Podcasts about Fifth Amendment

Ben Meiselas & Michael Popok head the top rated Legal AF podcast and tonight debate: The Supreme Court's rulings against the Trump Administration and its assault on Due Process and the Fifth Amendment and how the Court is fighting back; whether the Court will allow Trump to continue to play "catch me if you can" with his policies, or off a new oral argument put an end to it and give lower court judges the tools they need to stop Trump; Trump ruining American's perfect credit score and its impact on everyone's pocketbook, Trump going after a former FBI director to distract from a failed overseas trip, and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Support Our Sponsors: Uplift: Elevate your workspace and energize your year with Uplift Desk. Go to https://upliftdesk.com/legalaf for a special offer exclusive to our audience. Sundays for Dogs: Get 40% off your first order of Sundays. Go to https://sundaysfordogs.com/LEGALAF or use code LEGALAF at checkout. Three Day Blinds: For their buy 1 get 1 50% off deal, head to https://3DayBlinds.com/LEGALAF Soul: Go to https://GetSoul.com and use code LEGALAF to get 30% OFF your order! Check Out The Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com/ Subscribe to the NEW Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This lecture provides an overview of crucial constitutional rights within the realm of criminal procedure, extending from the moment an individual faces charges through potential post-conviction challenges. It details Sixth Amendment trial guarantees, including the rights to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, confrontation of witnesses, and compulsory process. The lecture then addresses the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy, explaining when it attaches and relevant doctrines like the same-elements test and dual sovereignty. Furthermore, it covers the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection considerations, particularly as they relate to sentencing and prosecution, before discussing the right to counsel at trial and on appeal. Finally, the lecture explores the avenues and limitations of post-conviction remedies, such as habeas corpus.SummaryThis lecture series on Criminal Procedure delves into the essential rights and protections afforded to defendants under the U.S. Constitution. It covers the Sixth Amendment's trial rights, the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy protections, and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection guarantees. The discussion also highlights the importance of the right to counsel, post-conviction remedies, and emerging issues in criminal law, providing a comprehensive overview of the principles that govern the criminal justice system.TakeawaysThe Sixth Amendment guarantees a fair trial through various rights.Double jeopardy prevents multiple prosecutions for the same offense.Due process includes both procedural and substantive protections.The right to counsel is fundamental for a fair trial.Post-conviction remedies allow for challenging convictions.Emerging technologies pose new challenges to criminal procedure.The Equal Protection Clause ensures non-discriminatory enforcement of laws.The right to an impartial jury is crucial for justice.Procedural default can block federal review of claims.New evidence can lead to claims of actual innocence in court.Sound Bites"The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial.""Due process ensures fair procedures in adjudication.""Access to counsel is essential for a fair trial."Criminal Procedure, Trial Rights, Double Jeopardy, Due Process, Equal Protection, Right to Counsel, Post-Conviction Remedies, Legal Standards, Criminal Justice Reform

Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

This lecture outlines criminal procedure, focusing on the stages from initial arrest through the pretrial process. It explains the constitutional standards for seizing an individual, differentiating between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and discusses Terry stops and arrest warrants. The text then details pretrial steps, including initial appearances, bail, grand jury proceedings, prosecutorial discretion, plea bargaining, and pretrial motions. Finally, it examines key constitutional protections like the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (including Miranda rights) and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at crucial stages, highlighting their interactions and exceptions.This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of criminal procedure, focusing on the critical pretrial phase and the interactions between law enforcement and individuals. It covers essential topics such as the definitions of seizures and arrests, the importance of constitutional amendments, the process of initial appearances and bail decisions, charging procedures, plea bargaining, pretrial motions, the right to a speedy trial, and the implications of Miranda rights and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The discussion aims to equip listeners with a solid understanding of these foundational legal concepts, essential for both exams and practical application in the field.TakeawaysUnderstanding the core principles of criminal procedure is essential.The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.Reasonable suspicion is required for brief investigatory stops.Probable cause is necessary for full custodial arrests.Exigent circumstances allow for warrantless arrests in emergencies.The initial appearance before a judge must happen promptly after arrest.Bail decisions balance the need for public safety and the defendant's rights.Plea bargaining is a common outcome in the criminal justice system.Pretrial motions can challenge the prosecution's case before trial.The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.Sound Bites"This is your essential guide to criminal procedure.""Reasonable suspicion lets them stop and ask questions briefly.""The key is the urgency, the impracticability of waiting.""The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial."criminal procedure, law enforcement, constitutional amendments, arrests, pretrial phase, Miranda rights, speedy trial, evidence suppression, plea bargaining, legal rights

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

In a letter addressed to Judge Arun Subramanian, attorneys for Sean "Diddy" Combs responded to the government's renewed effort to block the defense from introducing evidence or testimony about consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals who are not identified as victims in the case. The government had filed a motion in limine on April 28, 2025, seeking to exclude this category of evidence, arguing it was irrelevant and potentially prejudicial. However, Combs' legal team contends that the government's latest filing offers no new legal grounds or substantive arguments that weren't already addressed in earlier briefs and hearings.The defense urged the court to uphold its prior decision, made during a hearing on April 25, in which the judge acknowledged the defense had presented a valid legal foundation for introducing such evidence. Citing the transcript of that hearing, where the court stated the defense "has articulated a basis for the admission of this evidence," the letter reinforces the argument that these consensual encounters may be relevant to establish context, rebut specific claims, or support the credibility of the defense's narrative. Accordingly, Combs' attorneys asked the court to deny the government's renewed motion and allow the previously approved evidence to be presented at trial.In a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian, federal prosecutors responded to Sean Combs' April 28, 2025, claim that introducing racketeering acts at trial which were not specifically presented to the grand jury would violate his Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury. Combs' defense argued that attempting to try him on unindicted acts would amount to an unconstitutional expansion of the charges, undermining the foundational requirement that federal felony charges originate from a grand jury indictment.The government firmly rejected this argument, stating that there has been no constitutional violation and that Combs' claim lacks legal merit. Prosecutors maintain that the defendant is being tried on charges properly returned by a grand jury, and that additional racketeering acts, even if not individually enumerated in the indictment, can still be introduced at trial as part of the overarching RICO conspiracy. They urged the court to dismiss the defense's position and allow the trial to proceed without limiting the scope of evidence supporting the racketeering charges.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.310.0.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.306.0.pdf

We begin by discussing all the ASTRO NEWS YOU CAN USE from this past week, how it's played out, & what's on the horizon as we make our way through this month's lunar cycle which began with the Taurus New Moon square to the Mars/Pluto opposition on April 27.Since Venus's entrance into Aries April 30 (until June 6), we've seen some “let them eat cake” resistance to consumer prices heating up due to pending tariff wars begun by the U.S. Government. And the Venus/Neptune conjunction in Aries May 2 illustrated a likewise laissez faire attitude toward the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment by President Donald Trump who, when asked on Meet The Press if he agreed “that citizens and noncitizens in the United States were entitled to due process,” was less than comforting.“I don't know,” Mr. Trump replied. “I'm not, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know.” This as we waxed toward the first quarter monthly lunar “crisis in action” square of the Leo Moon to the Taurus Sun May 4, illustrating the vague nonchalance yet recalcitrance of a stubborn leader (Taurus Sun) to take responsibility for the due process rights of individuals (Leo Moon) under U.S. law. Keep in mind that our short-term monthly mission since April 27's Taurus New Moon has been to plant seeds that reflect our more present-day values--as opposed to old, outdated, no longer applicable ones, like say, that trickle-down economics is the way to go, lol. Or, that corporate & billionaire money & power are more important than individual peoples' health & well-being. You know, stuff like that… However, the major point of this month's lunation is that once we discover (or rediscover) our soul's true, lasting values, we may have to fight for them, as per the Mars opposite Pluto signature at the Taurus New Moon.Meanwhile Pluto's station retrograde on May 4 (until October 14) provides us all the perfect opportunity to dig deeply into our psyches to better discover our soul's true, lasting values. In doing so, we discover our shadow sides and bring them out into the light to be forever vanquished. The end result is that of greater personal empowerment, yeah!We look too at the upcoming entrance of Mercury into Taurus on May 10, & the already anticipated slowdown of both travel & trade. Ports on the West Coast are already reporting fewer ships docking there from places like China, a redux of the pandemic era's import shortages from only a few short years ago. Likewise, tourism to America and spending on travel within America, is down and forecast to stay that way for the foreseeable future.As we wax toward the May 12 Scorpio Full Moon which conjoins Juno, the archetypal symbol of partnership, & opposes the Taurus Sun, Uranus, & goddess of health Hygeia, we've already seen a few surprising firsts. On April 8—after a surprisingly quick conclave in Rome that lasted less than two full days—the first American-born Pope was chosen to lead the world's 1.4 billion Catholics. In addition to being the first American to become pope, Pope Leo XIV is also the first member of the Augustinian Order, a Catholic religious order founded in 1244. He attended St. Augustine Seminary near Holland, Michigan, and spent much of his career as a missionary in Peru.“Peace be with you,” Pope Leo XIV greeted his new followers, & we await to see if this is, indeed, going to be true, as he will be tasked with confronting difficult decisions about the church's direction, including the issue of greater inclusion.In addition, the inclusion of Hygeia in this lunar equation, partnered with Uranus in the sign of the physical body (read: Taurus) may signal a rapid change in the world's health situation. Think of the starving children in Gaza (& other places deprived of food & medical care due to war and the now defunct services from USAID), & how U.S. farmers' crops rot in silos due to increased tariffs on importing nations. Then there's the fact that Mercury square Pluto at this lunation brings a measure of obsessiveness to the U.S. House of Representatives' struggle still to come up with a governmental budget reconciliation bill by Memorial Day that doesn't throw 77 million people off of Medicaid—especially in GOP districts. And that's just so corporate billionaires can reduce their taxes under a proposed extension of President Trump's 2017 corporate tax reduction due to expire by end 2025. And that's not even mentioning financial cuts already made to Veteran's benefits & potential cuts to Medicare, Social Security, etc., & the loss of medical benefits of laid off or fired federal workers under unelected billionaire Elon Musk's DOGE. We discuss the sticking point of state & local tax caps (read: reducing family's tax deductions) bandied about in the House now, too…There's also the implications of transiting Jupiter in Gemini's pending mutable square to the transiting Virgo South Node & Pisces North Node as all things Jupiter-related have made their way into the news recently. Law, higher education, foreign travel (read: immigration), media, & religion—of which the new first time American Pope's election is but one subject under Jupiter's domain—are all prominent now, especially between May 15-28 as both the Mean & True Nodes are squared exact by Jupiter during this period. Keep in mind, too, that more surprises are ahead--not only at the Scorpio Full Moon opposite the Sun & Uranus in Taurus May 12—but between now and the Sun's exact conjunction to Uranus on May 17.

Mayancela Guaman, et. al v. Bondi, No. 24-1295 (1st Cir. Apr. 28, 2025)mixed motive Ecuadorian women; BIA de novo review of nexus; Matter of M-R-M-S-; indigenous political parties; fear of Preside Correa; DHS burden to establish changed country conditions; Ecuador Ibarra v. Bondi, No. 22-1560 (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 2025)good moral character catch-all provision at INA § 101(f); fraud; use of false identity; counsel's assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination  Baptista v. Bondi, No. 23-2237 (4th Cir. May 1, 2025)Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, § 20; unarmed assault with intent to rob or steal; fraud not theft; INA § 101(a)(43)(G) theft; definition of attempt; INA § 101(a)(43)(U) aggravated felony; larceny; steal; overt actSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Cerenade"Leader in providing smart, secure, and intuitive cloud-based solutions"Demo Link!Click me too!Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me!Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

Stephanie talks about Trump - when asked about due process for migrants in a TV interview, he said he didn't know whether he had to uphold the Fifth Amendment. He also said a U.S. invasion of Canada was "highly unlikely" though "something could happen with Greenland". Guest - Cliff Schecter.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of Consider the Constitution, host Dr. Katie Crawford-Lackey welcomes back Kendra Johnson, assistant Public Defender in Fairfax, Virginia, to explore the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Johnson explains how these amendments form the backbone of criminal procedure in America and protect citizens from government overreach.The discussion begins with an overview of each amendment: the Fourth Amendment protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment covering rights such as protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy, and the Sixth Amendment ensuring the right to a speedy trial, impartial jury, and legal counsel. Johnson shares insights into the historical context of these amendments, explaining how the Framers developed these protections in response to abuses they had witnessed under British rule.The conversation highlights landmark Supreme Court cases that have shaped these rights over time, including Katz v. United States, which established the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard; Miranda v. Arizona, which created the famous "Miranda warnings"; and Gideon v. Wainwright, which guaranteed the right to an attorney even for those who cannot afford one.The episode concludes with a discussion of emerging challenges to these constitutional protections in the digital age, including questions about surveillance technology, online trials, and artificial intelligence in the criminal justice system. Johnson emphasizes that these amendments are vital not just for those accused of crimes but for all citizens, as they establish boundaries on government power that protect everyone's liberty regardless of who holds political office.

This Day in Legal History: Los Angeles RiotsOn April 29, 1992, the Los Angeles riots erupted following the acquittal of four LAPD officers charged with excessive force in the beating of Rodney King, an African American motorist. The brutal 1991 beating had been captured on video and widely broadcast, leading to public outrage. However, when a largely white jury in suburban Simi Valley found the officers not guilty of assault and use of excessive force, it sparked immediate and widespread unrest. Over six days, riots, looting, arson, and violence resulted in more than 60 deaths, thousands of injuries, and nearly $1 billion in property damage. The events prompted a national conversation about police accountability, racial injustice, and the legal standards for the use of force.Legally, the case led to significant developments: the U.S. Department of Justice later brought federal civil rights charges against the officers, resulting in two convictions. The riots also accelerated efforts to reform policing practices, sparked lawsuits, and influenced federal legislation concerning police oversight. The King case remains one of the most prominent examples in American legal history where video evidence, jury perception, and civil rights law collided in dramatic fashion.On Monday, U.S. law firm Jenner & Block is asking a federal judge to permanently block an executive order issued by President Donald Trump that penalizes the firm for its past employment of Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor involved in the Russia investigation. Trump's order, issued on March 25, aims to restrict Jenner's access to federal facilities and terminate government contracts held by its clients. Jenner argues the order violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process. The case will be heard by U.S. District Judge John Bates, a Republican appointee, in Washington. Three other firms — Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Susman Godfrey — have also sued to block similar executive orders. So far, judges have temporarily halted major parts of Trump's orders in these cases. The broader context involves Trump's pressure campaign against law firms he views as politically opposed. Meanwhile, other major firms have pledged significant pro bono support to White House causes to avoid being targeted. Jenner is also suing the administration over its actions concerning transgender rights and agency funding freezes.US law firm Jenner asks court to permanently bar Trump executive order | ReutersPresident Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order requiring the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to compile a list within 30 days of cities and states that are not complying with federal immigration laws. The move escalates Trump's ongoing battle against so-called "sanctuary" jurisdictions, which limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. This follows a federal judge's recent decision blocking the administration from withholding funds from these jurisdictions. Trump officials highlighted a sharp drop in illegal border crossings since he took office, though deportations have fallen compared to Biden's administration. ICE detention centers are over capacity, leading the government to prepare facilities like Fort Bliss and to continue using Guantanamo Bay for migrant detention. Separately, controversy arose after a Wisconsin judge was arrested for allegedly helping a defendant avoid immigration authorities, an action defended by the Trump administration. Despite divided public opinion, Trump's immigration policies maintain relatively strong approval ratings compared to his handling of other issues.Trump to sign order requiring list of sanctuary cities, states, official says | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that if Congress wants professional sports to be more equitable, accountable, and less reliant on taxpayer subsidies, it should rethink a looming tax change that would punish the Atlanta Braves—the only MLB team subject to full public oversight. A new cap on salary deductions for public companies under Section 162(m) is set to take effect in 2027, and while not aimed directly at sports teams, it would hit the Braves with an estimated $19 million annual tax hike. Meanwhile, billionaire-owned private teams would continue enjoying deduction benefits without similar transparency obligations.I explain that public ownership brings clear benefits: the Braves are required to file audited financials, face investor scrutiny on major spending decisions, and have less flexibility to threaten cities with relocation demands. Unlike private ownership groups that can easily pressure municipalities for stadium subsidies, publicly traded teams must answer to broader stakeholder interests. Moreover, public teams can raise capital through stock or bonds instead of leaning on taxpayers.Rather than penalizing the only team operating under these conditions, Congress should create incentives—like a targeted entertainment industry carveout—to encourage more public ownership. The goal isn't to give special treatment to the Braves, but to promote a model that favors transparency, accountability, and financial independence from taxpayers. Letting the current tax rule stand would send the wrong message: rewarding secrecy while punishing openness—and that's bad policy not just for baseball, but for public trust. 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

Due Process Should You Remain Silent? Do our protected rights exist if we have to explicitly state we're protected by them? Must one evoke 5th Amendment Protections? Then Dr. Dean Lloyd Infallible Tools pt3 - Toward Anarchy

In this episode, host Corey Nathan shares a candid reflection about a recent encounter where he was right on the facts and the law—but completely wrong in how he presented them. Yet if we're honest with ourselves about when we make mistakes, it's a good opportunity to learn, reminding us that how we communicate is just as important as what we communicate. What You'll Learn: Why being right on the law isn't enough in a conversation How righteous anger can derail productive dialogue Why due process matters for everyone—especially those who aren't guilty of crimes Tools for engaging in hard conversations with empathy and curiosity How the Constitution and Judeo-Christian values intersect in public discourse Episode Highlights: [00:02:00] Corey introduces the story and the key lesson he learned [00:05:00] Breakdown of the Alien Enemies Act and a real legal case [00:06:45] A stranger challenges Corey at a restaurant [00:07:30] Corey "goes Jersey" and loses his cool [00:13:00] What due process really protects and why it matters [00:16:00] How Isaac Saul, David Brooks, and Mónica Guzmán inspired a better way to respond [00:18:00] Reading the First and Fifth Amendments to ground the conversation Featured Quotes: "I was completely right on the facts, but I was completely wrong on the delivery." — Corey Nathan "Due process is there for the innocent just as much as the guilty—even more so for the innocent." — Corey Nathan "Ask at least three questions before making your point." — inspired by Isaac Saul

In this episode, host Corey Nathan shares a candid reflection about a recent encounter where he was right on the facts and the law—but completely wrong in how he presented them. Yet if we're honest with ourselves about when we make mistakes, it's a good opportunity to learn, reminding us that how we communicate is just as important as what we communicate. What You'll Learn: Why being right on the law isn't enough in a conversation How righteous anger can derail productive dialogue Why due process matters for everyone—especially those who aren't guilty of crimes Tools for engaging in hard conversations with empathy and curiosity How the Constitution and Judeo-Christian values intersect in public discourse Episode Highlights: [00:02:00] Corey introduces the story and the key lesson he learned [00:05:00] Breakdown of the Alien Enemies Act and a real legal case [00:06:45] A stranger challenges Corey at a restaurant [00:07:30] Corey "goes Jersey" and loses his cool [00:13:00] What due process really protects and why it matters [00:16:00] How Isaac Saul, David Brooks, and Mónica Guzmán inspired a better way to respond [00:18:00] Reading the First and Fifth Amendments to ground the conversation Featured Quotes: "I was completely right on the facts, but I was completely wrong on the delivery." — Corey Nathan "Due process is there for the innocent just as much as the guilty—even more so for the innocent." — Corey Nathan "Ask at least three questions before making your point." — inspired by Isaac Saul

This Day in Legal History: Maryland Toleration Act PassedOn April 21, 1649, the Maryland Assembly passed the Maryland Toleration Act, a landmark piece of colonial legislation that granted freedom of worship to all Christians in the colony. Also known as the Act Concerning Religion, it was one of the first legal efforts in the American colonies to protect religious liberty through statutory law. The act was enacted under the leadership of Cecil Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, who sought to maintain peace in Maryland's religiously diverse population, which included both Catholics and Protestants.The law's preamble acknowledged the dangers of religious coercion, stating that "the inforceing of the conscience in matters of Religion hath frequently fallen out to be of dangerous Consequence." To preserve harmony, it declared that no Christian should be "troubled, Molested or discountenanced" for practicing their faith, provided they did not threaten the colony's civil government or the authority of the Lord Proprietor.While progressive for its time, the Act's protections were limited to those who professed belief in Jesus Christ, excluding Jews, atheists, and other non-Christians. Violators of the law's religious tolerance provisions faced harsh penalties, including fines, public whipping, or even death for blasphemy.The Act was repealed just five years later during a period of Protestant ascendancy, reflecting the fragile nature of religious tolerance in colonial America. Nonetheless, it remains significant as an early attempt to codify the principle that faith should not be a basis for persecution.A federal judge has ruled that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) can no longer direct the termination of probationary federal workers based on performance-related justifications that were, according to the court, misleading. U.S. District Judge William Alsup called OPM's use of standardized termination letters citing performance as the reason for firing thousands of employees a “total sham.” He emphasized that falsely attributing the dismissals to performance could harm the affected workers' reputations and career prospects for years to come.The ruling affects employees at six federal agencies and prohibits further terminations under these pretenses. Judge Alsup's decision underscores that these workers were dismissed under false narratives while still in their probationary period—either newly hired or recently promoted—and should not have been labeled as underperformers without proper evaluation or process.Though Alsup's ruling offers protection against future actions, he declined to issue a preliminary injunction requested by the state of Washington, stating the state lacked standing because it could not show concrete harm from the federal firings, such as a clear loss of federal services.This legal challenge comes amid a broader judicial tug-of-war. In March, Alsup had initially ordered the reinstatement of 16,000 workers pending resolution of a lawsuit. However, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked that injunction on April 8, suggesting that nonprofit organizations representing federal workers may lack the legal standing to sue on their behalf. Following that, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals also halted a separate injunction from a Maryland judge that would have reinstated probationary employees in 19 states and Washington, D.C.Despite the limits imposed by the higher courts, Alsup's decision focuses on the reputational harm caused by labeling the dismissals as performance-based, rather than procedural or administrative. He signaled that the government must correct the record for those terminated workers.Performance-Based Federal Worker Layoffs a ‘Sham' Judge RulesThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a major challenge to a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare, that mandates insurers cover certain preventive medical services—like cancer screenings and diabetes testing—without cost-sharing by patients. The case centers on the constitutional validity of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), a panel of medical experts that identifies which services should be covered. The panel's 16 members are appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) but are not confirmed by the Senate.A group of Texas-based Christian individuals and businesses filed the lawsuit in 2020, arguing that the USPSTF wields too much authority and must therefore comply with the U.S. Constitution's Appointments Clause. This clause requires that significant federal officers—known as "principal officers"—be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The plaintiffs claim the task force has evolved from a purely advisory body to one that effectively imposes binding legal obligations on insurers, all without proper accountability.In 2024, the conservative-leaning 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling the task force's structure unconstitutional. The federal government appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. The Biden administration originally filed the appeal, and it was later continued by the Trump administration. Government lawyers argue that the task force should be classified as comprising "inferior officers," since their recommendations are only made binding when approved by the HHS Secretary, who can remove task force members at will.The plaintiffs, however, maintain that the Secretary lacks actual power to stop recommendations from taking effect, making the task force's authority effectively unchecked. They also argue that this lack of oversight elevates the members to principal officer status, necessitating Senate confirmation.Before narrowing the lawsuit to the appointments issue, the plaintiffs also challenged the ACA's requirement to cover HIV prevention medication on religious grounds, asserting it promoted behaviors they opposed. The appeals court declined to sever portions of the law that might otherwise save the provision, another aspect now before the Supreme Court.If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's decision, key preventive healthcare services could become subject to out-of-pocket costs like deductibles and co-pays, potentially deterring millions from accessing early detection and prevention tools. The Court's decision, expected by the end of June, could reshape how health policy is implemented under the ACA and may further weaken one of its core patient protections.US Supreme Court to hear clash over Obamacare preventive care | ReutersIn a rapidly unfolding legal confrontation, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the deportation of a group of Venezuelan migrants from Texas, sparking a strong dissent from Justice Samuel Alito. The court intervened early Saturday morning, acting on urgent filings by detainees' lawyers who said the migrants were already being loaded onto buses for imminent deportation to El Salvador. The migrants were accused of gang affiliation, but their legal team argued they hadn't been given fair notice or time to challenge their removal. The administration attempted to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law, to justify these expulsions.Justice Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, sharply criticized the majority's decision, calling it "unprecedented and legally questionable." He argued that the Court acted without giving lower courts adequate time to review the claims and issued its order with limited evidence and no explanation. The justices' ruling paused deportations “until further order of this Court,” leaving room for future legal developments.The Trump administration quickly responded, filing a motion urging the Court to reverse its stay. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the detainees' lawyers bypassed proper procedure by going directly to the Supreme Court and that lower courts had not yet had a chance to establish key facts. He maintained that the migrants received legally sufficient notice, though reports suggested the notices were in English only and lacked clear instructions.The administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members is highly controversial. Originally passed in 1798 during hostilities with France, the law has been used sparingly and almost exclusively during wartime. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether its application in this immigration context is constitutional. Migrants' advocates, including the ACLU, maintain that many of the men deported or at risk of deportation are not gang members and were denied due process.The legal conflict reflects a broader tension between Trump's immigration enforcement efforts and judicial oversight. Last month, Trump ordered the deportation of more than 200 men to a Salvadoran maximum-security prison, reportedly ignoring a judge's oral order to halt at least two flights. The White House has not signaled any intent to defy the current Supreme Court stay but remains committed to its immigration crackdown.The case, A.A.R.P. v. Trump, now becomes a focal point in ongoing disputes about executive authority, due process rights for detainees, and the scope of immigration enforcement under rarely invoked legal provisions. As the Court weighs further action, the lives of dozens of migrants hang in the balance, caught between legal technicalities and broader political pressures.Supreme Court's Alito Calls Block of Deportations ‘Questionable' - BloombergAlito criticizes US Supreme Court's decision to 'hastily' block deportations | ReutersTrump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Lift Deportation Halt - BloombergA federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration's passport policy targeting transgender and nonbinary individuals is likely unconstitutional. The policy, which followed an executive order signed by President Trump immediately after returning to office, required passport applicants to list their biological sex at birth and allowed only "male" or "female" markers. This reversed prior policies that permitted self-identification and, under the Biden administration, had allowed the use of a gender-neutral "X" option.U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick issued a preliminary injunction that bars enforcement of the policy against six of the seven plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit. She held that the policy discriminates based on sex and reflects a bias against transgender individuals, violating the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. Kobick described the administration's approach as rooted in "irrational prejudice" and said it runs counter to the Constitution's promise of equality.Despite finding the policy likely unconstitutional, Kobick declined to issue a nationwide injunction, stating that the plaintiffs did not justify the need for broad relief. Still, the ruling marks a significant legal setback for the administration's broader effort to redefine federal gender recognition policies.The executive order at the center of the case mandated all federal agencies, including the State Department, to recognize only two sexes—male and female—based on biology at birth. The State Department then revised its passport application process to align with this directive.The case is part of a wave of legal challenges to Trump's rollback of gender recognition policies. Lawyers for the plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, vowed to continue fighting to expand the ruling's protections to all affected individuals.Trump passport policy targeting transgender people likely unconstitutional, judge rules | 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

Was It A Mistake For Defense To Introduce 'Autism' Into Kohberger Case, Attorney Eric Faddis Examines On this episode of Hidden Killers with Tony Brueski, Tony delves into the controversial decision by Bryan Kohberger's defense to introduce an alleged autism diagnosis into his death penalty trial. Does claiming autism help or harm Kohberger's defense strategy? Tony breaks down the potential implications, questioning whether the defense can substantiate this claim with actual medical evidence or if it's merely a tactic to mitigate sentencing. Could this revelation inadvertently strengthen the prosecution's case by underscoring issues with empathy and social detachment? Tony also explores the unusual scenario unfolding around Kohberger's family potentially testifying in court. With reports indicating some family members might be barred from viewing the trial until after their testimony, Tony discusses the rare and sensitive situation of family members possibly speaking against one of their own. What rights do they have, and could invoking the Fifth Amendment have unintended consequences for Kohberger's case? Tony examines the legal strategies at play and how family testimonies might sway jury perceptions. Lastly, Tony discusses the critical evidentiary decision facing the judge about admitting Kohberger's notorious shower selfie into evidence. Originally intended to corroborate a surviving roommate's identification based on "bushy eyebrows," Tony considers whether this evidence, evocative of notorious historical figures, could significantly impact juror opinions. Tune in as Tony Brueski navigates these complex issues, breaking down legal arguments, courtroom strategies, and the psychological elements that could shape the outcome of this high-profile trial. Want to listen to ALL our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Was It A Mistake For Defense To Introduce 'Autism' Into Kohberger Case, Attorney Eric Faddis Examines On this episode of Hidden Killers with Tony Brueski, Tony delves into the controversial decision by Bryan Kohberger's defense to introduce an alleged autism diagnosis into his death penalty trial. Does claiming autism help or harm Kohberger's defense strategy? Tony breaks down the potential implications, questioning whether the defense can substantiate this claim with actual medical evidence or if it's merely a tactic to mitigate sentencing. Could this revelation inadvertently strengthen the prosecution's case by underscoring issues with empathy and social detachment? Tony also explores the unusual scenario unfolding around Kohberger's family potentially testifying in court. With reports indicating some family members might be barred from viewing the trial until after their testimony, Tony discusses the rare and sensitive situation of family members possibly speaking against one of their own. What rights do they have, and could invoking the Fifth Amendment have unintended consequences for Kohberger's case? Tony examines the legal strategies at play and how family testimonies might sway jury perceptions. Lastly, Tony discusses the critical evidentiary decision facing the judge about admitting Kohberger's notorious shower selfie into evidence. Originally intended to corroborate a surviving roommate's identification based on "bushy eyebrows," Tony considers whether this evidence, evocative of notorious historical figures, could significantly impact juror opinions. Tune in as Tony Brueski navigates these complex issues, breaking down legal arguments, courtroom strategies, and the psychological elements that could shape the outcome of this high-profile trial. Want to listen to ALL our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Was It A Mistake For Defense To Introduce 'Autism' Into Kohberger Case, Attorney Eric Faddis Examines On this episode of Hidden Killers with Tony Brueski, Tony delves into the controversial decision by Bryan Kohberger's defense to introduce an alleged autism diagnosis into his death penalty trial. Does claiming autism help or harm Kohberger's defense strategy? Tony breaks down the potential implications, questioning whether the defense can substantiate this claim with actual medical evidence or if it's merely a tactic to mitigate sentencing. Could this revelation inadvertently strengthen the prosecution's case by underscoring issues with empathy and social detachment? Tony also explores the unusual scenario unfolding around Kohberger's family potentially testifying in court. With reports indicating some family members might be barred from viewing the trial until after their testimony, Tony discusses the rare and sensitive situation of family members possibly speaking against one of their own. What rights do they have, and could invoking the Fifth Amendment have unintended consequences for Kohberger's case? Tony examines the legal strategies at play and how family testimonies might sway jury perceptions. Lastly, Tony discusses the critical evidentiary decision facing the judge about admitting Kohberger's notorious shower selfie into evidence. Originally intended to corroborate a surviving roommate's identification based on "bushy eyebrows," Tony considers whether this evidence, evocative of notorious historical figures, could significantly impact juror opinions. Tune in as Tony Brueski navigates these complex issues, breaking down legal arguments, courtroom strategies, and the psychological elements that could shape the outcome of this high-profile trial. Want to listen to ALL our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read was back in court on April 16th, 2025 to resolve outstanding issues. Jury selection was completed on April 15th with 18 jurors. Opening Statements will begin on Tuesday, April 22nd after the Boston Marathon holiday weekend. The court most likely had planned for a four-day weekend, and lawyers preferred not to start opening statements before such a break. The court is also slightly ahead of schedule.Alan Jackson and Hank Brennan will be conducting Opening Statements. The Commonwealth plans to use Karen Read's media interviews against her. The Defense's strategy is to use Internal Affairs Investigations Against state troopers and Former Trooper Proctor.There are still outstanding disputes regarding ARCCA experts and discovery obligations. The Prosecution is arguing that the Defense has not provided sufficient discovery on ARCCA witnesses, while the Defense claims they were responding to late disclosures from the Prosecution.The Motion to Sequester Aidan Kearney was brought up to see whether he will be excluded from the media pool due to being on the Commonwealth's witness list and potential Fifth Amendment issues. It was decided that he would not be excluded from the courtroom except for specific witness testimonies. I'll be providing daily Case Briefs of each day in court.Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/VvwM5fC6Zr8RESOURCESKaren Read Mistrial - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRJ_QZ5NeikThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

Karen Read's Retrial Heats Up: K-9s, Cameras, and Constitutional Rights So, here's where things got spicy: the judge agreed that Aidan Kearney—aka Turtleboy—has a valid basis to plead the Fifth Amendment in this case. That right there is the kind of courtroom moment that makes legal dramas look tame. Prosecutor Hank Brennan even conceded it. Kearney's attorney, Timothy Bradl, said flat out that if called, Kearney would plead the Fifth, and the judge is letting him stay in the courtroom unless witnesses tied to his own witness intimidation case are on the stand. That's where we ended for the day: “We're all set until Tuesday.” But let's rewind a bit and walk through what led up to that mic-drop moment. The judge kicked things off with the defense's renewed request for a forensic copy of video footage from inside the Canton Police Department's garage. That's been denied before, but defense attorney Elizabeth Little said they've now got expert testimony swearing there's still relevant metadata that could be extracted. Special prosecutor Hank Brennan, on the other hand, basically said, “Sure, come download whatever we've got,” but drew the line at handing over a full image of the department's detective file since it includes unrelated case material. The judge didn't make a ruling on that one—so, still in limbo. Then there's the canine controversy. Brennan's not thrilled with the defense's dog expert, Garrett Wing. He said Wing has no formal certifications and has never testified in court. But Robert Alessi fired back, saying Wing is a leading national expert on law enforcement K-9s. Wing might not have the standard paperwork, but apparently, the guy's resume still carries weight. Meanwhile, Judge Cannone is standing firm on allowing Dr. Crosby—an expert for the prosecution—to testify, but she doesn't believe Crosby can definitively say the marks on John O'Keefe's arms came from Chloe, the German Shepherd allegedly involved. Brennan tried to argue those bite marks don't line up with Chloe's mouth dimensions, but the judge called that an “uphill battle.” Not the kind of response a prosecutor wants to hear going into opening statements. Then came the courtroom theater debate. Brennan wants to use an “independent reader” to read aloud some of Read's text messages during trial—maybe a plain-clothed officer or another neutral voice. Defense attorney Alan Jackson wasn't exactly sold, saying he needs more info before agreeing. Judge Cannone didn't love the idea either, warning it could turn into a theatrical presentation that doesn't belong in a courtroom. You know, courtroom not Broadway. There's also the ongoing tug-of-war over the ARCCA witnesses—the experts hired by the feds who testified in the first trial that O'Keefe likely wasn't hit by a car. Brennan wants a full breakdown of these experts' relationship with the defense since the defense ended up paying them after the mistrial. He's pushing for a pre-testimony hearing, accusing the defense of setting up a potential “trial by ambush” with possible late-arriving evidence. Jackson responded by saying ARCCA hasn't done any new testing—yet. But he admits the defense gave ARCCA new info as recently as March 25 and expects more updates soon. The judge still seems fuzzy on which expert did what, but Jackson insists they're not hiding anything. Speaking of evidence wars, both sides agreed to allow an alternative DNA analyst for the prosecution, and the judge asked for previews of the props each side plans to use in opening statements. The prosecution is bringing video clips. The defense? Just one photo. Back to the courtroom logistics—Judge Cannone wants the jury's scene view to go smoothly. Read will likely travel separately with her attorneys, but at least one defense attorney has to be on the juror bus to match the prosecution's presence. Cannone also expanded the buffer zone outside the courthouse after complaints from the first trial's jurors about noisy demonstrators. Apparently, the yelling and chanting could be heard during deliberations. Nothing like public protests to set the mood for life-or-death legal decisions. Now for the bigger legal chessboard. Read's team is making a Hail Mary pass to the Supreme Court, asking it to throw out two of the three charges, including second-degree murder, claiming the original jury actually acquitted her on those. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson already denied the request for an emergency pause on the retrial, but the full Supreme Court will consider the appeal on April 25. It only takes four of nine justices to hear it—but that's rare air. So far, Read's retrial team includes five lawyers, one of whom—Victoria George—was an alternate juror in the original trial. Yeah, that's some wild trivia. Opening statements are scheduled for April 22, and the new jury—nine women, nine men—will have plenty to chew on. The prosecution plans to lean heavily on Read's own words from her many interviews. Meanwhile, the defense continues to allege a cover-up involving law enforcement, claiming O'Keefe was beaten inside the house, bitten by a dog, and left outside—not struck by Read's car. And sitting in the gallery this week? Just some cousins and friends of John O'Keefe. His brother and parents weren't there for this round. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #CourtroomDrama Want to listen to ALL our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

Karen Read's Retrial Heats Up: K-9s, Cameras, and Constitutional Rights So, here's where things got spicy: the judge agreed that Aidan Kearney—aka Turtleboy—has a valid basis to plead the Fifth Amendment in this case. That right there is the kind of courtroom moment that makes legal dramas look tame. Prosecutor Hank Brennan even conceded it. Kearney's attorney, Timothy Bradl, said flat out that if called, Kearney would plead the Fifth, and the judge is letting him stay in the courtroom unless witnesses tied to his own witness intimidation case are on the stand. That's where we ended for the day: “We're all set until Tuesday.” But let's rewind a bit and walk through what led up to that mic-drop moment. The judge kicked things off with the defense's renewed request for a forensic copy of video footage from inside the Canton Police Department's garage. That's been denied before, but defense attorney Elizabeth Little said they've now got expert testimony swearing there's still relevant metadata that could be extracted. Special prosecutor Hank Brennan, on the other hand, basically said, “Sure, come download whatever we've got,” but drew the line at handing over a full image of the department's detective file since it includes unrelated case material. The judge didn't make a ruling on that one—so, still in limbo. Then there's the canine controversy. Brennan's not thrilled with the defense's dog expert, Garrett Wing. He said Wing has no formal certifications and has never testified in court. But Robert Alessi fired back, saying Wing is a leading national expert on law enforcement K-9s. Wing might not have the standard paperwork, but apparently, the guy's resume still carries weight. Meanwhile, Judge Cannone is standing firm on allowing Dr. Crosby—an expert for the prosecution—to testify, but she doesn't believe Crosby can definitively say the marks on John O'Keefe's arms came from Chloe, the German Shepherd allegedly involved. Brennan tried to argue those bite marks don't line up with Chloe's mouth dimensions, but the judge called that an “uphill battle.” Not the kind of response a prosecutor wants to hear going into opening statements. Then came the courtroom theater debate. Brennan wants to use an “independent reader” to read aloud some of Read's text messages during trial—maybe a plain-clothed officer or another neutral voice. Defense attorney Alan Jackson wasn't exactly sold, saying he needs more info before agreeing. Judge Cannone didn't love the idea either, warning it could turn into a theatrical presentation that doesn't belong in a courtroom. You know, courtroom not Broadway. There's also the ongoing tug-of-war over the ARCCA witnesses—the experts hired by the feds who testified in the first trial that O'Keefe likely wasn't hit by a car. Brennan wants a full breakdown of these experts' relationship with the defense since the defense ended up paying them after the mistrial. He's pushing for a pre-testimony hearing, accusing the defense of setting up a potential “trial by ambush” with possible late-arriving evidence. Jackson responded by saying ARCCA hasn't done any new testing—yet. But he admits the defense gave ARCCA new info as recently as March 25 and expects more updates soon. The judge still seems fuzzy on which expert did what, but Jackson insists they're not hiding anything. Speaking of evidence wars, both sides agreed to allow an alternative DNA analyst for the prosecution, and the judge asked for previews of the props each side plans to use in opening statements. The prosecution is bringing video clips. The defense? Just one photo. Back to the courtroom logistics—Judge Cannone wants the jury's scene view to go smoothly. Read will likely travel separately with her attorneys, but at least one defense attorney has to be on the juror bus to match the prosecution's presence. Cannone also expanded the buffer zone outside the courthouse after complaints from the first trial's jurors about noisy demonstrators. Apparently, the yelling and chanting could be heard during deliberations. Nothing like public protests to set the mood for life-or-death legal decisions. Now for the bigger legal chessboard. Read's team is making a Hail Mary pass to the Supreme Court, asking it to throw out two of the three charges, including second-degree murder, claiming the original jury actually acquitted her on those. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson already denied the request for an emergency pause on the retrial, but the full Supreme Court will consider the appeal on April 25. It only takes four of nine justices to hear it—but that's rare air. So far, Read's retrial team includes five lawyers, one of whom—Victoria George—was an alternate juror in the original trial. Yeah, that's some wild trivia. Opening statements are scheduled for April 22, and the new jury—nine women, nine men—will have plenty to chew on. The prosecution plans to lean heavily on Read's own words from her many interviews. Meanwhile, the defense continues to allege a cover-up involving law enforcement, claiming O'Keefe was beaten inside the house, bitten by a dog, and left outside—not struck by Read's car. And sitting in the gallery this week? Just some cousins and friends of John O'Keefe. His brother and parents weren't there for this round. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #CourtroomDrama Want to listen to ALL our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

So, here's where things got spicy: the judge agreed that Aidan Kearney—aka Turtleboy—has a valid basis to plead the Fifth Amendment in this case. That right there is the kind of courtroom moment that makes legal dramas look tame. Prosecutor Hank Brennan even conceded it. Kearney's attorney, Timothy Bradl, said flat out that if called, Kearney would plead the Fifth, and the judge is letting him stay in the courtroom unless witnesses tied to his own witness intimidation case are on the stand. That's where we ended for the day: “We're all set until Tuesday.” But let's rewind a bit and walk through what led up to that mic-drop moment. The judge kicked things off with the defense's renewed request for a forensic copy of video footage from inside the Canton Police Department's garage. That's been denied before, but defense attorney Elizabeth Little said they've now got expert testimony swearing there's still relevant metadata that could be extracted. Special prosecutor Hank Brennan, on the other hand, basically said, “Sure, come download whatever we've got,” but drew the line at handing over a full image of the department's detective file since it includes unrelated case material. The judge didn't make a ruling on that one—so, still in limbo. Then there's the canine controversy. Brennan's not thrilled with the defense's dog expert, Garrett Wing. He said Wing has no formal certifications and has never testified in court. But Robert Alessi fired back, saying Wing is a leading national expert on law enforcement K-9s. Wing might not have the standard paperwork, but apparently, the guy's resume still carries weight. Meanwhile, Judge Cannone is standing firm on allowing Dr. Crosby—an expert for the prosecution—to testify, but she doesn't believe Crosby can definitively say the marks on John O'Keefe's arms came from Chloe, the German Shepherd allegedly involved. Brennan tried to argue those bite marks don't line up with Chloe's mouth dimensions, but the judge called that an “uphill battle.” Not the kind of response a prosecutor wants to hear going into opening statements. Then came the courtroom theater debate. Brennan wants to use an “independent reader” to read aloud some of Read's text messages during trial—maybe a plain-clothed officer or another neutral voice. Defense attorney Alan Jackson wasn't exactly sold, saying he needs more info before agreeing. Judge Cannone didn't love the idea either, warning it could turn into a theatrical presentation that doesn't belong in a courtroom. You know, courtroom not Broadway. There's also the ongoing tug-of-war over the ARCCA witnesses—the experts hired by the feds who testified in the first trial that O'Keefe likely wasn't hit by a car. Brennan wants a full breakdown of these experts' relationship with the defense since the defense ended up paying them after the mistrial. He's pushing for a pre-testimony hearing, accusing the defense of setting up a potential “trial by ambush” with possible late-arriving evidence. Jackson responded by saying ARCCA hasn't done any new testing—yet. But he admits the defense gave ARCCA new info as recently as March 25 and expects more updates soon. The judge still seems fuzzy on which expert did what, but Jackson insists they're not hiding anything. Speaking of evidence wars, both sides agreed to allow an alternative DNA analyst for the prosecution, and the judge asked for previews of the props each side plans to use in opening statements. The prosecution is bringing video clips. The defense? Just one photo. Back to the courtroom logistics—Judge Cannone wants the jury's scene view to go smoothly. Read will likely travel separately with her attorneys, but at least one defense attorney has to be on the juror bus to match the prosecution's presence. Cannone also expanded the buffer zone outside the courthouse after complaints from the first trial's jurors about noisy demonstrators. Apparently, the yelling and chanting could be heard during deliberations. Nothing like public protests to set the mood for life-or-death legal decisions. Now for the bigger legal chessboard. Read's team is making a Hail Mary pass to the Supreme Court, asking it to throw out two of the three charges, including second-degree murder, claiming the original jury actually acquitted her on those. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson already denied the request for an emergency pause on the retrial, but the full Supreme Court will consider the appeal on April 25. It only takes four of nine justices to hear it—but that's rare air. So far, Read's retrial team includes five lawyers, one of whom—Victoria George—was an alternate juror in the original trial. Yeah, that's some wild trivia. Opening statements are scheduled for April 22, and the new jury—nine women, nine men—will have plenty to chew on. The prosecution plans to lean heavily on Read's own words from her many interviews. Meanwhile, the defense continues to allege a cover-up involving law enforcement, claiming O'Keefe was beaten inside the house, bitten by a dog, and left outside—not struck by Read's car. And sitting in the gallery this week? Just some cousins and friends of John O'Keefe. His brother and parents weren't there for this round. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #CourtroomDrama Want to listen to ALL our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read's Retrial Heats Up: K-9s, Cameras, and Constitutional Rights So, here's where things got spicy: the judge agreed that Aidan Kearney—aka Turtleboy—has a valid basis to plead the Fifth Amendment in this case. That right there is the kind of courtroom moment that makes legal dramas look tame. Prosecutor Hank Brennan even conceded it. Kearney's attorney, Timothy Bradl, said flat out that if called, Kearney would plead the Fifth, and the judge is letting him stay in the courtroom unless witnesses tied to his own witness intimidation case are on the stand. That's where we ended for the day: “We're all set until Tuesday.” But let's rewind a bit and walk through what led up to that mic-drop moment. The judge kicked things off with the defense's renewed request for a forensic copy of video footage from inside the Canton Police Department's garage. That's been denied before, but defense attorney Elizabeth Little said they've now got expert testimony swearing there's still relevant metadata that could be extracted. Special prosecutor Hank Brennan, on the other hand, basically said, “Sure, come download whatever we've got,” but drew the line at handing over a full image of the department's detective file since it includes unrelated case material. The judge didn't make a ruling on that one—so, still in limbo. Then there's the canine controversy. Brennan's not thrilled with the defense's dog expert, Garrett Wing. He said Wing has no formal certifications and has never testified in court. But Robert Alessi fired back, saying Wing is a leading national expert on law enforcement K-9s. Wing might not have the standard paperwork, but apparently, the guy's resume still carries weight. Meanwhile, Judge Cannone is standing firm on allowing Dr. Crosby—an expert for the prosecution—to testify, but she doesn't believe Crosby can definitively say the marks on John O'Keefe's arms came from Chloe, the German Shepherd allegedly involved. Brennan tried to argue those bite marks don't line up with Chloe's mouth dimensions, but the judge called that an “uphill battle.” Not the kind of response a prosecutor wants to hear going into opening statements. Then came the courtroom theater debate. Brennan wants to use an “independent reader” to read aloud some of Read's text messages during trial—maybe a plain-clothed officer or another neutral voice. Defense attorney Alan Jackson wasn't exactly sold, saying he needs more info before agreeing. Judge Cannone didn't love the idea either, warning it could turn into a theatrical presentation that doesn't belong in a courtroom. You know, courtroom not Broadway. There's also the ongoing tug-of-war over the ARCCA witnesses—the experts hired by the feds who testified in the first trial that O'Keefe likely wasn't hit by a car. Brennan wants a full breakdown of these experts' relationship with the defense since the defense ended up paying them after the mistrial. He's pushing for a pre-testimony hearing, accusing the defense of setting up a potential “trial by ambush” with possible late-arriving evidence. Jackson responded by saying ARCCA hasn't done any new testing—yet. But he admits the defense gave ARCCA new info as recently as March 25 and expects more updates soon. The judge still seems fuzzy on which expert did what, but Jackson insists they're not hiding anything. Speaking of evidence wars, both sides agreed to allow an alternative DNA analyst for the prosecution, and the judge asked for previews of the props each side plans to use in opening statements. The prosecution is bringing video clips. The defense? Just one photo. Back to the courtroom logistics—Judge Cannone wants the jury's scene view to go smoothly. Read will likely travel separately with her attorneys, but at least one defense attorney has to be on the juror bus to match the prosecution's presence. Cannone also expanded the buffer zone outside the courthouse after complaints from the first trial's jurors about noisy demonstrators. Apparently, the yelling and chanting could be heard during deliberations. Nothing like public protests to set the mood for life-or-death legal decisions. Now for the bigger legal chessboard. Read's team is making a Hail Mary pass to the Supreme Court, asking it to throw out two of the three charges, including second-degree murder, claiming the original jury actually acquitted her on those. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson already denied the request for an emergency pause on the retrial, but the full Supreme Court will consider the appeal on April 25. It only takes four of nine justices to hear it—but that's rare air. So far, Read's retrial team includes five lawyers, one of whom—Victoria George—was an alternate juror in the original trial. Yeah, that's some wild trivia. Opening statements are scheduled for April 22, and the new jury—nine women, nine men—will have plenty to chew on. The prosecution plans to lean heavily on Read's own words from her many interviews. Meanwhile, the defense continues to allege a cover-up involving law enforcement, claiming O'Keefe was beaten inside the house, bitten by a dog, and left outside—not struck by Read's car. And sitting in the gallery this week? Just some cousins and friends of John O'Keefe. His brother and parents weren't there for this round. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #CourtroomDrama Want to listen to ALL our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

In January – just one day after Trump was certified as the next president by Congress, a massive Border Patrol raid took place in Bakersfiled, California. Seventy-eight migrant workers were detained under the guise of a crack down on criminals, but when the dust settled the data revealed that only one out of the 78 people detained had any criminal record. Joining us to discuss are Bree Bernwanger, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California and lead attorney on United Farm Workers v. Noem, a lawsuit which claims the Border Patrol violated the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as their Fifth Amendment right to due process, and other federal laws, during the raids described above. We're also joined by Sergio Olmos, an investigative reporter for CalMatters, whose latest reporting, along with our next guest, focuses on the same Border Patrol actions in Bakersfield that are being challenged in the lawsuit that I previously mentioned. And we're additionally joined by Wendy Fry, a multimedia investigative journalist who reports on poverty and inequality for the California Divide team at CalMatters, who has been collaborating with Sergio in covering the Border Patrol Bakersfield raids. Check out the CalMatters coverage of this story here: https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/04/border-patrol-to-retrain-hundreds-of-california-agents-on-how-to-comply-with-the-constitution/ Learn more about the lawsuit UFW v. Noem: https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/legal-docket/united-farm-workers-v-noem — Subscribe to this podcast: https://plinkhq.com/i/1637968343?to=page Get in touch: lawanddisorder@kpfa.org Follow us on socials @LawAndDis: https://twitter.com/LawAndDis; https://www.instagram.com/lawanddis/   The post Border Patrol Sued Over Violating Bakersfield Immigrant Rights w/ Bree Bernwanger, Sergio Olmos & Wendy Fry appeared first on KPFA.

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Trump v. J.G.G., lifting a pair of temporary orders from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg blocking the administration from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify deporting alleged noncitizen gang members. In an unsigned majority opinion, the Supreme Court did not weigh in on President Trump's application of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to foreign-born gang members but specified that “the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings,” provided their challenges are brought in the jurisdiction where they are detained.Ad-free podcasts are here!Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.Take the survey: What do you think of the Supreme Court's decision? Let us know!You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Hunter Casperson, Kendall White, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Our logo was created by Magdalena Bokowa, Head of Partnerships and Socials. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Karen Read's Lawyers Take the Fight to the Supreme Court Jurors say she was not guilty—so why is Karen Read being retried for murder? With jury selection now underway for Karen Read's second trial in the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, her legal team is throwing a Hail Mary to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their argument? That retrying her on charges the jury allegedly already agreed she didn't commit violates her Fifth Amendment rights—specifically, protection against double jeopardy. It's a bold move, considering the original trial ended in a mistrial, not an acquittal. But here's where it gets messy: According to Read's attorneys, the jury didn't just stall out completely—they allegedly reached unanimous agreement that she was not guilty on two of the three charges, including the most serious: second-degree murder. The jury just never announced it in court. And that technicality could change everything. The defense says this silent consensus should still count as an acquittal. But because no formal verdict was read, Massachusetts courts have already ruled that her retrial is fair game. So now, her lawyers are asking the highest court in the land to intervene. The case stems from Read's 2022 arrest after O'Keefe's body was found in the snow outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts. Prosecutors say Read, allegedly drunk, hit him with her SUV and drove away, leaving him to die in the cold. She was initially charged with manslaughter, leaving the scene of an accident, and DUI. Later, the charge was bumped up to second-degree murder. Read has pleaded not guilty to all charges, and her defense team argues she's a scapegoat—framed by others connected to the case. During her first trial in 2024, jurors started deliberating on June 25. For nearly a week, they sent notes to the judge saying they were deadlocked. On July 1, with no end in sight, Judge Beverly Cannone declared a mistrial. No verdict was read. No charges were resolved. Or so it seemed. That's when the jurors started talking. The next day, Juror A reached out to Read's attorney, Alan Jackson, and said the panel had unanimously agreed she wasn't guilty of the murder charge. Then came Jurors B, C, and D, sharing similar statements—one even leaving a voicemail for prosecutors saying, “It was not guilty on second degree.” Texts from Juror B added, “No one thought she hit him on purpose or even knew that she had hit him.” So why does this matter? Because if true, it means a jury had decided she wasn't guilty of murder—and according to the Constitution, once you've been acquitted, the government doesn't get a second swing. But here, since no one ever said it out loud in court, the legal system treats it like it never happened. The defense argues that's a dangerous technicality. They say the judge should've asked the jury whether they had reached a verdict on any specific counts before sending them home. Without that, the system is effectively ignoring what the jury allegedly decided behind closed doors. If the Supreme Court agrees with Read's team, the second-degree murder and leaving-the-scene charges could be dropped. She'd still face manslaughter, but that's a whole different ballgame compared to a potential life sentence. In the meantime, jury selection for her second trial has begun, and, no surprise, dozens of potential jurors already have opinions about the case. Karen Read's name has become a lightning rod in Boston—part true crime obsession, part courtroom soap opera, and part public debate over police, power, and justice. But behind the noise is a very real constitutional question: If a jury says you're not guilty, but doesn't say it in the “right” way, can the state still come after you again? We're about to find out. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #SupremeCourtAppeal Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read's Lawyers Take the Fight to the Supreme Court Jurors say she was not guilty—so why is Karen Read being retried for murder? With jury selection now underway for Karen Read's second trial in the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, her legal team is throwing a Hail Mary to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their argument? That retrying her on charges the jury allegedly already agreed she didn't commit violates her Fifth Amendment rights—specifically, protection against double jeopardy. It's a bold move, considering the original trial ended in a mistrial, not an acquittal. But here's where it gets messy: According to Read's attorneys, the jury didn't just stall out completely—they allegedly reached unanimous agreement that she was not guilty on two of the three charges, including the most serious: second-degree murder. The jury just never announced it in court. And that technicality could change everything. The defense says this silent consensus should still count as an acquittal. But because no formal verdict was read, Massachusetts courts have already ruled that her retrial is fair game. So now, her lawyers are asking the highest court in the land to intervene. The case stems from Read's 2022 arrest after O'Keefe's body was found in the snow outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts. Prosecutors say Read, allegedly drunk, hit him with her SUV and drove away, leaving him to die in the cold. She was initially charged with manslaughter, leaving the scene of an accident, and DUI. Later, the charge was bumped up to second-degree murder. Read has pleaded not guilty to all charges, and her defense team argues she's a scapegoat—framed by others connected to the case. During her first trial in 2024, jurors started deliberating on June 25. For nearly a week, they sent notes to the judge saying they were deadlocked. On July 1, with no end in sight, Judge Beverly Cannone declared a mistrial. No verdict was read. No charges were resolved. Or so it seemed. That's when the jurors started talking. The next day, Juror A reached out to Read's attorney, Alan Jackson, and said the panel had unanimously agreed she wasn't guilty of the murder charge. Then came Jurors B, C, and D, sharing similar statements—one even leaving a voicemail for prosecutors saying, “It was not guilty on second degree.” Texts from Juror B added, “No one thought she hit him on purpose or even knew that she had hit him.” So why does this matter? Because if true, it means a jury had decided she wasn't guilty of murder—and according to the Constitution, once you've been acquitted, the government doesn't get a second swing. But here, since no one ever said it out loud in court, the legal system treats it like it never happened. The defense argues that's a dangerous technicality. They say the judge should've asked the jury whether they had reached a verdict on any specific counts before sending them home. Without that, the system is effectively ignoring what the jury allegedly decided behind closed doors. If the Supreme Court agrees with Read's team, the second-degree murder and leaving-the-scene charges could be dropped. She'd still face manslaughter, but that's a whole different ballgame compared to a potential life sentence. In the meantime, jury selection for her second trial has begun, and, no surprise, dozens of potential jurors already have opinions about the case. Karen Read's name has become a lightning rod in Boston—part true crime obsession, part courtroom soap opera, and part public debate over police, power, and justice. But behind the noise is a very real constitutional question: If a jury says you're not guilty, but doesn't say it in the “right” way, can the state still come after you again? We're about to find out. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #SupremeCourtAppeal Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read's Lawyers Take the Fight to the Supreme Court Jurors say she was not guilty—so why is Karen Read being retried for murder? With jury selection now underway for Karen Read's second trial in the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, her legal team is throwing a Hail Mary to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their argument? That retrying her on charges the jury allegedly already agreed she didn't commit violates her Fifth Amendment rights—specifically, protection against double jeopardy. It's a bold move, considering the original trial ended in a mistrial, not an acquittal. But here's where it gets messy: According to Read's attorneys, the jury didn't just stall out completely—they allegedly reached unanimous agreement that she was not guilty on two of the three charges, including the most serious: second-degree murder. The jury just never announced it in court. And that technicality could change everything. The defense says this silent consensus should still count as an acquittal. But because no formal verdict was read, Massachusetts courts have already ruled that her retrial is fair game. So now, her lawyers are asking the highest court in the land to intervene. The case stems from Read's 2022 arrest after O'Keefe's body was found in the snow outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts. Prosecutors say Read, allegedly drunk, hit him with her SUV and drove away, leaving him to die in the cold. She was initially charged with manslaughter, leaving the scene of an accident, and DUI. Later, the charge was bumped up to second-degree murder. Read has pleaded not guilty to all charges, and her defense team argues she's a scapegoat—framed by others connected to the case. During her first trial in 2024, jurors started deliberating on June 25. For nearly a week, they sent notes to the judge saying they were deadlocked. On July 1, with no end in sight, Judge Beverly Cannone declared a mistrial. No verdict was read. No charges were resolved. Or so it seemed. That's when the jurors started talking. The next day, Juror A reached out to Read's attorney, Alan Jackson, and said the panel had unanimously agreed she wasn't guilty of the murder charge. Then came Jurors B, C, and D, sharing similar statements—one even leaving a voicemail for prosecutors saying, “It was not guilty on second degree.” Texts from Juror B added, “No one thought she hit him on purpose or even knew that she had hit him.” So why does this matter? Because if true, it means a jury had decided she wasn't guilty of murder—and according to the Constitution, once you've been acquitted, the government doesn't get a second swing. But here, since no one ever said it out loud in court, the legal system treats it like it never happened. The defense argues that's a dangerous technicality. They say the judge should've asked the jury whether they had reached a verdict on any specific counts before sending them home. Without that, the system is effectively ignoring what the jury allegedly decided behind closed doors. If the Supreme Court agrees with Read's team, the second-degree murder and leaving-the-scene charges could be dropped. She'd still face manslaughter, but that's a whole different ballgame compared to a potential life sentence. In the meantime, jury selection for her second trial has begun, and, no surprise, dozens of potential jurors already have opinions about the case. Karen Read's name has become a lightning rod in Boston—part true crime obsession, part courtroom soap opera, and part public debate over police, power, and justice. But behind the noise is a very real constitutional question: If a jury says you're not guilty, but doesn't say it in the “right” way, can the state still come after you again? We're about to find out. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #SupremeCourtAppeal Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read's Lawyers Take the Fight to the Supreme Court Jurors say she was not guilty—so why is Karen Read being retried for murder? With jury selection now underway for Karen Read's second trial in the death of Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe, her legal team is throwing a Hail Mary to the U.S. Supreme Court. Their argument? That retrying her on charges the jury allegedly already agreed she didn't commit violates her Fifth Amendment rights—specifically, protection against double jeopardy. It's a bold move, considering the original trial ended in a mistrial, not an acquittal. But here's where it gets messy: According to Read's attorneys, the jury didn't just stall out completely—they allegedly reached unanimous agreement that she was not guilty on two of the three charges, including the most serious: second-degree murder. The jury just never announced it in court. And that technicality could change everything. The defense says this silent consensus should still count as an acquittal. But because no formal verdict was read, Massachusetts courts have already ruled that her retrial is fair game. So now, her lawyers are asking the highest court in the land to intervene. The case stems from Read's 2022 arrest after O'Keefe's body was found in the snow outside a home in Canton, Massachusetts. Prosecutors say Read, allegedly drunk, hit him with her SUV and drove away, leaving him to die in the cold. She was initially charged with manslaughter, leaving the scene of an accident, and DUI. Later, the charge was bumped up to second-degree murder. Read has pleaded not guilty to all charges, and her defense team argues she's a scapegoat—framed by others connected to the case. During her first trial in 2024, jurors started deliberating on June 25. For nearly a week, they sent notes to the judge saying they were deadlocked. On July 1, with no end in sight, Judge Beverly Cannone declared a mistrial. No verdict was read. No charges were resolved. Or so it seemed. That's when the jurors started talking. The next day, Juror A reached out to Read's attorney, Alan Jackson, and said the panel had unanimously agreed she wasn't guilty of the murder charge. Then came Jurors B, C, and D, sharing similar statements—one even leaving a voicemail for prosecutors saying, “It was not guilty on second degree.” Texts from Juror B added, “No one thought she hit him on purpose or even knew that she had hit him.” So why does this matter? Because if true, it means a jury had decided she wasn't guilty of murder—and according to the Constitution, once you've been acquitted, the government doesn't get a second swing. But here, since no one ever said it out loud in court, the legal system treats it like it never happened. The defense argues that's a dangerous technicality. They say the judge should've asked the jury whether they had reached a verdict on any specific counts before sending them home. Without that, the system is effectively ignoring what the jury allegedly decided behind closed doors. If the Supreme Court agrees with Read's team, the second-degree murder and leaving-the-scene charges could be dropped. She'd still face manslaughter, but that's a whole different ballgame compared to a potential life sentence. In the meantime, jury selection for her second trial has begun, and, no surprise, dozens of potential jurors already have opinions about the case. Karen Read's name has become a lightning rod in Boston—part true crime obsession, part courtroom soap opera, and part public debate over police, power, and justice. But behind the noise is a very real constitutional question: If a jury says you're not guilty, but doesn't say it in the “right” way, can the state still come after you again? We're about to find out. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #SupremeCourtAppeal Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read's high-profile retrial just took a dramatic constitutional turn. In this episode, we break down the emergency petition her legal team filed with the U.S. Supreme Court—arguing that retrying her violates the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. While jury selection was already underway in Dedham, Massachusetts, her attorneys went to the nation's highest court claiming that the first jury had already reached a unanimous—but unannounced—“not guilty” verdict on two of the three charges. Now they're asking the Court to intervene. We walk you through exactly what's in the petition, why her legal team believes her retrial is unconstitutional, and how courts in Massachusetts and the federal system have responded so far. This isn't just a legal technicality—it's a strategic, last-ditch effort to stop the trial in its tracks. From the original mistrial to the court rulings that rejected her double jeopardy claims, we trace every step of the legal fight that led to this extraordinary moment. Finally, we explore what happens next. Will the Supreme Court take the case? What are the chances they'll intervene mid-trial? Could this reshape how mistrials and jury deliberations are handled across the country? Whether you're following the Karen Read trial daily or just tuning in, this episode gives you a deep, clear, and fact-driven look into one of the most pivotal legal battles unfolding right now. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read's high-profile retrial just took a dramatic constitutional turn. In this episode, we break down the emergency petition her legal team filed with the U.S. Supreme Court—arguing that retrying her violates the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. While jury selection was already underway in Dedham, Massachusetts, her attorneys went to the nation's highest court claiming that the first jury had already reached a unanimous—but unannounced—“not guilty” verdict on two of the three charges. Now they're asking the Court to intervene. We walk you through exactly what's in the petition, why her legal team believes her retrial is unconstitutional, and how courts in Massachusetts and the federal system have responded so far. This isn't just a legal technicality—it's a strategic, last-ditch effort to stop the trial in its tracks. From the original mistrial to the court rulings that rejected her double jeopardy claims, we trace every step of the legal fight that led to this extraordinary moment. Finally, we explore what happens next. Will the Supreme Court take the case? What are the chances they'll intervene mid-trial? Could this reshape how mistrials and jury deliberations are handled across the country? Whether you're following the Karen Read trial daily or just tuning in, this episode gives you a deep, clear, and fact-driven look into one of the most pivotal legal battles unfolding right now. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Karen Read's high-profile retrial just took a dramatic constitutional turn. In this episode, we break down the emergency petition her legal team filed with the U.S. Supreme Court—arguing that retrying her violates the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. While jury selection was already underway in Dedham, Massachusetts, her attorneys went to the nation's highest court claiming that the first jury had already reached a unanimous—but unannounced—“not guilty” verdict on two of the three charges. Now they're asking the Court to intervene. We walk you through exactly what's in the petition, why her legal team believes her retrial is unconstitutional, and how courts in Massachusetts and the federal system have responded so far. This isn't just a legal technicality—it's a strategic, last-ditch effort to stop the trial in its tracks. From the original mistrial to the court rulings that rejected her double jeopardy claims, we trace every step of the legal fight that led to this extraordinary moment. Finally, we explore what happens next. Will the Supreme Court take the case? What are the chances they'll intervene mid-trial? Could this reshape how mistrials and jury deliberations are handled across the country? Whether you're following the Karen Read trial daily or just tuning in, this episode gives you a deep, clear, and fact-driven look into one of the most pivotal legal battles unfolding right now. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

We are finally seeing an action brought against radical federal judges that I've been urging for weeks—efforts to remove judges who are in violation of their Constitutional duty to serve only during good Behavior, as required by Article III Section 1 of the Constitution. But is this avenue being pursued effectively? Not as effectively as I'd like.Also, we're all taught that we have a Fifth Amendment right to silence, but most are unaware of just how limited that right to silence is, and how readily your silence CAN be used against you in a court of law. I'll cover this treacherous legal ground in the context of a new decision out of the Arizona Supreme court, as well as a controlling US Supreme Court decision that applies to all 50 states. 

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss President Trump's Executive Orders that target major law firms (such as WilmerHale and Jenner & Block). The orders target the firms for retaliation based largely on their past support of various left-wing legal causes. Do those Orders violate the firms' (and their clients') Free Speech Clause or Petition Clause rights? Might they also violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (in civil cases) and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (in criminal cases)? Recorded on March 31, 2025.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment. You have the right to remain silent when you're being questioned in police custody, thanks to the Fifth's protection against self-incrimination. But most people end up talking to police anyway. Why? Today on Throughline's We the People: the Fifth Amendment, the right to remain silent, and how hard it can be to use it.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

In this segment, attorney Jeremy Rosenthal joins Marc to break down two important legal issues making waves today. First, they discuss the invocation of national security privilege by the executive branch in deportation cases, specifically focusing on how the President's authority to deport criminal illegal aliens is being challenged in court. Jeremy provides a clear explanation of how legal privileges work, including the Fifth Amendment privilege and national security privilege, and how federal judges play a key role in determining their application. The conversation then shifts to a case concerning digital property rights. Jeremy talks about a mother fighting Facebook over her deceased son's account, which Facebook shut down despite her request to keep it open. Jeremy highlights the growing issue of how digital property should be treated after a person passes away and why it's important for legislation to catch up with modern technology to ensure digital assets can be properly managed after death.

In this episode of Welcome to Cloudlandia, we reflect on how places, people, and experiences shape our perspectives. The conversation begins with casual observations, from warm weather making transitions easier to memorable encounters like “Spam Man,” a mysterious figure spotted at the Hazleton Hotel. We also explore the impact of changing landscapes, both physical and cultural. From real estate in Toronto to how cities evolve, we discuss how development can shape or diminish the character of a place. This leads to a broader conversation about timeless architecture, like Toronto's Harris Filtration Plant, and how thoughtful design contributes to a city's identity. Technology's role in daily life also comes up, especially how smartphones dominate attention. A simple observation of people walking through Yorkville reveals how deeply connected we are to our screens, often at the expense of real-world engagement. We contrast this with the idea that some things, like human connection and cooperation, remain unchanged even as technology advances. The discussion closes with thoughts on long-term impact—what lasts and fades over time. Whether it's historic buildings, enduring habits, or fundamental human behaviors, the conversation emphasizes that while trends come and go, specific principles and ways of thinking remain relevant across generations. SHOW HIGHLIGHTS In Phoenix, during a rooftop party, we witnessed a surprise appearance of a SpaceX rocket, which sparked our discussion on extraordinary events blending with everyday life. We explored the curious case of "Spam man," a local legend in Hazleton, whose mysterious persona intrigued us as much as any UFO sighting. We shared our fascination with the dynamic real estate landscape in Hazleton, discussing new constructions and their impact on scenic views. Our conversation touched on unique weather patterns at the beaches near the lake, emphasizing the influence of water temperatures on seasonal climate variations. We delved into the topic of warmer winters, reflecting on how both humans and nature adapt to milder temperatures, particularly during February 2024. Our discussion included insights from Morgan Housel's book, which inspired our reflections on nature's resilience and adaptation over millions of years. We highlighted local activities like windsurfing and kite skiing, noting the favorable wind conditions at the beaches, a rarity in Canada's cold-weather climate. Links: WelcomeToCloudlandia.com StrategicCoach.com DeanJackson.com ListingAgentLifestyle.com TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Dean: Mr Sullivan. Dan: Mr Jackson. I hope you behaved when you were out of my sight. Dean: I did. I'll have to tell you something. I can't tell you how much I appreciate the arrangement of this warm weather. For me, it's made the transition much more palatable warm weather. Dan: for me it's made the transition much more palatable. Dean: I mean our backstage team is really getting good at this sort of thing, and you know when we were in. Dan: we were in Phoenix a couple of weeks ago and we had a rooftop party and right in the middle of the party we arranged for Elon Musk to send one of his rockets out. Dean: I saw that a satellite launch yeah. Dan: Yeah, can you imagine that guy and how busy he is? But just you know, just to handle our request he just ended up with, yeah, must be some money involved with that. Dean: Well, that's what happens, Dan. We have a positive attitude on the new budget. Dan: Yeah, and you think in terms of unique ability, collaboration, you know, breakthroughs free zone you know, all that stuff, it's all. Dean: it's the future. Dan: Yeah. So good Well he sent the rocket up and they're rescuing the astronauts today. Dean: Oh, is that right? How long has it been now since they've been? Dan: It's been a long time seven, eight months, I think, Uh-huh, yeah and Boeing couldn't get them down. Boeing sent them up, but they couldn't get them down. You know, which is only half the job, really. Dean: That was in the Seinfeld episode about taking the reservation and holding the reservation. Yeah. They can take the reservation. They just can't hold the reservation yeah. Dan: It's like back really the integral part. Back during the moonshot, they thought that the Russians were going to be first to the moon. Kennedy made his famous speech. You know we're going to put a man on and they thought the Russians, right off the bat, would beat him, because Kennedy said we'll bring him back safely and the Russians didn't include that in their prediction. That's funny. Dean: We had that. We're all abuzz with excitement over here at the Hazleton. There's a funny thing that happened. It started last summer that Chad Jenkins Krista Smith-Klein is that her name yeah, yeah. So we were sitting in the lobby one night at the Hazleton here and this guy came down from the residences into the lobby. It was talking to the concierge but he had this Einstein-like hair and blue spam t-shirts that's, you know, like the can spam thing on it and pink, pink shorts and he was, you know, talking to the concierge. And then he went. Then he went back upstairs and this left such an impression on us that we have been, you know, lovingly referring to him as Spam man since the summer, and we've been every time here on alert, on watch, because we have to meet and get to know Spam man, because there's got to be a story behind a guy like that in a place like this. And so this morning I had coffee with Chad and then Chad was going to get a massage and as he walked into the spa he saw Spamman and he met him and he took a picture, a selfie, with him and texted it. But I haven't that. His massage was at 10 o'clock, so all I have is the picture and the fact that he met Spamman, but I haven't that. His massage was at 10 o'clock, so all I have is the picture and the fact that he met Spam man, but I don't have the story yet. But it's just fascinating to me that this. I want to hear the story and know this guy now. I often wonder how funny that would appear to him. That made such an impression on us last summer that every time we've been at the Hazleton we've been sitting in the lobby on Spam man. Watch, so funny. I'll tell you the story tomorrow. I'll get to the bottom of it. Dan: It's almost like UFO watchers. They think they saw it once and they keep going back to the same place you know hoping that'll happen again, yeah. Dean: Is there a? Dan: spot. Is there a spot at the Hazleton? Dean: There is yeah. Dan: Oh, I didn't know that. Dean: So there's some eclectic people that live here, like seeing just the regulars or whatever that I see coming in and out of the of the residence because it shares. Dan: There's a lot, you know, yeah that's a that's pretty expensive real estate. Actually, the hazelton, yeah for sure, especially if you get the rooftop one, although they've destroyed I I think you were telling me they've destroyed the value of the rooftop because now they're building 40-story buildings to block off the view. Dean: I mean that's crazy. Right Right next door. Yeah, yeah, but there you go. How are things in the beaches as well? Dan: Yeah. You know it's interesting because we're so close to the lake it's cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter, you know. Dean: Oh, okay. Dan: You know, because controlled by water temperatures. Dean: Water temperatures. Dan: Yes, exactly, I mean even you know, even if it's cold, you know the water temperature is maybe 65, 66. Dean: Fahrenheit, you know it's not frigid. Dan: It's not frigid. Dean: They have wintertime plungers down here people who go in you know during the winter yeah, but this is that you and babs aren't members of the polar bear club that would not be us um but anyway, uh, they do a lot of uh windsurfing. Dan: There's at the far end of our beach going uh towards the city. They have really great wind conditions there. You see the kite skiers. They have kites and they go in the air. It's quite a known spot here. I mean, canada doesn't have too much of this because we're such a cold-weather country. There isn't the water, it's pretty cold even during the summertime yeah exactly yeah, but the lake doesn't freeze, that's oh, it does, it does yeah, yeah we've had, we've had winters, where it goes out, you know, goes out a quarter mile it'll be. Dean: I didn't realize that Wow. Dan: Yeah, yeah, yeah, but not this winter. It never froze over this winter, but we have, you know, within the last two or three winters, we've had ice on the. We've had ice, you know, for part of the winter. Dean: It's funny to me, dan, to see this. Like you know, it's going gonna be 59 degrees today, so, yeah, it's funny to me to see people you know out wearing shorts and like, but it must be like a, you know, a heat wave. Compared to what? You had in the first half of march here, right, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah yeah, so that's good. Dan: Yeah, last February not this past month, but February of 2024, we had 10 days in February where it was over 70. Dean: And. Dan: I often wonder if the trees get pulled, the plants get pulled. Dean: It triggers them to like hey, oh my. Dan: God. But apparently temperature is just one of the factors that govern their behavior. The other one is the angle of the light. Dean: And that doesn't change the angle of the sunlight. Dan: Yeah, so they. You know I mean things work themselves out over millions of years. So you know there's, you know they probably have all sorts of indicators and you have 10 boxes to check and if only one of them is checked, that doesn't, it doesn't fool them. You know they have a lot of things that I sent you and I don't know if we ever discussed it or you picked it up after I recommended it was Morgan Housel, famous ever. Dean: Did you like that? Did you like that? Dan: book. I did, I loved. It was Morgan Housel famous ever. Did you like that? Did you like that book? Dean: I did, I loved it. I mean it was really like, and I think ever you know, very, very interesting to me because of what I've been doing, you know the last little while, as I described, reading back over you know 29 years of journals, picking random things and seeing so much of what, so much of what, the themes that go that time feels the last. You know 30 years has gone by so fast that I, when I'm reading in that journal, I can remember exactly like where I was and I can remember the time because I would date and place them each journal entry. So I know where I was when I'm writing them. But I thought that was a really, I thought it was a really interesting book. What stood out for you from? Dan: Yeah, I think the biggest thing is that really great things take a long time to create. Dean: Yeah. Dan: Because they have to be tested against all sorts of changing conditions and if they get stronger, it's like you know they're going to last for a long time. Dean: And. Dan: I'm struck by it because the book, the little book that I'm writing for the quarter, is called the Bill of Rights Economy and the Bill of Rights really started with the United States. It was December 15th 1791. So that's when, I think, washington was just inaugurated at that time as the first president. But, how durable they are, and you can read the newspaper every day of things going on in Washington and you can just check off the first 10 amendments. This is a Fifth Amendment issue. This is a second amendment you know and everything like that, and it's just how much they created such a durable framework for a country. They were about 3 million people at that time and now there are 300 and whatever probably upwards of 350 million. And basically, the country runs essentially according to those first 10 amendments and then the articles which say how the machinery of government actually operates. And it's by far the longest continuous governing system in the world. That's really interesting. But that's why you know I really like things that you know, that you know that have stood the test of time. I like having my life based on things that have stood the test of time. And then I've got, you know, I've got some really good habits which I've developed over the last 50 years of coaching. Got, you know, I've got some really good habits which I've developed over the last 50 years of coaching and you know they work. You know I don't fool around with things that work. Yeah Well, I want to bring in something. I really am more and more struck how there's a word that's used in the high technology field because I was just at Abundance 360. And it's the word disruption and it's seen as a good thing, and I don't see disruption as good. I don't really see it as a good thing. I see it as something that might happen as a result of a new thing, but I don't think the disruption is a good thing. Dean: Yeah, it feels like it's not. It seems like the opposite of collaboration. Yeah, it really is. It feels like the negative. You know the I forget who said it, but you know the two ways they have the biggest building. Dan: I really mean Chucky movie. Dean: Yeah, there was somebody said the two ways to have the biggest building in town, the tallest building is to build the tallest building or to tear down all the other buildings that are taller than yours, and that's what disruption feels like to see in the real estate industry is always one that is, you know, set up as the big fat cat ready for disruption. And people have tried and tried to disrupt the real estate industry and, you know, I came away from the first, the first abundance 360, realizing that, you know, perhaps the thing that same makes real estate possible is that you can't digitize the last hundred feet of a real estate transaction. You know, and I think that there are certain industries, certain things that we are, that there's a human element to things. Dan: That is very yeah, yeah, I mean, it's really interesting just to switch on to that subject. On the real, estate. If you take Silicon Valley, Hollywood and Wall Street, who are the richest people in the area Silicon? Dean: Valley. Dan: Hollywood and Wall Street. Who are the richest people in the area? Dean: Silicon Valley Hollywood and Wall Street. Dan: Who are the real money makers? Dean: Yeah, Wall Street. Dan: No, the real estate developers. Dean: Oh, I see, oh, the real estate developers. Oh yeah, yeah, that's true, right, that's true. Dan: I don't care what you've invented or what your activity is. I'll tell you the people who really make the money are the people who are into real estate. Dean: Yeah, you can't digitize it, that's for sure. Dan: Well, I think the answer is in the word. It's real. Dean: What was that site, dan, that you were talking about? That was is it real? Or is it Bach or whatever? Or is it Guy or whatever? What was? Or is it AI or Bach? Dan: Well, no, I was. Yeah, I was watching. It was a little, you know, it was on YouTube and it was Bach versus AI. Dean: So what they've? Dan: done. You know you can identify the. You know the building components that Bach uses to you know to write his music and then you know you can take it apart and you know you can say do a little bit of this, do a little bit of this, do a little bit of this. And then what they have? They play two pieces. They play an actual piece by Bach and then they play another piece which is Bach-like you know, and there were six of them. And there was a of them and there was a host on the show and he's a musician, and whether he was responding realistically or whether he was sort of faking it, he would say boy, I can't really tell that one, but I guessed on all six of them and I guessed I guessed right. Dean: I know there was just something about the real Bach and I think I think it was emotional more than you know that could be the mirror neurons that you know you can sense the transfer of emotion through that music, you know. Dan: Yeah, and I listen to Bach a lot I still get surprised by something he's got these amazing chord changes you know, and what he does. And my sense is, as we enter more and more into the AI world, our you know, our perceptions and our sensitivities are going to heighten to say is that the real deal or not? Dean: you know yeah sensitivities are going to heighten to say is that the real deal or not? You know, and yeah, that's what you know, jerry Spence, I think I mentioned. Dan: Jerry Spence about that that Jerry Spence said. Dean: our psychic tentacles are in the background measuring everything for authenticity, and they can detect the thin clank of the counterfeit. Yeah, and I think that's no matter what. You can always tell exactly. I mean, you can tell the things that are digitized. It's getting more and more realistic, though, in terms of the voice things for AI. I'm seeing more and more of those voice caller showing up in my news feed, and we were talking about Chris Johnson. Chris Johnson, yeah, yeah, chris Johnson. Dan: This is really good because he's really fine-tuned it to. First of all, it's a constantly changing voice. That's the one thing I noticed. The second version, first version, not so much, but I've heard two versions of the caller. And what I noticed is, almost every time she talks, there's a little bit of difference to the tone. There's a little bit, you know, and she's in a conversation. Dean: Is it mirroring kind of thing, Like is it adapting to the voice on the other end? Dan: Yeah, I think there's. I certainly think there's some of that. And that is part of what we check out as being legitimate or not, because you know that it wouldn't be the same, because there's meaning. You know meaning different meaning, different voice, if you're talking to an actual individual who's not you know, who's not real monotonic. But yeah, the big thing about this is that I think we get smarter. I was talking, we were on a trip to Israel and we were talking in this one kibbutz up near the Sea of Galilee and these people had been in and then they were forced out. In 2005, I think it was, the Israeli government decided to give the Gaza territory back to the Palestinians. But it was announced about six months before it happened and things changed right away. The danger kicked up. There was violence and you know, kicked up. And I was talking to them. You know how can you send your kids out? You know, just out on their own. And they said, oh, first thing that they learned. You know he said three, four or five years old. They can spot danger in people. You know, if they see someone, they can spot danger with it. And I said boy oh boy, you know, it just shows you the, under certain conditions, people's awareness and their alertness kicks up enormously. They can take things into account that you went here in Toronto, for example. You know, you know, you know that's wild. Dean: Yeah, this whole, I mean, I think in Toronto. Dan: The only thing you'd really notice is who's offering the biggest pizza at the lowest price. Dean: Oh, that's so funny. There's some qualitative element around that too. It's so funny. You think about the things that are. I definitely see this Cloudlandia-enhan. You know that's really what the main thing is, but you think about how much of what's going on. We're definitely living in Cloudlandia. I sat last night, dan, I was in the lobby and I was writing in my journal, and I just went outside for a little bit and I sat on one of the benches in the in front of the park. Oh yeah, in front of the hotel and it was a beautiful night. Dan: Like I mean temperature was? Dean: yeah, it was beautiful. So I'm sitting out there, you know, on a Saturday night in Yorkville and I'm looking at March. I'm just yeah, I'm just watching, and I left my phone. I'm making a real concerted effort to detach from my oxygen tank as much as I can. Right, and my call, that's what I've been calling my iPhone right, because we are definitely connected to it. And I just sat there without my phone and I was watching people, like head up, looking and observing, and I got to. I just thought to myself I'm going to count, I'm going to, I'm going to observe the next 50 people that walk by and I'm going to see how many of them are glued to their phone and how many have no visible phone in sight, and so do you. Dan: What was it? Nine out of 10? Dean: Yeah, it wasn't even that. Yeah, that's exactly what it was. It was 46, but it wasn't even 10. Yeah, it was real. That's exactly what it was. It was 46. Dan: It wasn't even 10%, it was 19. It wasn't even no, it was 19 out of 20. Dean: Yeah, I mean, isn't that something, dan? Like it was and I'm talking like some of them were just like, literally, you know, immersed in their phone, but their body was walking, yeah, and the others, but their body was walking. But it's interesting too. Dan: If you had encountered me. I think my phone is at home and I know it's not charged up. Dean: Yeah, it's really something, dan, that was an eye-opener to me. It's really something, dan, that was an eye-opener to me, and the interesting thing was that the four that weren't on the phone were couples, so there were two people, but of the individuals, it was 100% of. The individuals walking were attached to their phones. Dan: Yeah. Dean: And I think that's where we're at right now. Dan: No, yeah, I don't know, it's just that. Dean: No, I'm saying that's observation. Dan: It's like Well, that's where we are, in Yorkville, in front of Okay, right, right, right yeah. No, it's just that I find Yorkville is a peculiarly Are you saying it's an outlier? It's not so much of an outlier but it's probably the least connected group of people in Toronto would be in Yorkville because they'd be out for the. They don't live there. You know most don't live there, they're and they're somewhere. There's probably the highest level of strangers you know, on any given night in toronto would probably be in yorkville I think it's sort of outliers sort of situation. I mean, I mean, if you came to the beaches on a yeah last night, the vast majority of people would be chatting with each other and talking with each other. They would be on their phones. I think think it's just a. It's probably the most what I would call cosmopolitan part of Toronto, in other words it's the part of Toronto that has the least to do with Toronto. Dean: Okay. Dan: It's trying to be New York, yorkville is trying to be. Dean: New York. Dan: Yeah, it's the Toronto Life magazine version of Toronto. Dean: Yeah, you idealize the avatar of Toronto, right yeah? Dan: In Toronto Life. They always say Toronto is a world-class city and I said no. I said, london's a world-class city. Dean: New. Dan: York is a world-class city. Tokyo is a world-class city. You know how, you know they're a world class city. Dean: They don't have to call themselves a world class city. Dan: They don't call themselves a world class city. They just are If you say you're a world class city. It's proof that you're not a world class city. Dean: That's funny. Yeah, I'll tell you what I think. I've told you what really brought that home for me was at the Four Seasons in London at Trinity Square, and Qatar TV and all these Arab the Emirates TV, all these things, just to see how many other cultures there are in the world. I mean, london is definitely a global crossroads, for sure. Dan: Yeah yeah. And that's what makes something the center, and that is made up of a thousand different little non-reproducible vectors. You know just, you know, just, you know. It's just that's why I like London so much. I just like London. It's just a great wandering city. You just come out of the hotel, walk out in any direction. Guarantee you, in seven minutes you're lost you have the foggiest idea where you are and you're seeing something new that you'd never seen before. And it's 25, the year 1625. Dean: I remember you and I walking through London 10 years ago, wandering through for a long time and coming to one of these great bookstores. You know, yeah, but you're right, like the winding in some of the back streets, and that was a great time. Yeah, you can't really wander and wander and wander. Dan: Yeah, it was a city designed by cows on the way home, right, exactly. Yeah, you can't really wander and wander and wander. Dean: Yeah, it was a city designed by cows on the way home, Right exactly. Dan: Yeah, it's really interesting. You know, that brings up a subject why virtual reality hasn't taken off, and I've been thinking about that because the buzz, you know how long ago was it? You would say seven years ago, seven, eight years ago everything's going to be virtual reality. Would that be about right? Oh, yeah, yeah. Dean: That was when virtual reality was in the lead. Remember then the goggles, the Oculus, yeah, yeah, that was what, yeah, pre-covid, so probably seven years ago 17, 17. And it's kind of disappeared, hasn't it compared to you know? Dan: why it doesn't have enough variety in it. And this relates back to the beginning of our conversation today. How do you know whether it's fake or not and we were talking on the subject of London that on any block, what's on that block was created by 10,000 different people over 500 years and there's just a minute kind of uniqueness about so much of what goes on there when you have the virtual reality. Let's say they create a London scene, but it'll be maybe a team of five people who put it together. And it's got a sameness to it. It's got, you know, oh definitely. Dean: That's where you see in the architecture like I don't. You know, one of the things I always look forward to is on the journey from here to strategic coach. So tomorrow, when we ride down University through Queen's Park and the old University of Toronto and all those old buildings there that are just so beautiful Stone buildings the architecture is stunning. Nobody's building anything like that now. No, like none of the buildings that you see have any soul or are going to be remembered well and they're not designed. Dan: They're not really designed to last more than 50 years. I have a architect. Well, you know richard hamlin he says that those, the newest skyscrapers you see in Toronto, isn't designed to last more than 50 years. You know, and, and you know, it's all utilitarian, everything is utilitarian, but there's no emphasis on beauty, you know. There's no emphasis on attractiveness. There's a few but not many. Attractiveness there's a few but not many. And, as a matter of fact, my favorite building in Toronto is about six blocks further down the lake from us, right here. It's called the Harris Filtration Plant. Dean: Oh yeah, we've walked by there, right at the end of the building. Dan: Built in 19, I think they finished in 1936. Dean: Yeah. Dan: And it's just an amazing building. I mean it's on three levels, they have three different buildings and it goes up a hill and it's where the water. You know, at that time it was all the water in Toronto that came out of the lake and they have 17 different process. You know the steps. And you go in there and there's no humans in there, it's all machinery. You can just hear the buzz and that's the water being filtered. It's about a quarter of the city now comes through that building. But it's just an absolutely gorgeous building and they spared no cost on it. And the man who built it, harris, he was the city manager. They had a position back there. It was city manager and it was basically the bureaucrat who got things done, and he also built the bridge across the Down Valley on Bloor. Dean: Yeah, beautiful bridge Right. Dan: He built that bridge and he was uneducated. He had no education, had no training, but he was just a go-getter. He was also in charge of the water system and the transportation system. And you know he put in the first streetcars and everything like that, probably the greatest bureaucrat toronto ever had, you know in the history of toronto this is the finest what year is that building from? yeah, the filtration plant was started in 29 and it was finished in 36 and wow they yeah, they had to rip out a whole section. It was actually partially woods, partially, I think, you know they had everything there, but they decided that would be the best place to bring it in there. Dean: You know it's got a lot more than 100 years. Dan: Yeah, but it's the finest building it's it's rated as one of the top 10 government buildings in north america yeah, it's beautiful. Dean: And that bridge I mean that bridge in the Don Valley is beautiful too. Dan: Yeah, it was really interesting. He put the bridge in and the bridge was put in probably in the 30s too. I mean that was vital because the valley really kept one part of Toronto apart from the other part of Toronto. It was hard to get from one part of Toronto apart from the other part of Toronto. You know, it's hard to get from one part of Toronto to the next. And so they put that bridge in, and that was about in the 30s and then in the no, I think it was in the 20s, they put that in 1920, so 100 years. And in the 1950s they decided to put in their first subway system. So they had Yonge Street and so Yonge Street north, and then they had Buller and Danforth. So they budgeted that they were going to really have to retrofit the bridge. And when they got it and they took all the dimensions, he had already anticipated that they were going to put a subway in. So it was all correct. And so anyway, he saw he had 30 or 40 years that they were going to put up. They would have to put a subway in. So it was all correct and yeah and so anyway he saw I had 30 or 40 years that they were going to put up. They would have to put, they're going to put the subway and it had to go through the bridge and so so they didn't have to retrofit it at all. Yeah, pretty cool. Dean: What do you think we're doing now? That's going to be remembered in 100 years or it's going to be impacted in 100 years? Dan: Well, we're not going backwards with technology, so any technology we have today we'll have 100 years from now. So you know, I mean I think the you know. Well, you just asked a question that explains why I'm not in the stock market. Dean: Exactly. Warren Buffett can't predict what's going to happen. We can't even tell what's going to change in the next five years. Dan: I don't know what's going to happen next year. I don't know what's going to happen next year. Dean: Isn't it interesting? I think a lot of the things that we're at could see, see the path to improvement or expansion, like when the railroad came in. You know it's interesting that you could see that that was we. You know, part of it was, you know, filling the territory, connecting the territory with all the, with all this stuff, and you could see that happening. But even now, you know, this is why warren buffett, you know, again with the, probably one of the largest owners of railroad things in the states, him, yeah, and because that's not changed in 200, yeah, or whatever, 150 years anyway, yeah, yeah, yeah, most of the country probably, you know, 150 years at least. Yeah, and so all of that, all those things, and even in the first half of the 1900s, you know all the big change stuff, yeah, yeah. Dan: Yeah. Dean: So it's funny because it's like I can't even see what categories are the biggest. Dan: Well, I think they'll be more intangibles than tangibles. For example, I think all my tools work 100 years from now. Yeah, I think all my thinking tools work 100 years from now. Dean: Well, because our brains will still be the same in 100 years. Yeah, all that interaction, right, the human behavior stuff. Dan: yeah, yeah yeah I don't think human behavior, um I think it's really durable you know, and that it's very interesting, um, and there was a phrase being used at Abundance that was used about four or five times during the two days that we were becoming godlike, and I said, no, I don't think so. Dean: I guess are they saying in that we can do things because of technology, we can do things. Dan: And I said nah, it's just the next. It's just the next new thing. You know that we've created, but human nature is, you know, there's a scientist, Joe Henrich, and a really bright guy. He's written a book you might be interested in. It's called the Secret of Our Success. And he was just exploring why humans, of all the species on the planet, became the dominant species. And you wouldn't have predicted it. Because we're not very fast, we're not very strong, we don't climb particularly well, we don't swim particularly well, we can't fly and everything like that. So you know, compared with a lot of the other species. But he said that somewhere along the line he buys into the normal thing that we came from ape-like species before we were human. But he says at one point there was a crossover and that one ape was looking at another ape. And he says he does things differently than I. I do. If I can work out a deal with him, he can do this while I'm doing that and we're twice as well. Dean: I was calling that. Dan: I've been calling that the cooperation game but that's really and that's playing that and we're the only species that can continually invent new ways to do that, and I mean every most. You know higher level. And mammals anyway can cooperate. You know they cooperate with each other. They know a friend from anatomy and they know how to get together. But they don't know too much more at the end of their life than they knew at the beginning of their life. You know in other words. They pretty well had it down by the time they were one year old and they didn't invent new ways of cooperating really. But humans do this on a daily basis. Humans will invent new ways of cooperating from morning till night. And he says that's the reason we just have this infinite ability to cooperate in new ways. And he says that's the reason we just have this infinite ability to cooperate in new ways. And he says that's why we're the top species. The other thing is we're the only species that take care of other species. We're the only species that study and document other species. We're the only species that actually create new species. You know put this together with that and we get something. Yeah, yeah and so, so, so, anyway, and so that's where you begin the. You know if you're talking about sameness. What do we know 100 years from now? Dean: What we know over the 100 years is that humans will have found almost countless new ways to cooperate with each other yeah, I think that that's, and but the access to right, the access to, that's why I think these, the access to capabilities, as a, you know, commodity I'm not saying commodity in a, you know, I'm not trying to like lower the status of ability, but to emphasize the tradability of it. You know that it's something that is a known quantity you know yeah. Dan: But my sense is that the relative comparison, that one person, let's say you take 10 people. Let's take 100 people that the percentage of them that could cooperate with each other at high levels, I believe isn't any different in 2024 than it was in 1924. If you take 100 people. Some have very high levels to cooperate with each other and they do, and the vast majority of them very limited amount to cooperate with each other, but are you talking about. Dean: That comes down, then, to the ability to be versus capability. That they have the capability. Dan: Yeah, they have the capability, but they don't individually have the ability. Dean: Right. Dan: Yeah, and I don't think the percentage changes. Dean: Yeah, that's why this whole, that's why we're I think you know, the environment that we're creating in FreeZone is an ecosystem of people who are, who get this. Dan: Yeah, well, I don't think they, yeah, I don't think they became collaborative because they were in free zone. I think they were collaborative, looking for a better place to do it. Dean: Yes, yeah, it's almost like it's almost so, just with the technologies. Now, the one thing that has improved so much is the ability to seamlessly integrate with other people, with other collaborators. Dan: Yeah, now you're talking about the piano, you're not talking about the musicians, that's exactly right, but I think there really was something to that right. It's a good distinction. Dean: It's a really good distinction that you've created. Yeah, I should say yesterday at lunch you and I were talking about that I don't know that we've talked about it on the podcast here the difference, the distinction that we've discovered between capability and ability. And so I was looking at, in that, the capability column of the VCR formula, vision, capability, reach that in the capability column I was realizing the distinction between the base of something and the example that I gave was if you have a piano or a certain piece of equipment or a computer or a camera or whatever it is. We have a piano, you have the capability to be a concert pianist, but without the ability to do it. You know that. You're that that's the difference, and I think that everybody has access to the capabilities and who, not how, brings us in to contact with the who's right, who are masters at the capabilities? Dan: Yeah, you're talking about in. You know the sort of society that we live in. Yes, Because you know there's you know there's, you know easily, probably 15% of the world that doesn't have access to electricity. Dean: Yes exactly. Dan: I mean, they don't have the capability, you know, they just don't have yeah, yeah and yeah, it's a very, very unequal world, but I think there's a real breakthrough thinking that you're doing here. The fact that there's capability says nothing about an individual's ability. Dean: Right, that's exactly it. Yeah, and I think this is a very important idea, but I'm not going to write a book on it. Oh, my goodness, this is example, a right, I had the capability, with the idea of the capability and ability. Yeah, yeah, I didn't have the ability. Yeah, I've heard, do you know, the comedian Ron White? Dan: Yeah, I have the capability to write a book and I have the ability to write a book, but I'm not going to do either. Dean: So he talked about getting arrested outside of a bar and he said I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability that's pretty funny, right. But yeah, this is really like it's exciting. It's exciting times right now. I mean it really is exciting times to even projecting for the next, the next 30 years. I think I see that the through line, you know, is that you know that a brunch at the four seasons is going to be an appealing thing 30 years from now, as it is now and was 30 years ago, or three line stuff, or yeah, or some such hotel in toronto yes exactly right. Dan: Right, it may not be. Yeah, I think the four seasons, I think is pretty durable. And the reason is they don't own any of their property. Dean: You know and I think that's. Dan: They have 130 hotels now. I'm quite friendly with the general manager of the Nashville Four Seasons because we're there every quarter Four Seasons because we're there every quarter and you know it's difficult being one of their managers. I think because you have two bosses, you have the Four. Seasons organization but you also have the investor, who owns the property, and so they don't own any of their own property. That's all owned by investors. Dean: Right. Dan: Yeah. Dean: So go ahead. When was the previous? I know it's not the original, but when was the one on Yorkville here Yorkville and Avenue? When was that built? Was that in the 70s or the 60s? Dan: Well, it was a Hyatt. It was a Hyatt Hotel. Dean: Oh, it was, they took it over. Dan: Yeah, and it was a big jump for them and that was, you know, I think it was in the 60s, probably I don't know when they started exactly I'll have to look that up, but they were at a certain point they hit financial difficulties because there's been ups and downs in the economy and they overreach sometimes, and the big heavy load was the fact that they own the real estate. So they sold all the real estate and that bailed them out. Real estate and that bailed them out. And then from that point forward, they were just a system that you competed for. If you were deciding to build a luxury hotel, you had to compete to see if the Four Seasons would be interested in coming in and managing it. Okay, so they. It's a unique process. Basically, it's a unique process that they have. Dean: Yeah. Dan: It's got a huge brand value worldwide. You're a somebody as a city. If the Four Seasons come to your city, I think you're right. Ottawa used to have one. It doesn't have one now. Vancouver used to have one. It doesn't have one now. I think, calgary had one. Calgary doesn't Because now Vancouver used to have one, doesn't have one now I think Calgary had one. Calgary doesn't Because it was a Canadian hotel to start with. Dean: Yeah. Dan: And Belleville had one at one time. Dean: Oh, really yeah. Dan: I'm one of the few people who have stayed at the Belleville Four Seasons. Dean: Hotel the Belleville Four Seasons. Dan: Yeah, of all the people you know, dean dean, I may be the only person you know who stayed at the belleville four seasons now, what they did is they had a partnership with bell canada. Bell canada created the training center in belleville oh and uh, and they did a deal four seasons would go into it with them. So they took over a motel and they turned it into Four Seasons, so they used it as their training center. Okay, so you know, it was trainees serving trainees, as it turned out. Dean: I forget who I was talking to, but we were kind of saying it would be a really interesting experience to take over the top two floors of the hotel beside the Chicago Strategic Coach, there the Holiday Inn or whatever that is. Take over the top two floors and turn those into a because you've got enough traffic. That could be a neat experience, yeah. Dan: It wouldn't be us. Dean: Oh well, I need somebody. You know that could be a an interesting. I think if that was an option there would be. Dan: Probably work better for us to have a floor of one of the hotels. Dean: That's what I meant. Yeah, a floor of the the top two floors of the hotel there to get. Yeah, there's two of them. That's what I meant. Yeah, a floor of the top two floors of the hotel there to get. Dan: Yeah, there's two of them. There's two of them. Dean: Oh, yeah, yeah. Dan: There's the Sheraton, and what's Sinesta? Sinesta, right the. Dean: Sinesta is the one I'm thinking of. Dan: That's the closest one right, the one Scott Harry carries in the Right, right right. There you carries in them, right, yeah, well, it's an interesting, but it is what it is and we're, yeah, but we have almost one whole floor now and I mean those are that's a big building. It's got really a lot of square footage in the building. That's what. Is it cb re? Is it cb? You do know the nationwide. Dean: Oh yeah. Dan: Coldwood Banker. Oh yeah, yeah, coldwood Banker, that's who our landlord is. And they're good they're actually good, but they've gone through about three owners since we've been there. We've been there, 25 years, 26. This is our 26th year. Yeah, and generally speaking they've been good landlords that we've had. Yeah, it's well kept up. They have instant response when you have a maintenance problem and everything. I think they're really good. Dean: Yeah, well, I'm going to have to come and see it. Maybe when the fall happens, maybe between the good months, the fall or something, I might come and take a look. Dan: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Dean: Well, I'm excited and take a look yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah Well. Dan: I've been there. Yeah, we have our workshop. We have our workshop tomorrow here and then we go to Chicago and we have another one on Thursday and then the second Chicago workshop for the quarter is in the first week of April. Oh, wow, yeah, yeah, and this is working out. We'll probably be a year away, maybe a year and a half away, from having a fourth date during the quarter. Oh, wow. Dean: Yeah. Dan: Do we? Dean: have any new people for FreeZone Small? Dan: Don't know Okay. Dean: No one is back. Dan: Yeah, yeah, I don't really know, I don't really know, I think we added 30 last year or so it's. The numbers are going up. Yes, that's great. Yeah, I think we're about 120 total right now. That's awesome. That's awesome. Yeah, yeah, it's fun, though. It's nice people. Dean: Yeah, it's nice to see it all. It's nice to see it all growing. Very cool, all right well, enjoy yourself. Yes, you too and I will see you. Tonight at five. That's right, all right, I'll be there. Dan: Thanks Dan. Dean: Okay.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Louisiana v. Callais (March 24) - Election law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.Riley v. Bondi (March 24) - Immigration; Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research (March 26) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (March 31) - First Amendment, Religion; Issue(s): Whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.Rivers v. Guerrero (March 31) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) applies only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or to some second-in-time filings — depending on a prisoner’s success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (April 1) - Due Process, Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (April 2) - Medicare; Issue(s): Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. Featuring:Allison Daniel, Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationErielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman VogelJennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of CommerceElizabeth A. Kiernan, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherMorgan Ratner, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP(Moderator) Sarah Welch, Issues & Appeals Associate, Jones Day

Devas v. Antrix considers whether foreign governments are protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause in the context of international arbitrations. The Ninth Circuit held that Antrix, an Indian government-owned corporation, lacked sufficient “minimum contacts” to meet the Due Process Clause and therefore dismissed attempts by petitioner Devas to enforce an arbitration award from […]

Devas v. Antrix considers whether foreign governments are protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause in the context of international arbitrations. The Ninth Circuit held that Antrix, an Indian government-owned corporation, lacked sufficient “minimum contacts” to meet the Due Process Clause and therefore dismissed attempts by petitioner Devas to enforce an arbitration award from India. Devas, supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and leading scholars of international arbitration, is asking the Court to reverse arguing that U.S. courts need not consider due process protections for foreign states, and are authorized under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to enforce such awards even without a nexus to the United States.While there are strong originalist and textualist arguments in favor of granting foreign states constitutional due process protections, the Court’s decision to grant such protections could undercut U.S. treaty obligations to enforce foreign arbitral awards and the broader international system for commercial arbitration. It could also affect other litigation against foreign states in U.S. courts, including lawsuits seeking to recover for state-sponsored terrorist attacks. This panel will debate these questions and offer explanations of the ruling’s possible impacts.

I tackle a crucial yet often misunderstood aspect of the legal process – the suppression hearing. After receiving a client question, I break down what a suppression hearing entails, explaining the motions filed to challenge evidence admissibility based on constitutional rights like the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. I hope you will gain insights into the burden of proof required from the prosecution, the role of the defense, and the strategic importance of evidence such as body cam and dash cam footage. For anyone facing a DUI/OVI charge or working in the legal field, understanding suppression hearings is pivotal. Key TakeawaysWhat is a Suppression Hearing? I explain the function of a suppression hearing, emphasizing its role in challenging the admissibility of evidence in court. It's not just legal jargon; understanding it could make a significant difference in the outcome of a case.The Legal Process: Learn about the motions filed by defense attorneys seeking to have evidence thrown out. I explain how these motions work and what constitutional violations they might allege, focusing particularly on Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.Burden of Proof: Discover who carries the burden of proof during a suppression hearing and the strategic advantage this provides the defense. I share an anecdote from his early days in law school, highlighting this key aspect.Body Cam and Dash Cam Footage: In today's technological age, evidence collection has evolved. I discuss how crucial body cam and dash cam footage have become in presenting or defending a case.Real-life Application: Through the lens of an upcoming case I am working on, you will get a firsthand understanding of how these legal principles come into play in real scenarios.Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

In poker there's a move called “Buying the pot”. This is when one person makes a very large bet in an attempt to discourage others from continuing the hand. But what if we're not talking poker? What if we're talking permit fees for the use of your own land? That is exactly what George Sheetz sued the County of El Dorado California for.

Neoborn Caveman rips apart the unconstitutional systems crushing your rights in this prelude episode. From CBP drones and smart meters shredding your Fourth Amendment privacy to AI like Lavender and PredPol trampling Fifth Amendment due process, it's a raw expose of how your freedoms are gutted by lawless tech and power grabs. Neoborn tears into the First Amendment assault—COINTELPRO-style censorship—and unmasks Neuralink's mind-reading tech, poised to obliterate what's left of your constitutional protections. It's the ugly truth, unfiltered, kicking off a bigger fight to come.Free speech marinated in comedy..................... Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This Day in Legal History: Abraham Lincoln Inaugurated On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as the 16th president of the United States, taking office at a time of immense national turmoil. Seven Southern states had already seceded from the Union, and the country teetered on the brink of civil war. In his inaugural address, Lincoln struck a careful balance between firmness and conciliation, stating that while he had no intention to interfere with slavery where it existed, he would also not allow the Union to be dissolved. He appealed to the South's “better angels” and warned that secession was unlawful, emphasizing that the Constitution was designed to create “a more perfect Union.” This speech set the tone for a presidency marked by Lincoln's deep empathy for the downtrodden and his capacity for personal growth.  Often celebrated for his moral clarity, Lincoln was also a leader willing to change his mind when confronted with new information. As the Civil War progressed, his views on slavery evolved, culminating in the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. He once said, “I shall adopt new views as fast as they shall appear to be true views,” an acknowledgment of his willingness to adapt when justice demanded it. This intellectual humility was one of his greatest strengths, allowing him to navigate the unprecedented crisis before him. His presidency, which began on this day, would redefine the nation's understanding of freedom, democracy, and leadership.Lincoln's presidency saw the transformation of a man as much as a nation. When he first took office, he publicly questioned the intellectual equality of Black people and initially supported only limited measures to restrict slavery's expansion. However, as the war unfolded and he engaged with Black leaders like Frederick Douglass, Lincoln's views evolved dramatically. By the end of the conflict, he not only issued the Emancipation Proclamation but also argued for Black suffrage, stating in his final speech that he believed Black men deserved the right to vote. He also expressed openness to women's suffrage, a radical position for the time. That April 11, 1865, speech, in which he publicly called for Black enfranchisement, enraged John Wilkes Booth, who declared, “That is the last speech he will ever make!” Three days later, Booth made good on his threat, assassinating Lincoln at Ford's Theatre. Lincoln's first inauguration marked the beginning of a journey that would not only reshape his own beliefs but also alter the course of American history—at the cost of his life and those of 400,000 of his fellow Americans.Immigrant rights groups have filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's decision to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian and Venezuelan migrants. The lawsuit, brought in Boston federal court, opposes Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's move to accelerate the expiration of deportation protections and work permits for 521,000 Haitians by August. This reverses the Biden administration's previous extension of TPS for Haiti through February 2026. A similar decision was made for Venezuelan TPS recipients, with protections ending as early as April 2 for 348,000 individuals, a move already facing separate legal challenges. The lawsuit, filed by advocacy groups and individual migrants, argues that DHS lacked the authority to revoke an existing TPS extension and acted based on racial bias and political motivations. It cites past disparaging remarks by Trump about Haitian and Venezuelan immigrants as evidence of discrimination, alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantees. The Department of Homeland Security has not yet responded.By way of brief background, the lawsuit claims the administration's actions violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. While the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly provides equal protection against state discrimination, the Fifth Amendment has been interpreted to extend similar protections against federal government actions. Plaintiffs argue that the abrupt termination of TPS disproportionately harms Haitian and Venezuelan migrants and is driven by racial and ethnic bias rather than lawful considerations.Lawsuit challenges Trump's end to Haitian, Venezuelan deportation protections | ReutersKraken announced that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has agreed in principle to dismiss its lawsuit accusing the cryptocurrency exchange of operating as an unregistered securities exchange. The dismissal, which comes with no admission of wrongdoing, penalties, or required business changes, is with prejudice, preventing the SEC from refiling the case. Kraken criticized the lawsuit as a politically motivated effort by the Biden administration that hindered innovation. The SEC, which had sued Kraken in 2023 under former Chair Gary Gensler's leadership, has shifted its approach to crypto regulation since Trump's return to office. Recently, the agency also dropped a similar case against Coinbase and is considering settling a civil fraud case against Justin Sun. The lawsuit had accused Kraken of facilitating crypto trades without proper regulatory compliance, but the company maintained that crypto assets do not fall under traditional securities laws.In legal terms, a dismissal with prejudice means the case is permanently closed and cannot be refiled. This is significant for Kraken because it ensures the SEC cannot bring the same claims against the company in the future. This type of dismissal often indicates that the plaintiff (in this case, the SEC) has decided not to pursue the matter further due to legal weaknesses or shifting priorities.Kraken says SEC to dismiss lawsuit | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg Tax this week focuses on the Multistate Tax Commission's (MTC) proposed rule aimed at simplifying tax compliance for mobile workers. While the proposal is a step in the right direction—creating a safe harbor for those working in nonresident states for 20 days or fewer—it doesn't go far enough to address the real burdens faced by workers and businesses.To make the rule truly effective, I argue that three key modifications are needed: increasing the safe harbor threshold to 30 days, implementing an income-based sliding scale, and eliminating arbitrary carve-outs for certain high-income professionals.Currently, 41 states impose income tax on nonresidents, with some—like Arkansas and Delaware—triggering tax obligations after just one day of work. This creates a compliance nightmare for mobile workers, who may have to file multiple state tax returns for short business trips. The MTC's 20-day threshold is an improvement, but expanding it to 30 days would better align with existing state policies and recommendations from tax advocacy groups.Additionally, the MTC's one-size-fits-all approach fails to differentiate between income levels. A sales rep earning $50,000 a year and a hedge fund manager making $5 million shouldn't be treated the same. A sliding scale—offering a longer grace period for lower-income earners while maintaining stricter thresholds for high-income, highly mobile workers—would make compliance fairer and more practical. Pegging the income thresholds to inflation would further ensure middle-class workers aren't disproportionately impacted over time.Finally, the proposal's exclusion of professional athletes, entertainers, and undefined “persons of prominence” is problematic. These individuals are denied the safe harbor, while a high-earning executive or consultant would benefit from it. The distinction isn't based on income but on profession, creating an arbitrary and inconsistent standard. If fairness and clarity are the goals, the MTC should remove these exceptions.With states actively debating mobile workforce tax reforms and Congress failing to pass a federal solution for nearly two decades, now is the time to get this right. Expanding the threshold, implementing an income-based scale, and removing unfair carve-outs would make the rule more equitable and increase the likelihood of state adoption. 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

This Day in Legal History: Belva Lockwood Admitted to SCOTUSOn March 3, 1879, Belva Lockwood shattered a major legal barrier by becoming the first woman admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court. A pioneering attorney and women's rights advocate, Lockwood had faced repeated obstacles in her legal career simply because of her gender. After being denied admission to the Supreme Court bar multiple times, she successfully lobbied Congress to pass a law allowing qualified female attorneys to argue cases before the nation's highest court. With President Rutherford B. Hayes signing the bill into law, Lockwood was finally sworn in, marking a historic step toward gender equality in the legal profession.Lockwood wasted no time in making use of her hard-won status. In 1880, she became the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court, representing a Cherokee Nation land claim in United States v. Cherokee Nation. Her success paved the way for future generations of female attorneys, proving that women could handle complex legal issues at the highest levels. Beyond her legal career, Lockwood also made history as one of the first women to run for U.S. president, campaigning in 1884 and 1888. Her groundbreaking achievements challenged the deeply entrenched biases of her time and expanded opportunities for women in law and politics.A federal judge in Seattle has extended an order blocking the Trump administration from withholding federal funding from medical providers in four Democratic-led states—Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington—that offer gender-affirming care to transgender youth under 19. Judge Lauren King ruled that Trump's executive orders were unconstitutional, as they interfered with Congress' authority to allocate federal funds and violated the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee by discriminating based on sex or transgender status. One of Trump's orders, issued on his first day in office, mandated that the federal government recognize only two biologically distinct sexes and barred grant funds from supporting "gender ideology." King criticized this move, stating it aimed to erase transgender individuals from federal recognition. A temporary restraining order was previously issued on February 14 while the judge considered a longer-term injunction. Another federal judge in Maryland has also temporarily halted Trump's orders nationwide. The lawsuit follows a second executive order from Trump that prohibits federal funding for gender transitions for minors. More than half of U.S. states have passed laws restricting gender-affirming care, and a pending Supreme Court case involving Tennessee's ban could set a national precedent.US judge further blocks Trump's order curbing youth gender-affirming care | ReutersA U.S. judge has ruled that President Donald Trump's firing of Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, was illegal, setting up a potential Supreme Court battle over presidential authority. Judge Amy Berman Jackson determined that allowing Trump to remove Dellinger would give him excessive power to pressure federal officials. The Justice Department has already filed an appeal.Dellinger, appointed by President Biden for a five-year term, oversees whistleblower protections and ethics investigations for federal employees. Jackson rejected the Trump administration's argument that keeping him in place undermines presidential authority, emphasizing that the Special Counsel's role is designed to function independently. The case is part of Trump's broader effort to limit the autonomy of federal agencies, including the FTC and SEC. While Jackson called her ruling “extremely narrow,” the outcome could shape future limits on executive power. Meanwhile, Trump's legal team argues that Dellinger's continued role disrupts government operations, citing his recent intervention to prevent the firing of six federal employees.US judge declares Trump's firing of watchdog agency head illegal | ReutersThe ACLU has filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from transferring 10 migrants from the U.S. to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, arguing that the move violates immigration law and serves no legitimate purpose. The detainees, from Venezuela, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, have final deportation orders but are not classified as high-risk criminals. The lawsuit describes harsh conditions at Guantanamo, including extreme isolation, verbal and physical abuse, and suicide attempts among detainees.Homeland Security officials defended the transfers, claiming only the "worst of the worst" are sent there, though reports indicate some have no criminal records. A previous court order blocked the transfer of Venezuelan migrants to Guantanamo, but they were instead deported to Venezuela. The lawsuit is part of broader legal battles over Trump's immigration policies, including efforts to end Biden-era parole programs for migrants with U.S. sponsors. Another lawsuit was also filed against Panama in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, challenging the detention of migrants there.ACLU sues to block migrant transfers to Guantanamo, alleging 'degrading conditions' | 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

It's March 2nd, 2025, and the legal saga surrounding former President Donald Trump continues to unfold. Just a few weeks ago, on January 10th, Trump was sentenced to unconditional discharge in the New York hush money case. Despite his efforts to halt the proceedings, including a last-minute appeal to the Supreme Court, Justice Juan Merchan went ahead with the sentencing as planned.The courtroom drama didn't end there. In a surprising turn of events, Trump's federal cases in Washington D.C. and Florida were dismissed following his 2024 election victory. However, the legal battles are far from over.On February 12th, a new lawsuit emerged challenging Trump's controversial immigration policies. The Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center filed a complaint against the administration's plan to transfer undocumented migrants to Guantánamo Bay. This move has sparked outrage among human rights organizations and legal experts alike.Meanwhile, Trump's executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives faced a significant setback. On February 21st, a federal court in Maryland temporarily blocked the enforcement of these orders, citing potential violations of the First and Fifth Amendments.But perhaps the most shocking development came on February 10th, when Trump issued an executive order indefinitely suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. This action prompted immediate legal challenges, with refugees, U.S. citizens, and resettlement organizations filing a class-action lawsuit in Washington state.The political landscape has been equally tumultuous. Trump's attempts to remove leaders of independent agencies have met with fierce resistance. Susan Grundmann, chair of the Federal Labor Relations Authority, successfully challenged her abrupt dismissal, securing a temporary restraining order to maintain her position.As we navigate this complex legal terrain, it's clear that Trump's presidency continues to push the boundaries of executive power. The courts are grappling with unprecedented questions about presidential immunity, the limits of executive orders, and the balance between national security and individual rights.With each passing day, new legal challenges emerge, keeping attorneys, judges, and the American public on their toes. As we look ahead, one thing is certain: the impact of these legal battles will be felt for years to come, shaping the future of American democracy and the rule of law.

The San Bernardino Superior Court electronically records trial. Can Jeff use the recording as the appellate record? Short answer: no. But there's an original writ pending in the Supreme Court on a similar issue, so watch this space.We also cover:Jury Fee Hike, Paid by State Fund—but for how long?Shehi v. Chicago Title Insurance Co.—attorney disqualification is appealable, but expert witness exclusion isn't, even when the expert is an attorney.Tom Girardi saga—Wife Erica Girardi held not liable for aiding and abetting her husband's client trust fund misconduct.The Fifth Amendment & Privilege Logs – A Ninth Circuit case on self-incrimination and privilege log requirements.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Attorney DQ Orders Are Appealable, But Not for Attorney Expert WitnessesAudio recording in San Bernardino and Court ReportersFinn v. Girardi (2D5d. Jan. 28, 2025, No. B324878) (nonpub. opn.).In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (9th Cir., Jan. 28, 2025, No. 24-2506)

The Jussie Smollett case serves as a tangible, recent example that makes the complex legal principle of double jeopardy more relatable and easier to grasp.We kick off by revisiting the high-profile case of Jussie Smollett, whose name you might remember from the sensational headlines back in 2019. We take a deep dive into whether Smollett's case was an example of double jeopardy, discussing the procedural history, the role of special prosecutors, and the implications of plea deals. We break down the complexities of double jeopardy protections, their legal underpinnings, and why they are crucial for a fair judicial system.We discuss the broader implications of special prosecutors stepping in for high-profile cases, the ethical concerns that arise, and the real-world impact on defendants and governmental resources. We also tackle the moral and ethical questions that defense attorneys face when representing clients who may or may not be guilty.Key TakeawaysUnderstanding Double Jeopardy: Dive deep into the Fifth Amendment's concept of double jeopardy and learn how it protects individuals from being prosecuted multiple times for the same offense. The episode dissects how Jussie Smollett's case exemplified this crucial constitutional protection.The Role of Special Prosecutors: Gain insights into the reasons and scenarios when a special prosecutor is brought in, especially in high-profile or complex cases. Understand the significance of resource management and conflict of interest in local prosecutorial offices.Balancing Justice and Constitutional Rights: The episode underscores the importance of protecting constitutional rights for everyone, regardless of the crime. It emphasizes that safeguarding these rights is not just about achieving just outcomes but also about maintaining the integrity of the legal system for all.Key Moments00:00 "MAGA Attack Hoax Unravels"03:40 Special Prosecutor Variability Explained09:15 Convicted, Fined, and Sentenced10:44 Appellate Bond Explained13:28 Unexpected Turn in Legal Case16:15 Diversion Plea Deals Explained21:48 Beware Righteous Government Overreach25:26 Defending the Innocent Dilemma26:42 Innocent Until Proven Guilty29:56 Defending the Unpopular in LawSubmit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

If you get in an auto accident, can the police take your phone and search everything in it? What does the Fifth Amendment say about the authority of law enforcement in this regard? Criminal defense and civil rights attorney Jonathan Brayman answers these questions and more, explaining the ins and outs of digital forensics and criminal investigations. Tune in to learn: The privacy concerns of extensive cell phone data extraction in criminal cases and vehicle forensics How Berla's forensic tool helps investigators understand what happened in the moments leading up to serious auto accidents Biometrics vs. passcodes: which are less protected under the law and why? Interested in learning more? Press play and visit Home Page - Breen & Pugh Attorneys at Law (breenpughlaw.com). Boost Your Brainpower with 15% OFF!  Fuel your mind with BrainSupreme Supplements and unlock your full potential. Get 15% OFF your order now using this exclusive link: brainsupreme.co/discount/findinggenius Hurry—your brain deserves the best! Episode also available on Apple Podcasts: http://apple.co/30PvU9