brief mention of Sudanese deportations and a positive review of Dunkin' Donuts' new peach tea Palmer. The segment concluded with a promotion for Second Round Bakery cookies and an invitation for listener feedback. Don't Miss it!

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

Judge John Judge of Idaho firmly rejected Bryan Kohberger's latest legal maneuver to challenge the death penalty, dismissing his claim that Idaho's execution methods—specifically the firing squad—are unconstitutional. Kohberger's defense argued that the state's reintroduction of the firing squad as a backup method for executions constituted cruel and unusual punishment, thus violating the Eighth Amendment. However, Judge Judge ruled that since the firing squad hasn't actually been used in Idaho yet, and lethal injection remains the primary method, the argument was premature and speculative. He emphasized that Kohberger's execution method isn't an active issue at this stage of the proceedings.The ruling marks another significant setback for Kohberger's legal team, which has made several unsuccessful attempts to derail the state's pursuit of the death penalty. Kohberger faces four counts of first-degree murder in the brutal November 2022 stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students. Prosecutors have made clear their intent to seek capital punishment, citing the heinous and calculated nature of the crime.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho murders trial judge's damning one-word response to Bryan Kohberger's bid to dodge the firing squad | Daily Mail Online

This Day in Legal History: Sirhan Sirhan Sentenced to DeathOn April 23, 1969, Sirhan Bishara Sirhan was formally sentenced to death for the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, a tragedy that shook the United States during a period of intense political and social upheaval. Kennedy had been shot on June 5, 1968, just after declaring victory in the California Democratic primary, and he died the following day. Sirhan, a 24-year-old Palestinian immigrant, was apprehended at the scene with a gun in his hand and later confessed to the crime during police interrogation.Despite the confession and trial conviction, controversy has surrounded the case for decades. In 1972, Sirhan's death sentence was commuted to life in prison after the California Supreme Court invalidated the state's death penalty statutes. A resurgence of interest in the case came in 1998, when Sirhan's attorney Larry Teeter publicly argued that his client had not actually fired the fatal shot. Teeter pointed to alleged inconsistencies in the autopsy report and the number of bullets fired, raising the possibility of a second gunman.Teeter's claims never gained traction in court, but they fed into ongoing skepticism among some legal observers and conspiracy theorists. Over the years, Sirhan has repeatedly sought parole, asserting he was manipulated and does not remember the events of the assassination. Most recently, in March 2023, a California parole board again denied his release, citing concerns over public safety and lack of full accountability.The legal legacy of the case is complex, entangling questions of criminal justice, political violence, and the integrity of forensic evidence. It remains one of the most controversial political assassinations in U.S. history.A long-running legal battle over the rights to Superman has taken a new turn as the estate of co-creator Joe Shuster attempts to block the release of an upcoming film in several foreign markets. In a January 2025 lawsuit, executor Mark Warren Peary argued that copyright laws in the U.K., Canada, Australia, and Ireland revert rights to heirs 25 years after the author's death, potentially invalidating the original 1938 agreement with DC's predecessor. This suit follows a 2023 federal ruling in Vetter v. Resnik that disrupted long-standing entertainment industry consensus by suggesting there is no separate category for foreign rights under the Berne Convention—meaning U.S. termination rights may apply globally.This theory directly challenges a 2008 Superman-related decision that limited termination to U.S. rights. Judge Shelly Dick's 2024 ruling supported the broader reading of termination rights, asserting that foreign copyright protections of U.S. works “arise under” U.S. law. Her opinion dismisses prior case law and scholar-backed consensus as insufficiently grounded. Legal experts are split on the implications, with some praising the reasoning as well-founded, while others see significant obstacles to enforcement abroad.Peary's effort is hampered by delays—he brought the suit years after the alleged 2017 rights reversion—and by the steep burden of proving irreparable harm. Critics also question whether foreign courts will honor a U.S. ruling. The legal strategy comes as Superman is set to enter the public domain within the next decade, prompting what some view as a final attempt by Shuster's estate to reclaim financial control of the iconic character.Superman IP Fight Turns on Newly Questioned Foreign Rights CanonTwo U.S. federal judges have extended temporary blocks on the deportation of Venezuelan migrants and questioned the Trump administration's use of a centuries-old wartime law to expedite removals. President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in a March 15 proclamation to deport individuals allegedly affiliated with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, sending many to a high-security prison in El Salvador under a $6 million deal with President Nayib Bukele's government. However, U.S. District Judges Charlotte Sweeney in Colorado and Alvin Hellerstein in New York signaled that this use of the law likely violates due process rights.Judge Sweeney ruled that migrants detained in Colorado must receive at least 21 days' notice before deportation, while Judge Hellerstein suggested a minimum of 10 days in his Manhattan hearing. Hellerstein also raised constitutional concerns, referencing the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment and questioning the legality of mass deportations without individual review. The Supreme Court recently ruled that migrants must have the opportunity to challenge deportation but left specifics undefined.Attorneys for the migrants, represented by the ACLU, argued that the Alien Enemies Act shouldn't apply, as no formal war exists, and Tren de Aragua's presence doesn't constitute one. The ACLU also sought a 30-day notice period, consistent with practices during WWII when the law was last broadly applied. Meanwhile, another case revealed that a Salvadoran man had been mistakenly deported, prompting a federal judge in Maryland to demand documentation on the government's efforts to correct the error.Judges extend Venezuela deportation blocks, question Trump's use of wartime law | ReutersThe European Union fined Apple €500 million ($570 million) and Meta €200 million ($228 million) for breaching the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a landmark law aimed at reining in the dominance of Big Tech. These penalties mark the first enforcement actions under the DMA, which seeks to promote competition by requiring dominant platforms to remove barriers for smaller rivals. Apple was penalized for restricting app developers from directing users to cheaper alternatives outside the App Store and for imposing disincentives, such as its new “Core Technology Fee,” that discourage the use of alternative app distribution channels on iOS.Meta's violation centered on its “pay-or-consent” model, which offered users either free, ad-supported access to Facebook and Instagram with data tracking or a paid, ad-free version. Regulators determined this structure did not comply with the DMA's requirements for user consent and fairness. Both companies have two months to adjust their practices or face daily fines. While Apple and Meta criticized the rulings—claiming they unfairly target U.S. companies—EU officials emphasized that all firms operating in Europe must respect local rules.The fines are relatively small compared to previous EU antitrust actions, reflecting a strategic shift toward compliance over punishment and a possible effort to avoid inflaming U.S.-EU trade tensions. The U.S. administration under President Donald Trump has already voiced displeasure with European crackdowns on American tech firms and has threatened retaliatory tariffs.Apple fined $570 million and Meta $228 million for breach of EU law | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to theConstitution of The United States, it was ratified on December 15, 1791.The Bill of Rights spells out Americans' rights in relationto their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to theindividual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for dueprocess of law, and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Governmentto the people or the States. And it specifies that “the enumeration in theConstitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparageothers retained by the people.” The First Amendment provides several rights protections: toexpress ideas through speech and the press, to assemble or gather with a groupto protest or for other reasons, and to ask the government to fix problems. Italso protects the right to religious beliefs and practices. It prevents thegovernment from creating or favoring a religion. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and beararms. The Third Amendment prevents government from forcinghomeowners to allow soldiers to use their homes. Before the Revolutionary War,laws gave British soldiers the right to take over private homes. The Fourth Amendment bars the government from unreasonablesearch and seizure of an individual or their private property. The Fifth Amendment provides several protections for peopleaccused of crimes. It states that serious criminal charges must be started by agrand jury.  A person cannot be triedtwice for the same offense or have property taken away without justcompensation. People have the right against self-incrimination and cannot beimprisoned without due process of law. The Sixth Amendment provides additional protections topeople accused of crimes, such as, the right to a speedy and public trial, incriminal cases, trial by an impartial jury, and to be informed of criminalcharges. Witnesses must face the accused, and the accused is allowed his or herown witnesses and to be represented by a lawyer. The Seventh Amendment extends the right to a jury trial inFederal civil cases. The Eighth Amendment bars excessive bail and fines and a crueland unusual punishment. The Ninth Amendment states that listing specific rights inthe Constitution does not mean that people do not have other right, that havenot been spelled out. The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government onlyhas those powers delegated in the Constitution. If it isn't listed, it belongsto the states or to the people.

Summary of Criminal Law & Procedure – Day 4 Introduction Day 4 focuses on post-conviction relief and exam preparation. The session covers: Criminal Appeals – The appellate process, standards of review, and common grounds for appeal. Habeas Corpus Petitions – A post-conviction remedy for constitutional violations. Exam Review & Practice Questions – Strategies for mastering criminal law and procedure questions. I. Criminal Appeals A criminal appeal is not a retrial but a review of legal errors that could impact a conviction or sentence. A. Appellate Process Notice of Appeal – Must be filed within a specific timeframe (typically 30 days). Record on Appeal – Includes trial transcripts and evidence. Appellate Briefs – Defense and prosecution submit written arguments. Oral Arguments – Attorneys present cases before appellate judges. Appellate Decision – The court may affirm, reverse, remand, or modify the case. B. Standards of Review De Novo – No deference to the trial court's legal decisions. Abuse of Discretion – Used for evidentiary rulings and sentencing. Harmless Error – A conviction stands if an error didn't affect the outcome. C. Common Grounds for Appeal Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (Strickland v. Washington) Prosecutorial Misconduct (Brady v. Maryland) Judicial Errors – Wrong jury instructions or evidentiary rulings. Insufficient Evidence – Failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sentencing Errors – Violations of Eighth Amendment protections. II. Habeas Corpus Petitions A habeas corpus petition challenges unlawful detention based on constitutional violations. A. Purpose of Habeas Corpus Ensures due process and prevents wrongful imprisonment. Allows review of cases with new evidence or procedural errors. B. Federal vs. State Habeas Corpus State habeas – Filed before seeking federal relief. Federal habeas – Filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (state prisoners) or § 2255 (federal prisoners). C. Procedural Requirements Exhaustion of State Remedies – All claims must be raised in state court first. Time Limits – The AEDPA sets a one-year deadline for federal petitions. Limited Review – Federal courts defer to state rulings unless unreasonable application of law is shown. D. Common Habeas Corpus Claims Ineffective assistance of counsel Prosecutorial misconduct (e.g., withholding evidence) Newly discovered evidence Unconstitutional sentencing III. Exam Review & Practice Questions A. Exam Strategies Multiple-Choice (MBE) – Spot rule misstatements, eliminate distractors, and prioritize procedural law. Essay Questions (MEE) – Use IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion), cite case law, and analyze all elements. B. Sample Questions & Answers Fourth Amendment Search & Seizure – Analyze warrant exceptions and the exclusionary rule. Self-Incrimination & Miranda Rights – Determine if a confession is admissible. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Apply the Strickland test. Prosecutorial Misconduct – Assess due process violations from Brady errors. Conclusion Day 4 covered criminal appeals, habeas corpus petitions, and bar exam strategies. Key takeaways: Appeals address trial errors, while habeas corpus petitions challenge constitutional violations. Strict procedural rules limit post-conviction relief. Bar exam success depends on issue-spotting, structured answers, and knowledge of key legal principles. This concludes our Criminal Law & Procedure review. Keep practicing and refining your approach for the bar exam!

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

This Day in Legal History: Harlan F. Stone Appears Before Senate Judiciary CommitteeOn January 28, 1925, Harlan Fiske Stone became the first U.S. Supreme Court nominee to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This marked a significant turning point in the judicial confirmation process, as prior nominees were not required to appear in person. Stone, a former Attorney General and respected legal scholar, was nominated by President Calvin Coolidge to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The decision to have him testify was unprecedented and came in response to concerns raised about his political independence and potential ties to Wall Street interests.  During his appearance, Stone assured the committee of his commitment to judicial impartiality and independence. He addressed questions about his legal philosophy, his past work, and the role of the judiciary in upholding the Constitution. His calm demeanor and straightforward responses helped to dispel doubts and earned him bipartisan support. The hearing was also held publicly, setting a new standard of transparency in the confirmation process.  Stone's testimony contributed to his swift confirmation as an Associate Justice by the Senate, where he served with distinction. Later, in 1941, he became the Chief Justice of the United States, further cementing his legacy as one of the nation's most respected jurists. This event set a precedent that has since become a critical part of the Supreme Court nomination process, allowing the Senate and the public to scrutinize nominees more thoroughly.  The decision to include nominee testimony is seen as a key development in ensuring accountability and public trust in the judiciary. Stone's appearance before the committee reflected a shift toward greater transparency in government, a principle that continues to shape the confirmation process today.A transgender inmate, identified as "Maria Moe," has filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's executive order mandating federal recognition of only two unchangeable biological sexes. The order requires transgender women to be housed in men's prisons and ends funding for gender-affirming medical care for incarcerated individuals. The lawsuit, filed in Boston federal court, argues that the order violates the Fifth Amendment's due process clause by discriminating based on sex and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. It also alleges a violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by denying medically necessary care. Following the executive order, Moe was informed of her impending transfer from a women's prison to a men's facility, and her official prison records were altered to reflect a male designation. The lawsuit claims that such a transfer would expose Moe to heightened risks of violence and sexual assault. Additionally, Moe's access to hormone therapy, which she has used since adolescence to treat gender dysphoria, is at risk of being discontinued. Moe's legal team is seeking to block her transfer, maintain her medical treatment, and have the executive order declared unconstitutional. Both the U.S. Justice Department and Moe's attorney declined to comment.Transgender inmate sues over Trump's order curtailing LGBT rights | ReutersNovo Nordisk has agreed to cap insulin prices as part of a settlement with Minnesota's attorney general, who accused the company and two other major insulin manufacturers, Eli Lilly and Sanofi, of inflating insulin prices to unaffordable levels. Under the settlement, Novo Nordisk will limit out-of-pocket insulin costs to $35 per monthly prescription for cash-paying patients, regardless of insurance status, and will provide free insulin to low-income Minnesotans earning up to 400% of the federal poverty level (about $128,600 for a family of four). This agreement mirrors earlier settlements Minnesota reached with Eli Lilly and Sanofi in 2024. Together, the settlements are expected to cut insulin costs for patients by over 90%. While Novo Nordisk denied any wrongdoing, the settlement will remain in effect for five years pending court approval. Minnesota's attorney general, Keith Ellison, criticized insulin makers for prioritizing profits over patients' lives, accusing them of artificially inflating list prices while negotiating rebates with pharmacy benefit managers. Insulin is a life-saving drug for individuals with diabetes, particularly type 1. Minnesota's legal battle began in 2018 under Ellison's predecessor, Lori Swanson.Novo Nordisk to cap insulin prices in Minnesota settlement; joins Lilly, Sanofi | ReutersPresident Donald Trump's recent federal hiring freeze has disrupted career plans for thousands of law students seeking government jobs or internships. Federal agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), the IRS, and the Environmental Protection Agency, have revoked permanent job offers to third-year law students accepted into prestigious honors programs. Additionally, hundreds of summer internships, both paid and volunteer, have been canceled, impacting over 2,000 positions in total. The DOJ, the largest legal employer among federal agencies, has rescinded job offers and canceled its summer programs, which typically place around 1,800 students annually. The hiring freeze has also led agencies to withdraw from law school recruiting events and remove job postings. Career services officials warn that these cancellations harm both federal agencies, which lose a critical pipeline of future talent, and students, who miss out on essential work experience often leading to full-time positions or judicial clerkships. Judicial clerkships, funded separately, are unaffected by the freeze. Law schools nationwide report significant disruptions, with many students left scrambling for alternative opportunities. Legal professionals and career advisors express concern over the long-term impact on government hiring and students' career trajectories. The White House has not commented on the issue.Trump's hiring freeze leaves thousands of law students out in the cold | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Eighth Amendment. What is cruel and unusual punishment? Who gets to define and decide its boundaries? And how did the Constitution's authors imagine it might change? Today on Throughline's We the People: the Eighth Amendment, the death penalty, and what cruel and unusual really means.To access bonus episodes and listen to Throughline sponsor-free, subscribe to Throughline+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org/throughline.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Recorded December 5th, 2024. A hybrid seminar by Dr Lorraine Grimes (Maynooth University) as part of the Medical and Health Humanities Seminar Series. Bio: Lorraine Grimes is a Postdoctoral Researcher in Applied Social Studies at Maynooth University. Lorraine has a PhD from the National University of Ireland Galway. Her thesis is forthcoming in the form of a monograph with Bloomsbury Academic in 2025 titled ‘Single mothers in Ireland and Britain: Pregnancy, migration and institutionalisation'. Lorraine previously worked with the Digital Repository of Ireland on the Archiving Reproductive Health project which is the subject of this talk. Abstract: Archiving Reproductive Health (ARH) is a Wellcome-funded project coordinated by the Digital Repository of Ireland (DRI), working to preserve digital material created by grassroots organisations working for reproductive justice in Ireland, especially during the 2018 referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment of the Irish constitution. The project was the first in the world to archive Facebook social media posts. A key part of the project was the archiving of stories posted on a Facebook page called “In Her Shoes”, where people anonymously shared their experiences of being refused abortion care, having to travel or illegally order pills online, and the emotional impact of these experiences. These stories often contained details of traumatic experiences such as sexual assault, obstetric violence and domestic abuse. This talk will introduce the Archiving Reproductive Health Project and archiving sensitive social media material. We will talk about anonymization procedures, coding/cataloguing and developing a self-care protocol and an ethics protocol for the project. Learn more at www.tcd.ie/trinitylongroomhub

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a city's enforcement of public camping against involuntarily homeless people violate the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment? The case was decided on June 28, 2024. The Supreme Court held that The enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause has historically focused on what punishments may follow a criminal conviction, not on what behaviors a government may criminalize. Although, in Robinson v California, the Court prohibited criminalizing the mere status of drug addiction, that case is distinguishable from laws that prohibit specific conduct like public camping. The Court has previously declined to extend Robinson to cover “involuntary” acts resulting from a particular status. For example, in Powell v Texas, the Court declined to prohibit punishing public drunkenness by alcoholics, even though their conduct might be considered involuntary. Expanding Robinson's narrow holding would risk turning the judiciary into the ultimate arbiter of criminal responsibility across diverse areas of law, a role for which the Eighth Amendment provides no guidance. Such an expansion would lead to practical difficulties, as demonstrated by the Ninth Circuit's attempt to implement this approach in Martin v City of Boise. Cities have faced numerous challenges in determining who qualifies as "involuntarily" homeless and what constitutes "adequate" shelter under Martin. These judicially created standards have proven unworkable and have interfered with local efforts to address homelessness, ultimately undermining the democratic process and federalism principles. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Bryan Kohberger's lawyers are asking the new judge presiding over his quadruple homicide case in Ada County to strike the death penalty as a possible punishment. Kohberger is accused of murdering four University of Idaho students in a home near campus in Moscow in November 2022. His lawyers say the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment which violates his Eighth Amendment rights. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy looks at a recent hearing where prosecutors and defense attorneys argued over the request in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Download the FREE Upside App at https://upside.app.link/lctakeover to get an extra 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas.Host:Angenette Levy https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest:Michael LasherCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.Arguments by the U.S. Government:Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.Court Rulings:The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado.(commercial at 8:52)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)

The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.Arguments by the U.S. Government:Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.Court Rulings:The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado.(commercial at 8:52)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)

The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.Arguments by the U.S. Government:Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.Court Rulings:The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado.(commercial at 8:35)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)

The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.Arguments by the U.S. Government:Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.Court Rulings:The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado.(commercial at 9:20)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)

The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.Arguments by the U.S. Government:Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.Court Rulings:The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado.(commercial at 8:52)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)

Holly Cairns, the leader of the Social Democrats, joins us for an eye-opening conversation about her journey in Irish politics and her impending role as a mother. With a deep commitment to women's rights, Holly reflects on her pivotal roles in campaigns for marriage equality and the repeal of the Eighth Amendment. She sheds light on the challenges of balancing leadership with motherhood, offering a raw perspective on the intersection of personal and professional life while advocating for societal change to support women.  We bring to the forefront the often-silenced topic of miscarriages, exploring the societal reluctance to address fertility issues openly. Holly courageously shares her own experiences, emphasizing the importance of discourse around these sensitive issues. By highlighting the empathy and understanding needed to support women and families, we aim to create a more compassionate environment. Through this candid conversation, we're reminded of the power of stories in breaking barriers and encouraging open dialogue.  Our discussion touches on the structural challenges mothers face in the workplace, particularly those in leadership roles. We examine the urgent need for policy reforms, like public childcare models and improved parental leave, to foster gender equality and support working families. Holly's reflections underscore the necessity of cultural shifts to create family-friendly work environments. We consider the impact of declining birth rates and the critical role accessible childcare plays in supporting future generations, aiming to inspire change for a more equitable society.  Proudly Sponsored by: www.happytummy.ie Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Punishment and Sentencing in Criminal Law This briefing document reviews the main themes and most important ideas presented in "Lecture 3 of 3: Punishment and Sentencing in Criminal Law." The lecture provides a comprehensive overview of the philosophies underpinning punishment, the types of penalties imposed, and the sentencing guidelines influencing judicial decisions. I. Theories of Punishment The lecture outlines four primary theories that justify the imposition of punishment: Retribution: Based on the concept of "just deserts," this theory emphasizes that punishment should be proportional to the crime committed, ensuring moral accountability. As exemplified in State v. Gregg, the severity of the punishment should reflect the gravity of the offense. Deterrence: Focused on preventing future crimes, deterrence aims to discourage both the individual offender (specific deterrence) and the general public (general deterrence) from engaging in criminal activity. Harsh penalties for drug trafficking, for instance, aim to deter potential offenders by demonstrating the consequences of such actions. Rehabilitation: This theory prioritizes reforming the offender and addressing the underlying causes of criminal behavior. By providing opportunities for treatment and education, the justice system aims to reduce recidivism and facilitate reintegration into society. The case of Robinson v. California highlighted the unconstitutionality of punishing addiction without offering treatment, emphasizing the importance of rehabilitation. Incapacitation: This theory focuses on protecting society by removing dangerous individuals from the community. Lengthy prison sentences for repeat violent offenders exemplify incapacitation, aiming to prevent further harm by limiting the offender's freedom. However, critics argue that incapacitation, especially under laws like "Three Strikes," can lead to over-incarceration and fail to address the root causes of crime. II. Types of Punishment The lecture details various types of punishment, each with its own purpose and potential impact: Fines: Monetary penalties commonly used for less serious offenses, acting as both punishment and deterrent. Probation: Allows offenders to remain in the community under supervision, often with specific conditions such as counseling or community service. This approach aims to rehabilitate individuals while allowing them to maintain ties to their community. Imprisonment: Confinement in jail or prison for more serious offenses, serving the purposes of punishment, incapacitation, and deterrence. However, the effectiveness of imprisonment in rehabilitating offenders and its high cost are points of contention. Death Penalty: The most severe punishment, reserved for the most serious offenses. It remains highly controversial due to concerns about wrongful convictions, racial disparities, and its constitutionality under the Eighth Amendment. III. Sentencing Guidelines The lecture explains how sentencing guidelines aim to ensure consistency and fairness in judicial decisions. Key types of guidelines include: Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Require judges to impose specific minimum penalties for certain crimes, often limiting judicial discretion and potentially leading to disproportionate sentences. The Supreme Court case of United States v. Booker granted judges more flexibility in applying mandatory sentencing guidelines. Discretionary Sentencing: Allows judges to tailor penalties based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, considering factors such as criminal history and mitigating or aggravating circumstances. While intended to promote individualized justice, concerns remain regarding potential inconsistencies and biases. Three Strikes Laws: Impose harsher penalties on repeat offenders, often mandating life imprisonment after a third felony conviction. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Bryan Kohberger's defense team is actively opposing the death penalty for the 29-year-old, who is charged with the murders of four University of Idaho students in November 2022. Kohberger, a former criminology Ph.D. student, is accused of fatally stabbing Xana Kernodle, Ethan Chapin, Kaylee Goncalves, and Madison Mogen in their home near the university campus. In addition to four counts of first-degree murder, he faces burglary charges for the alleged crime. Kohberger's defense attorneys have filed multiple objections to the death penalty, citing both legal and moral grounds. They argue that Idaho's methods of execution — lethal injection and firing squad — violate Kohberger's rights under the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, they claim that these methods breach the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process. "Executing Kohberger by means of lethal injection or a gunshot as conceived of by the Idaho Department of Corrections would violate his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment," his defense team wrote in a court filing. The defense further argues that death by firing squad, which is Idaho's alternative execution method when lethal injection is unavailable, "is not and was never constitutional." In addition to these arguments, Kohberger's lawyers have claimed that capital punishment in general is a violation of "the dignity and spirit of human beings," citing evolving global standards. "The vast majority of modern, civilized society has already abolished capital punishment because the execution of human beings by governments is recognized to be a violation of the dignity and spirit of human beings," the defense wrote. They also noted that the United States has faced condemnation from the international community for continuing to carry out executions. Prosecutors, on the other hand, assert that they are simply adhering to Idaho law, which allows a jury to decide both guilt and the appropriate penalty, including the death sentence. "We are simply trying to fulfill our responsibilities under the law. To characterize it as the State is trying, is wanting, is trying to kill someone, is just simply appealing to raw emotion, and it has no place in this courtroom," prosecutors previously stated. The murders took place in the early hours of November 13, 2022, when the four victims were found stabbed to death with a KA-BAR-style knife at their off-campus residence in Moscow, Idaho. Kohberger, who was arrested in December 2022 at his family's home in Pennsylvania, has maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings. Kohberger's trial is scheduled to begin no later than the summer of 2025, giving both the defense and prosecution ample time to prepare for what is expected to be a lengthy and high-profile trial. With the death penalty on the table, Kohberger's legal team is seeking to eliminate capital punishment as a possible outcome. In their filings, they argue that preparing for a capital case in such a short timeframe is unrealistic and unfair. The case has garnered national attention, particularly given Kohberger's academic background in criminology and the brutal nature of the crime. The outcome of this case will be closely watched, especially as the court navigates the debate over Idaho's capital punishment procedures and the broader implications for death penalty cases across the country. #BryanKohberger #IdahoMurders #DeathPenaltyDebate #CapitalPunishment #UniversityOfIdaho #EighthAmendment #CriminalLaw 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, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Bryan Kohberger's defense team is actively opposing the death penalty for the 29-year-old, who is charged with the murders of four University of Idaho students in November 2022. Kohberger, a former criminology Ph.D. student, is accused of fatally stabbing Xana Kernodle, Ethan Chapin, Kaylee Goncalves, and Madison Mogen in their home near the university campus. In addition to four counts of first-degree murder, he faces burglary charges for the alleged crime. Kohberger's defense attorneys have filed multiple objections to the death penalty, citing both legal and moral grounds. They argue that Idaho's methods of execution — lethal injection and firing squad — violate Kohberger's rights under the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, they claim that these methods breach the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process. "Executing Kohberger by means of lethal injection or a gunshot as conceived of by the Idaho Department of Corrections would violate his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment," his defense team wrote in a court filing. The defense further argues that death by firing squad, which is Idaho's alternative execution method when lethal injection is unavailable, "is not and was never constitutional." In addition to these arguments, Kohberger's lawyers have claimed that capital punishment in general is a violation of "the dignity and spirit of human beings," citing evolving global standards. "The vast majority of modern, civilized society has already abolished capital punishment because the execution of human beings by governments is recognized to be a violation of the dignity and spirit of human beings," the defense wrote. They also noted that the United States has faced condemnation from the international community for continuing to carry out executions. Prosecutors, on the other hand, assert that they are simply adhering to Idaho law, which allows a jury to decide both guilt and the appropriate penalty, including the death sentence. "We are simply trying to fulfill our responsibilities under the law. To characterize it as the State is trying, is wanting, is trying to kill someone, is just simply appealing to raw emotion, and it has no place in this courtroom," prosecutors previously stated. The murders took place in the early hours of November 13, 2022, when the four victims were found stabbed to death with a KA-BAR-style knife at their off-campus residence in Moscow, Idaho. Kohberger, who was arrested in December 2022 at his family's home in Pennsylvania, has maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings. Kohberger's trial is scheduled to begin no later than the summer of 2025, giving both the defense and prosecution ample time to prepare for what is expected to be a lengthy and high-profile trial. With the death penalty on the table, Kohberger's legal team is seeking to eliminate capital punishment as a possible outcome. In their filings, they argue that preparing for a capital case in such a short timeframe is unrealistic and unfair. The case has garnered national attention, particularly given Kohberger's academic background in criminology and the brutal nature of the crime. The outcome of this case will be closely watched, especially as the court navigates the debate over Idaho's capital punishment procedures and the broader implications for death penalty cases across the country. #BryanKohberger #IdahoMurders #DeathPenaltyDebate #CapitalPunishment #UniversityOfIdaho #EighthAmendment #CriminalLaw 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, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Bryan Kohberger's defense team is actively opposing the death penalty for the 29-year-old, who is charged with the murders of four University of Idaho students in November 2022. Kohberger, a former criminology Ph.D. student, is accused of fatally stabbing Xana Kernodle, Ethan Chapin, Kaylee Goncalves, and Madison Mogen in their home near the university campus. In addition to four counts of first-degree murder, he faces burglary charges for the alleged crime. Kohberger's defense attorneys have filed multiple objections to the death penalty, citing both legal and moral grounds. They argue that Idaho's methods of execution — lethal injection and firing squad — violate Kohberger's rights under the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, they claim that these methods breach the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process. "Executing Kohberger by means of lethal injection or a gunshot as conceived of by the Idaho Department of Corrections would violate his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment," his defense team wrote in a court filing. The defense further argues that death by firing squad, which is Idaho's alternative execution method when lethal injection is unavailable, "is not and was never constitutional." In addition to these arguments, Kohberger's lawyers have claimed that capital punishment in general is a violation of "the dignity and spirit of human beings," citing evolving global standards. "The vast majority of modern, civilized society has already abolished capital punishment because the execution of human beings by governments is recognized to be a violation of the dignity and spirit of human beings," the defense wrote. They also noted that the United States has faced condemnation from the international community for continuing to carry out executions. Prosecutors, on the other hand, assert that they are simply adhering to Idaho law, which allows a jury to decide both guilt and the appropriate penalty, including the death sentence. "We are simply trying to fulfill our responsibilities under the law. To characterize it as the State is trying, is wanting, is trying to kill someone, is just simply appealing to raw emotion, and it has no place in this courtroom," prosecutors previously stated. The murders took place in the early hours of November 13, 2022, when the four victims were found stabbed to death with a KA-BAR-style knife at their off-campus residence in Moscow, Idaho. Kohberger, who was arrested in December 2022 at his family's home in Pennsylvania, has maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings. Kohberger's trial is scheduled to begin no later than the summer of 2025, giving both the defense and prosecution ample time to prepare for what is expected to be a lengthy and high-profile trial. With the death penalty on the table, Kohberger's legal team is seeking to eliminate capital punishment as a possible outcome. In their filings, they argue that preparing for a capital case in such a short timeframe is unrealistic and unfair. The case has garnered national attention, particularly given Kohberger's academic background in criminology and the brutal nature of the crime. The outcome of this case will be closely watched, especially as the court navigates the debate over Idaho's capital punishment procedures and the broader implications for death penalty cases across the country. #BryanKohberger #IdahoMurders #DeathPenaltyDebate #CapitalPunishment #UniversityOfIdaho #EighthAmendment #CriminalLaw 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, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Bryan Kohberger's defense team is actively opposing the death penalty for the 29-year-old, who is charged with the murders of four University of Idaho students in November 2022. Kohberger, a former criminology Ph.D. student, is accused of fatally stabbing Xana Kernodle, Ethan Chapin, Kaylee Goncalves, and Madison Mogen in their home near the university campus. In addition to four counts of first-degree murder, he faces burglary charges for the alleged crime. Kohberger's defense attorneys have filed multiple objections to the death penalty, citing both legal and moral grounds. They argue that Idaho's methods of execution — lethal injection and firing squad — violate Kohberger's rights under the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, they claim that these methods breach the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process. "Executing Kohberger by means of lethal injection or a gunshot as conceived of by the Idaho Department of Corrections would violate his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment," his defense team wrote in a court filing. The defense further argues that death by firing squad, which is Idaho's alternative execution method when lethal injection is unavailable, "is not and was never constitutional." In addition to these arguments, Kohberger's lawyers have claimed that capital punishment in general is a violation of "the dignity and spirit of human beings," citing evolving global standards. "The vast majority of modern, civilized society has already abolished capital punishment because the execution of human beings by governments is recognized to be a violation of the dignity and spirit of human beings," the defense wrote. They also noted that the United States has faced condemnation from the international community for continuing to carry out executions. Prosecutors, on the other hand, assert that they are simply adhering to Idaho law, which allows a jury to decide both guilt and the appropriate penalty, including the death sentence. "We are simply trying to fulfill our responsibilities under the law. To characterize it as the State is trying, is wanting, is trying to kill someone, is just simply appealing to raw emotion, and it has no place in this courtroom," prosecutors previously stated. The murders took place in the early hours of November 13, 2022, when the four victims were found stabbed to death with a KA-BAR-style knife at their off-campus residence in Moscow, Idaho. Kohberger, who was arrested in December 2022 at his family's home in Pennsylvania, has maintained his innocence throughout the proceedings. Kohberger's trial is scheduled to begin no later than the summer of 2025, giving both the defense and prosecution ample time to prepare for what is expected to be a lengthy and high-profile trial. With the death penalty on the table, Kohberger's legal team is seeking to eliminate capital punishment as a possible outcome. In their filings, they argue that preparing for a capital case in such a short timeframe is unrealistic and unfair. The case has garnered national attention, particularly given Kohberger's academic background in criminology and the brutal nature of the crime. The outcome of this case will be closely watched, especially as the court navigates the debate over Idaho's capital punishment procedures and the broader implications for death penalty cases across the country. #BryanKohberger #IdahoMurders #DeathPenaltyDebate #CapitalPunishment #UniversityOfIdaho #EighthAmendment #CriminalLaw 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, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

We need affordable housing now! On today's episode, we look more closely at two stories that underscore the importance of affordable housing. First, we'll examine what the recent Supreme Court ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson means for unhoused people who are living on the streets and how historical disinvestment in affordable and public housing has created our current homelessness wave. Then, we'll hear about the fight to legalize and preserve one important type of affordable housing units in New York City – basement apartments – and how the escalating impacts of climate change are making that campaign more urgent than ever.    Paul Boden, executive director of the Western Regional Advocacy Project  Annetta Seecharran, executive director of Chhaya Community Development Corporation    Making Contact Staff: Episode Host: Lucy Kang Producers: Anita Johnson, Salima Hamirani, Amy Gastelum, and Lucy Kang Executive Director: Jina Chung Editor: Adwoa Gyimah-Brempong Engineer: Jeff Emtman Music credit: Pending (Relaxing Acoustic Ballad Nylon Guitar) by William_King via Pixabay Credits for "Invisible Homeless" by the Queens Memory Podcast Episode produced by Stella Gu in conjunction with Melody Cao, Anna Williams, and Natalie Milbrodt Podcast hosted by J. Faye Yuan Mixing and editing by Cory Choy Music composed by Elias Ravin Voiceover work by Xia Liangjie and Chen Xiaojun    Learn More:  Making Contact homepage: www.focmedia.org Western Regional Advocacy Project: https://wraphome.org/ Queens Memory Podcast: www.queensmemory.org Chhaya CDC: BASE Campaign: https://chhayacdc.org/campaigns/base-campaign/ 

In 1960, a man named Lawrence Robinson was sentenced to 90 days in jail for violating a California law that made it illegal to be addicted to narcotics. This summer, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order telling agencies to clear “dangerous” homeless encampments on state land. What links these two situations? The Eighth Amendment.

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson raised the question of whether the sections of the Grants Pass Municipal Code which prohibit sleeping/camping on public property like parks and streets constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The codes in question only impose civil penalties, which can, in certain circumstances develop into criminal penalties. After the Ninth Circuit's 2022 decision holding that the codes violated the Eighth Amendment, the Supreme Court granted cert, and oral argument was heard on April 22, 2024.On June 28, 2024 a 6-3 Court issued its decision, reversing the Ninth Circuit. Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we break down and analyze the decision of this interesting case at the intersection of Criminal Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers, and Property rights.Featuring:Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together Trust

Ralph welcomes Washington Post reporter Shannon Osaka to discuss her new article, “The Plastics We Breathe” and the shocking truth that all of the plastic we're using isn't just polluting the environment—it's polluting our bodies as well. Then, Ralph checks in on the state of the industrial hemp movements with “Hempster” filmmaker and activist Michael Henning. Shannon Osaka is a climate reporter covering policy, culture, and science for the Washington Post. Before joining the Post, she was a climate reporter at the nonprofit environmental outlet Grist.Microplastics are not only around us, they're also inside us…This is a really difficult problem, and it's partly because there is no one microplastic. Microplastics are made of a whole bunch of different materials—they're made with different chemical additives. So scientists have found that microplastics can have certain effects in the laboratory—they can cause cell death, they can cause tissue damage, they can cause allergic reactions, they are starting to put the pieces together on the impact on human health.Shannon Osaka[“The Plastics We Breathe” by Shannon Osaka and Simon Ducroquet] comes across as a massive global assault—hour by hour, a violent, violent pandemic—when you look at the fact that it's everywhere, it's in the water, it's in the air, it's in human bodies, it's in the animals that are eaten, it's in the pipes, it's being swallowed regularly, it's invisible, it doesn't produce immediate pain, it's in the placenta, the liver, the breast milk.Ralph NaderMichael Henning is a filmmaker, public speaker, and longtime proponent of the Industrial Hemp Movement. He is the director of Hempsters: Plant the Seeds, a documentary about the struggle to legalize industrial hemp.The DEA is the most profitable hemp farmer in the world. They get a million dollars per acre. Here's the irony of all this—they're cutting down feral ditch weed…Well, why the hell are they eradicating cannabis when it's legal to grow in all 50 states? They're taking us to the cleaners with the amount of money that taxpayers pay to support the Cannabis Eradication Program.  How can you have a Cannabis Eradication Program when it's legal to grow in all 50 states?Michael HenningIn Case You Haven't Heard with Francesco DeSantisNews 7/3/241. Following President Biden's disastrous performance in the first presidential debate, pressure is beginning to build for Biden to step aside as the Democratic nominee against Trump. The Texas Tribune reports Congressman Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat representing Austin, Texas is the first to explicitly call for Biden to stand down, writing in a statement, “President Biden...has the opportunity to encourage a new generation of leaders from whom a nominee can be chosen to unite our country though an open, democratic process….I am hopeful that he will make the painful and difficult decision to withdraw. I respectfully call on him to do so.” Other top Democrats have not gone quite so far, but haven't closed the door completely. Congressman Jim Clyburn, a powerful South Carolina Democrat and co-chair of Biden's campaign, told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell “I will support…[Vice President Kamala Harris if President Joe Biden]…were to step aside,” per NBC's Gary Grumbach. NBC reports House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi said Biden's mental fitness is a “legitimate question.”2. Israel's rabidly right-wing Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir has issued a statement on Twitter responding to claims from Palestinian prisoners that they faced “rape, physical and psychological torture, deprivation of food, medicine and sleep, humiliation and degradation,” in Israeli prisons, per the Middle East Eye. In this statement, Ben Gvir wrote “Everything published about the abominable conditions…was true…I have already proposed a much simpler solution…enacting the death penalty.”3. +972 Magazine is out with a report on the Sde Teiman detention center in the Negev desert, where Israel has held more than 4,000 Palestinian prisoners since October 7th. The magazine report recounts the countless instances of horrific abuse at the detention center, many perpetrated against Arab-Israeli citizens. The magazine also cites the New York Times report that “doctors at the facility were instructed not to write their names on official documents or address each other by name in the presence of patients, for fear of being later identified and charged with war crimes at the International Criminal Court.”4. CNN reports that the Israeli military has “issued new evacuation orders…for areas in southern Gaza, including eastern Khan Younis and Rafah….[forcing] residents, many already displaced, to find new shelter,” in advance of yet another ground invasion. The Gaza European Hospital, one of the last hospitals in Gaza, is located within this evacuation zone. While the IDF has said the evacuation order “does not apply to the patients in the European Hospital or the medical staff working there,” the hospital has already “transferred patients, including those in intensive care and babies in incubators…to other facilities ‘in fear of bloodshed,' according to the hospital's deputy director and doctors.” The Palestine Red Crescent Society reported earlier this week that the few remaining hospitals in Gaza are overwhelmed by the influx of patients from the European Hospital, as well as other hospitals that have been bombed or evacuated during the Israeli bombing campaign.5. Axios reports that even pro-Israel Democrats are expressing apprehension about what they describe as AIPAC's “overkill” in the recent campaign to defeat progressive Congressman Jamaal Bowman. AIPAC, via their United Democracy Project PAC, spent at least $14.5 million on anti-Bowman ads as of June 20th, making this the most expensive primary ever, per POLITICO. One House Democrat, speaking anonymously, expressed concern that “that much money could backfire,” with another noting that “They do that a lot.” Progressive House Democrat Greg Casar said “[Progressives] have to adapt…voters have to know that, if they're seeing a huge barrage of ads, they've got to…find out if those [millions] of dollars are telling [them] the truth."6. The Department of Justice will formally charge Boeing with fraud over its fatal 2019 crashes, per Reuters. However, the Justice Department will offer the company a plea deal, including “a financial penalty and imposition of an independent monitor to audit the company's safety and compliance practices for three years.” If Boeing does not take the deal and plead guilty, the Justice Department has vowed to take the company to court; if they do plead guilty, it could affect the company's ability to enter into government contracts. Companies with felony convictions are barred from being awarded such contracts, but can receive waivers. The Department “declined to comment on the families' reaction.”7. AP reports “Tesla is recalling its…Cybertruck pickup…to fix problems with trim pieces that can come loose and front windshield wipers that can fail.” This is the fourth recall of the Cybertruck since it went on sale late last November. Each recall affects over 11,000 vehicles, each of which cost between $80-100,000.8. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled in Grant's Pass v. Johnson that a local ordinance banning homeless people from sleeping outdoors – even when there is inadequate shelter space available – does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Within days, lawmakers in Oregon and Los Angeles, among others, began to publicly signal they would utilize this ruling to crack down on unhoused people. The National Alliance to End Homelessness reports nearly 600,000 Americans are experiencing homelessness, an increase of six percent since 2017.9. France is facing a political crisis. In the first round of legislative elections, the far-Right National Rally and its allies claimed first place with just over 33% of the vote, followed by the Leftist New Popular Front with 28%. The centrist allies of President Macron came in a distant third. Going into the second round of voting, uncertainty swirled over whether the Center and the Left could form a so-called “republican front” against the far-Right, specifically whether the centrist candidates would stand down in close run-offs between the Left and far-Right, and vice versa. Macron now seems to have endorsed this position. According to Reuters, “A survey…showed a small majority of those who voted mainstream conservative in the first round would back the left-wing candidate best placed to beat an RN rival in the second round.”10. Finally, Kenya is being rocked by its own political crisis – one of neoliberalism. In order to meet targets set by the International Monetary Fund, Kenyan President William Ruto pushed a bill that would have imposed new taxes on “bread, vegetable oil…sugar, mobile-money transfers and some imports,” per Reuters. This announcement led to nothing short of a popular uprising in the streets, leading to violent clashes as the police sought to quash these protests. Those clashes left at least two dozen protesters dead. President Ruto has now pulled the bill, but protests continue to rock the country. One protester told Reuters “People are dying in the streets and the only thing he can talk about is money. We are not money. We are people. We are human beings…He needs to care about his people, because if he can't care about his people then we don't need him in that chair."This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

Supreme Court Ruling Criminalizes Homelessness In a controversial decision, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 vote that the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, did not violate the Eighth Amendment by criminalizing homelessness. This ruling has far-reaching implications, allowing cities to enforce ordinances that penalize behaviors associated with being unhoused, such as sleeping or camping on public property. Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, emphasized the cascading harm this decision could cause to the already vulnerable homeless population. The ruling has been met with shock and dismay by advocates for the homeless, who argue that it is both unconstitutional and inhumane. Los Angeles Public Schools' AI Chatbot Fails The Los Angeles Public School District's $6 million investment in an AI chatbot named Ed has come to a sudden halt. Developed by the startup All Here, the chatbot was intended to assist students with academic and mental health resources. However, the company faced financial difficulties, leading to the CEO's departure and staff furloughs. This incident raises significant concerns about the sustainability of AI startups and the ethical implications of using AI in sensitive educational contexts. Nonprofit Sector Faces Burnout and Staffing Issues The Center for Effective Philanthropy's 2024 report highlights ongoing challenges in the nonprofit sector, particularly burnout and understaffing. A staggering 95% of nonprofit leaders cited burnout as a major concern, with many organizations struggling to retain staff due to budget constraints. Despite these challenges, the sector shows signs of financial stability, with most nonprofits experiencing balanced budgets or surpluses. However, leaders facing budget deficits are contemplating difficult trade-offs that could exacerbate burnout. Nonprofit Buys Building for Migrant Housing Breaking Ground, a nonprofit organization, has purchased a building in East Harlem for $172 million to create housing for migrants. The building, currently used as a temporary migrant shelter, will be renovated to provide 261 units for people transitioning out of homelessness and additional units for low-income families. This initiative addresses the urgent need for physical space and infrastructure to support migrants in New York City. Feel-Good Story: In Tandem Cycling Expands Programs In Tandem Cycling, a New York nonprofit that pairs sighted riders with blind and low-vision riders on tandem bikes, is expanding its programs. These activities offer not just exercise but also socialization, mental health benefits, and teamwork for participants. The organization's efforts highlight the positive impact of community sports and inclusive activities. Closing Thought The stories covered in this episode underscore the complex and interconnected challenges facing the nonprofit sector, from legal battles and technological missteps to staffing issues and innovative housing solutions. As always, the resilience and creativity of nonprofits continue to shine through, offering hope and inspiration.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to allow cities to ban people from sleeping outdoors presents a major shift in the perception of poverty and homelessness in the U.S. and what the Eighth Amendment represents. Clare Pastore, a law professor at the University of Southern California, joins her faculty colleague Robert Scheer on this episode of the Scheer Intelligence podcast to break down what the decision means and expand on her article published in The Conversation. Pastore explains that the legal precedent reversed by the conservative majority was that “it's cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to criminalize sleeping outdoors for people who have no other option.” Now, Pastore tells Scheer, cities are not barred from enforcing this kind of criminalization. “These are not laws to protect people. Homeless people are at greater danger than they are a danger to others. These are laws trying to get people to just move out of the jurisdiction and go somewhere else,” Pastore said. Scheer argues that the problem has been around long before the recent SCOTUS decision and the elephant in the room for states like California, which Scheer points out is the fifth largest economy in the world, do not use their vast resources to address the problem but rather put the blame on decisions like this and continue their politics that ignore the central issue. Pastore agrees, telling Scheer, “My biggest fear, in terms of a generation of people who are growing up thinking this is normal, is that this idea that this is intractable, is taking hold and it's not right.” The greed in the U.S., where housing is regarded as a private good, strains the ability to attack the roots of the issue. “We have very few controls on how much [housing] can cost and we have very few incentives to make it cost less and we just don't put those kinds of legal mechanisms in place to preserve and create more affordable housing,” Pastore said.

The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.Arguments by the U.S. Government:Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.Court Rulings:The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado.(commercial at 9:26)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)

The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.Arguments by the U.S. Government:Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.Court Rulings:The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado.(commercial at 8:35)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.Arguments by the U.S. Government:Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.Court Rulings:The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado.(commercial at 9:26)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.Arguments by the U.S. Government:Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.Court Rulings:The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado.(commercial at 8:35)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)

The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.Arguments by the U.S. Government:Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.Court Rulings:The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado.(commercial at 8:50)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)

The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.Arguments by the U.S. Government:Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.Court Rulings:The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado.(commercial at 10:29)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)

The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.Arguments by the U.S. Government:Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.Court Rulings:The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado.(commercial at 8:50)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.Arguments by the U.S. Government:Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.Court Rulings:The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado.(commercial at 10:29)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)

The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.Arguments by the U.S. Government:Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.Court Rulings:The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The court battle between Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán and the United States Government over Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) is centered around the stringent confinement conditions imposed on Guzmán after his extradition to the U.S. in 2017.Special Administrative Measures (SAMs): SAMs are extreme restrictions placed on prisoners deemed a significant threat to national security. These measures severely limit a prisoner's communication with the outside world, including restrictions on mail, visits, phone calls, and interaction with other inmates.Arguments by El Chapo's Defense:Human Rights Violation: Guzmán's lawyers argue that the SAMs constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. They contend that these restrictions lead to severe psychological harm and amount to inhumane treatment.Right to a Fair Trial: They argue that SAMs impede Guzmán's ability to participate in his own defense by limiting his communication with his legal team, potentially infringing on his Sixth Amendment rights.Arguments by the U.S. Government:Security Concerns: The government maintains that SAMs are necessary due to Guzmán's history of orchestrating criminal activities from prison and his previous prison escapes. They argue that without these measures, Guzmán could continue to direct his drug cartel's operations, endangering public safety and national security.Preventing Witness Tampering: The restrictions are also seen as essential to prevent Guzmán from threatening or tampering with witnesses and obstructing justice.Court Rulings:The courts have largely sided with the government, upholding the imposition of SAMs on Guzmán. Judges have ruled that the restrictions are justified given Guzmán's history and the potential risks he poses.Outcome: El Chapo was convicted in February 2019 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, murder conspiracy, and money laundering. He was sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years and is currently serving his sentence under SAMs at the ADX Florence supermax prison in Colorado.(commercial at 9:07)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032717-wls-el-chapo-SHU-doc.pdf (go.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On Friday, the court, in a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch, announced that “camping ban” laws that restrict unhoused people from sleeping on public property do not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” and are therefore not prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. These laws had been challenged by cities, including San Francisco. We'll talk about the opinion and what happens next. Guests: Rory Little, professor of constitutional law, UC School of Law, San Francisco - former federal prosecutor and criminal defense attorney

On Legal Docket, a case about public camping and the Eighth Amendment; on the Monday Moneybeat, antitrust lawsuits against Big Tech companies; and on the World History Book, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Plus, the Monday morning news Support The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donate.Additional support comes from Ambassadors Impact Network. Inviting entrepreneurs with a mission to connect with faith-based investors who share their vision. More at ambassadorsimpact.comFrom Cedarville University, offering in-person and online undergraduate, graduate, and dual enrollment programs, taught with academic excellence and a biblical worldview. cedarville.edu/WORLD.And from the audio drama I Witness: The Lazarus Project, a surprising take on a familiar story. On your favorite podcast platform or online at the letter “i”-witness-pod [pause] iwitnesspod.com

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson questions if prohibiting sleeping/camping on public property under the Grants Pass Municipal Code breaches the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.” These provisions typically carry civil penalties but can escalate to criminal penalties.Initially filed in 2018, this case draws parallels to Martin v. City of Boise, where the […]

Grants Pass, Ore., wants to enforce a prohibition on public camping, but a lower court said no, citing the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. What does the Constitution say, and don‘t cities have the right to keep their streets clean and safe? Plus, the Justices also hear a challenge by Starbucks to a power of the National Labor Relations Board.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the most significant legal challenge to the rights of unhoused people in decades. On “Post Reports,” we hear from a correspondent who visited the city at the center of the debate.Read more:In the small city of Grants Pass, Ore., hundreds of people are living outside, with many camping in the public parks. The anti-camping laws in Grants Pass allow the city to fine those living in public spaces. But unhoused people in the city say that the fines are a violation of the Eighth Amendment and amount to cruel and unusual punishment, since the city has no homeless shelters and they have nowhere else to go. “The more I've been out here, the more angry I get, because I've noticed that they're trying to push us out altogether,” said Laura Gutowski, who has been unhoused since 2021. “They're just trying to push, push, push until we give up and say, ‘Fine, I'll leave town.'”Reis Thebault is The Post's West Coast correspondent and traveled to Grants Pass to talk with unhoused people at the center of the case.“If the Supreme Court were to agree with the 9th Circuit, then cities across the country would find their hands tied as they work to address the urgent homelessness crisis,” argues Theane Evangelis, the lead attorney for Grants Pass.Today's show was produced by Sabby Robinson. It was edited by Lucy Perkins and mixed by Sean Carter. Thanks also to Ann Marimow.Subscribe to The Washington Post here.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment prevents a city from enforcing a ban on public camping against homeless individuals.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment prevents a city from enforcing a ban on public camping against homeless individuals.

If the population doesn't know American civics, they won't recall the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. If they don't know the Eighth Amendment, they can't say, "Gee, this whole Trump thing looks a lot like cruel and unusual punishment!" Then, join Grace and Howie to celebrate a Texas win at the Supreme Court, at least for now.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (02/22/2024): 3:05pm- The Rich Zeoli Show is broadcasting live from CPAC in Washington D.C.—"the largest and most influential gathering of conservatives in the world.” And he opens the show with social media legend Greg Price. Price weighs-in on how conservatives can't abandon Gen Z and, consequently, perhaps conservatives should have a presence on TikTok? 3:30pm- The first couple of CPAC: Matt & Mercedes Schlapp join The Rich Zeoli Show! Matt is the chairman of the American Conservative Union & the host of CPAC. Mercedes is the former White House Director of Strategic Communications for the Trump Administration and a Newsmax Contributor. How will the 2024 presidential election unfold—and can Donald Trump win Pennsylvania? 4:05pm- Meg Brock—Investigator at The Daily Caller—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss her big speech at CPAC, her fight against the predations of big government, and the dangers of promoting gender ideology to young, impressionable children. Brock explains that Americans can't be afraid to speak up. 4:30pm- Roma Daravi—the former Deputy Strategic Communications Director to President Donald Trump—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss Saturday's South Carolina Primary, the Biden Administration's disastrous border policies, and the much-needed return of Trump's peace-keeping foreign policy strategies. Plus, did Sean Spicer really dress up as the Easter Bunny during the White House Easter Egg Roll??? 4:50pm- Henry is cranky…but denies it. 5:05pm- - Dr. EJ Antoni—Economist & Research Fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the Biden Administration's ineffective sanctions against Russia, President Donald Trump's insistence that NATO members spend 2% of annual gross domestic product (GDP), and the Senate's $95 billion foreign aid bill. PLUS, President Joe Biden has decided (once again) to unilaterally cancel student loan debt! 5:20pm- Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau—who is definitely NOT the son of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro—claims there is a “deliberate undermining of mainstream media” by conspiracy theorists. 5:30pm- Congressman Scott Perry—Representative for Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District & Chair of the House Freedom Caucus—joins The Rich Zeoli Show from CPAC in Washington, D.C.! 6:05pm- Will our secret super special guest make it to CPAC's broadcast row in time??? Or will the Zeoli Army have to wait until tomorrow… 6:10pm- Alyssa Johnson of The Tampa Bay Times and Miami Herald writes: “Gov. Ron DeSantis plans to sign legislation that aims to reveal the evidence and testimony presented almost two decades ago to the South Florida grand jury that charged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein with just one felony count of soliciting a prostitute. On Wednesday, the Florida Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill 234, a companion to a bill that already passed in the House. Shortly after, DeSantis announced on the social media platform X that he ‘will sign the bill into law. All files related to Jeffrey Epstein's criminal activity should be made public. While the federal government continues to stonewall accountability, I'm glad the Legislature has taken action to release the grand jury material from the Florida state case,' wrote DeSantis in his post on X.” You can read the full article here: https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2024/02/21/bill-seeking-reveal-epstein-grand-jury-records-heads-desantis-desk/ 6:30pm- Is the Department of Agriculture coming after the Amish? 6:45pm- Could the $354 million fine levied against Donald Trump by New York Judge Arthur F. Engoron be violative of the Eighth Amendment which reads “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: Will our secret super special guest make it to CPAC's broadcast row in time??? Or will the Zeoli Army have to wait until tomorrow… Alyssa Johnson of The Tampa Bay Times and Miami Herald writes: “Gov. Ron DeSantis plans to sign legislation that aims to reveal the evidence and testimony presented almost two decades ago to the South Florida grand jury that charged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein with just one felony count of soliciting a prostitute. On Wednesday, the Florida Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill 234, a companion to a bill that already passed in the House. Shortly after, DeSantis announced on the social media platform X that he ‘will sign the bill into law. All files related to Jeffrey Epstein's criminal activity should be made public. While the federal government continues to stonewall accountability, I'm glad the Legislature has taken action to release the grand jury material from the Florida state case,' wrote DeSantis in his post on X.” You can read the full article here: https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2024/02/21/bill-seeking-reveal-epstein-grand-jury-records-heads-desantis-desk/ Is the Department of Agriculture coming after the Amish? Could the $354 million fine levied against Donald Trump by New York Judge Arthur F. Engoron be violative of the Eighth Amendment which reads “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Sarah and David discuss a cert grant relating to homelessness in San Francisco and Massachusetts's Eighth Amendment. But first, Sarah announces her pending litigation against Fairfax County. The Agenda: —Robinson v. California —The different types of justice —A no-fly list dispute —The law of war: Houthis —How do we beat pirates? —Anti-straight discrimination —DeSantis v. Warren Show Notes: —Niz-Chavez v. Garland, Attorney General —Smith v. Arizona —Sheetz v. County of El Dorado —Briahna Joy Gray's "nonviolent" tweet —Ames v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices