Podcasts about jurors

Survivor 49's exit interview is back, with Rob Cesternino at the helm as he sits down with the latest castaway sent packing—Alex Moore. Rob and Alex dig into the dramatic turns, alliance shake-ups, and blindsides that shaped this week's episode. Survivor history and gameplay collide as Alex opens up about the strategy and emotion fueling his run on Survivor 49.

Survivor 49's exit interview is back, with Rob Cesternino at the helm as he sits down with the latest castaway sent packing—Alex Moore. Rob and Alex dig into the dramatic turns, alliance shake-ups, and blindsides that shaped this week's episode. Survivor history and gameplay collide as Alex opens up about the strategy and emotion fueling his run on Survivor 49.

Howie Kurtz on recent polls showing Democrats with a 14-point lead over Republicans to take control of Congress, former Harvard President Larry Summers and his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and the federal appeals court upholding the dismissal of President Trump's defamation lawsuit against CNN.  Follow Howie on Twitter: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@HowardKurtz⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠For more #MediaBuzz click here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of 'One in Ten,' host Teresa Huizar speaks with Dr. Maggie Stevenson, Associate Professor of Psychology at Kenyon College, about the interplay between jurors' personal histories of child sexual abuse and their attitudes and decisions in similar cases. The conversation delves into Dr. Stevenson's meta-analysis study, which explores whether adult survivors of child sexual abuse exhibit more empathy toward child victims and examines the implications for jury selection. The discussion highlights how severity of past abuse impacts juror empathy, potential biases, and the need for more trauma-informed practices within the court system. The episode raises important questions about practical legal implications and suggests areas for future research to ensure fairness in child sexual abuse trials.  Time Stamps: TimeTopic 00:00 Introduction to Today's Topic 01:28 Meet Dr. Maggie Stevenson 02:06 Research Background and Study Design 04:53 Key Findings and Implications 10:17 Challenges in Defining Severity 21:01 Practical Implications for the Court System 26:04 Future Research Directions 31:12 Conclusion and Final Thoughts  Resources:More Severe Juror Sexual Abuse Strengthens Empathy for Child Sexual Abuse Victims: Meta-Analyses - Tayler M. Jones-Cieminski, Margaret Stevenson, Bette L. Bottoms, 2025Support the showDid you like this episode? Please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts.

Tonight, on The Panel, Wallace Chapman is joined by panellists Ali Mau and Mark Knoff-Thomas. First up, the government is hitting pause on puberty blockers, saying the medication is unproven and potentially damaging. But some doctors are calling it an "inappropriate overreach of politics into healthcare." Then, jury duty is enough of a cost on time, but one law lecturer says jurors are taking a financial hit, too. Jurors are paid about $10 an hour, a figure that hasn't changed for over 20 years.

Send us a textA Minnesota businessman explains how he was the victim of check forgery and how the suspect was released after committing other crimes—including the attempted bribery of "Juror #52" in the massive Feeding Our Future fraud scheme.Support the show

In today's episode, I spill the juicy details of my wild jury duty experience as Juror #1! From getting called in for a criminal case, making friends with the court security guard, to the intense courtroom drama, I've got a lot to share! You'll learn about the crazy court schedule, the stressful selection process, and the shocking moments during the trial. Why did the defendant and victim still show up together? And what made this case so heart-wrenching?

Steve Wood, Ph.D. and Linda Khzam, M.A. break down the topic of hindsight bias and its impact on juror decision-making. They explain how learning an outcome makes jurors believe it was predictable all along, leading to exaggerated foreseeability and unrealistic expectations of what defendants “should have known.” Steve and Linda discuss how hindsight bias appears across different case types from trucking and transportation to incidents involving police officers to decades-old sexual assault and molestation cases where jurors often apply modern norms and knowledge to past events. They also highlight how technology, especially video evidence, further expands hindsight bias by giving jurors clarity and insight that defendants never had in real time. Steve and Linda also cover counterfactual thinking (i.e., “If only they had done X”) and how plaintiffs use it to oversimplify causation. Lastly, they outline how defense counsel can confront hindsight bias during voir dire by using relatable examples and consistently reframing what was knowable in the moment rather than after the fact.

Actor Daniel Wozniak had no money, a wedding he could not afford, and a plan that would shock California. Instead of working to fix his problems, he chose murder. His first victim was 26-year-old Army veteran Sam Herr, a friend who trusted him and had more than $60,000 in savings. Wozniak lured Sam to a theater, shot him twice, and began staging a twisted cover-up.To make Sam look like a killer on the run, Wozniak tricked 23-year-old Julie Kibuishi into visiting Sam's apartment. He murdered her and staged the scene to look like a jealous rage killing. Then he put on his costume, walked on stage, and performed in a musical as if nothing had happened.But the illusion fell apart fast. Police traced ATM withdrawals to a teenager who exposed Wozniak's scheme. Confronted with overwhelming evidence, he confessed. Jurors took only one hour to convict him.Was this the desperate act of a man cornered by debt, or the performance of a cold-blooded killer who valued applause more than human life?Follow True Crime Recaps for more stories where the truth is darker than fiction.

In the months leading up to her trial, Ghislaine Maxwell and her defense team attempted a calculated smear campaign against her accusers, portraying them as opportunists motivated by money, fame, and distorted memories. They tried to cast doubt on the credibility of the women who came forward, suggesting that their stories were inconsistent and influenced by the substantial compensation fund set up by the Epstein estate. Maxwell's attorneys argued that she was being scapegoated for Epstein's crimes after his death, positioning her as a victim of the public's need for retribution. But the strategy backfired badly. Jurors were turned off by the tone of personal attacks, and prosecutors effectively countered with evidence showing decades of coordinated sexual abuse that Maxwell enabled, organized, and facilitated.By the time the trial reached its closing arguments, Maxwell's attempt to discredit her accusers had collapsed under the weight of her own history and the testimony of those who once worked alongside her. The women's accounts—harrowing, consistent, and corroborated by flight logs, photos, and financial records—left little room for doubt. Rather than appearing as a wrongfully accused associate, Maxwell came across as a manipulative enabler whose arrogance and lack of remorse sealed her fate. Her smear tactics, which may have once worked in Epstein's world of influence and intimidation, had no power in a courtroom stripped of his protection. The verdict proved that the jury—and the public—saw through her defense, rejecting the narrative that these women were anything but victims of a long-running and calculated pattern of abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

For the first time ever, a key juror from the Katie Magbanua trial is coming forward to speak openly about the case that ignited the long, twisting road toward justice for Dan Markel. In this exclusive STS interview, the juror shares what really happened inside the deliberation room—and how those decisions ultimately paved the way for the Adelson convictions that followed. Welcome to Surviving the Survivor, the show that brings you the #BestGuests in all of #Truecrime. In this STS special episode, Emmy Award-Winning Host and Journalist Joel Waldman is joined by esteemed Tallahassee Defense Attorney Tim Jansen and a Juror from Katie Magbanua's trial. Dan Markel, a father of two and a well-respected FSU law professor, was murdered in a cold-blooded murder-for-hire plot in 2014. Katie Magbanua, Luis Rivera and Sigfredo Garcia have all been convicted along with Dan's ex brother-in-law Charlie Adelson and his ex mother-in-law Donna Adelson. The fight for justice for Dan continues and questions still swirl around who else may be held accountable next...Support the show & be a part of #STSNation:Donate to STS' Trial Travel: Https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/GJ...VENMO: @STSPodcast or Https://www.venmo.com/stspodcastCheck out STS Merch: Https://www.bonfire.com/store/sts-store/Joel's Book: Https://amzn.to/48GwbLxSupport the show on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivorEmail: SurvivingTheSurvivor@gmail.com Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In the months leading up to her trial, Ghislaine Maxwell and her defense team attempted a calculated smear campaign against her accusers, portraying them as opportunists motivated by money, fame, and distorted memories. They tried to cast doubt on the credibility of the women who came forward, suggesting that their stories were inconsistent and influenced by the substantial compensation fund set up by the Epstein estate. Maxwell's attorneys argued that she was being scapegoated for Epstein's crimes after his death, positioning her as a victim of the public's need for retribution. But the strategy backfired badly. Jurors were turned off by the tone of personal attacks, and prosecutors effectively countered with evidence showing decades of coordinated sexual abuse that Maxwell enabled, organized, and facilitated.By the time the trial reached its closing arguments, Maxwell's attempt to discredit her accusers had collapsed under the weight of her own history and the testimony of those who once worked alongside her. The women's accounts—harrowing, consistent, and corroborated by flight logs, photos, and financial records—left little room for doubt. Rather than appearing as a wrongfully accused associate, Maxwell came across as a manipulative enabler whose arrogance and lack of remorse sealed her fate. Her smear tactics, which may have once worked in Epstein's world of influence and intimidation, had no power in a courtroom stripped of his protection. The verdict proved that the jury—and the public—saw through her defense, rejecting the narrative that these women were anything but victims of a long-running and calculated pattern of abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

In the months leading up to her trial, Ghislaine Maxwell and her defense team attempted a calculated smear campaign against her accusers, portraying them as opportunists motivated by money, fame, and distorted memories. They tried to cast doubt on the credibility of the women who came forward, suggesting that their stories were inconsistent and influenced by the substantial compensation fund set up by the Epstein estate. Maxwell's attorneys argued that she was being scapegoated for Epstein's crimes after his death, positioning her as a victim of the public's need for retribution. But the strategy backfired badly. Jurors were turned off by the tone of personal attacks, and prosecutors effectively countered with evidence showing decades of coordinated sexual abuse that Maxwell enabled, organized, and facilitated.By the time the trial reached its closing arguments, Maxwell's attempt to discredit her accusers had collapsed under the weight of her own history and the testimony of those who once worked alongside her. The women's accounts—harrowing, consistent, and corroborated by flight logs, photos, and financial records—left little room for doubt. Rather than appearing as a wrongfully accused associate, Maxwell came across as a manipulative enabler whose arrogance and lack of remorse sealed her fate. Her smear tactics, which may have once worked in Epstein's world of influence and intimidation, had no power in a courtroom stripped of his protection. The verdict proved that the jury—and the public—saw through her defense, rejecting the narrative that these women were anything but victims of a long-running and calculated pattern of abuse.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. discusses a recurring problem in wrongful death cases: jurors' tendency to mistakenly believe their job is to assign a monetary value to a life. Bill explains how this cognitive shortcut often leads to inflated damage awards because jurors default to emotional reasoning rather than following the legal instructions. To prevent this, Bill emphasizes that the issue must be addressed proactively during voir dire. He outlines a process that begins with exposing the problem - acknowledging that jurors will naturally think, “How do we put a value on a life?” - and then clearly explaining that the law does not ask them to do that. Instead, jurors are asked to compensate surviving family members for measurable economic and emotional losses. Bill walks through a step-by-step strategy for correcting this misconception: expose and normalize the cognitive shortcut, redefine the juror's task in line with the law, and secure public, verbal pre-commitments from jurors to follow the court's instructions. He also recommends going a step further by asking jurors to commit to keeping one another on track during deliberations. Bill concludes by noting that this structured approach not only prevents confusion and emotional decision-making by jurors but also strengthens the defense's position by grounding jurors in rational, law-based reasoning right from the start.

A pastor preaching virtue. A mistress promised “truth.” A wife who knew nothing. And a murder that ripped the mask off a so-called “ethical non-monogamy.” In 2019, Executive Pastor Brodes Perry of Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church was shot to death inside his Tennessee apartment by Latoshia Daniels, a woman who believed she was part of a consensual “open” relationship — one the pastor insisted his wife had approved. Except… she hadn't. Now, years later, Daniels is on trial for first-degree murder and attempted murder of Perry's wife Tabatha, who survived the attack and took the stand to tell a very different story. Jurors have seen videos of Perry himself describing “ethical non-monogamy” — claiming transparency, honesty, and divine understanding — while prosecutors say those same words expose the lies that fueled the killing. In this episode, Tony Brueski breaks down how a pastor's moral branding turned into manipulation, how a so-called modern “ethic” became a weapon of deceit, and why this trial isn't just about one shooting — it's about the danger of self-righteous hypocrisy hiding behind the language of enlightenment. This is not about alternative lifestyles. This is about control, delusion, and the rot that grows when a man of God decides the rules no longer apply to him.

A pastor preaching virtue. A mistress promised “truth.” A wife who knew nothing. And a murder that ripped the mask off a so-called “ethical non-monogamy.” In 2019, Executive Pastor Brodes Perry of Mississippi Boulevard Christian Church was shot to death inside his Tennessee apartment by Latoshia Daniels, a woman who believed she was part of a consensual “open” relationship — one the pastor insisted his wife had approved. Except… she hadn't. Now, years later, Daniels is on trial for first-degree murder and attempted murder of Perry's wife Tabatha, who survived the attack and took the stand to tell a very different story. Jurors have seen videos of Perry himself describing “ethical non-monogamy” — claiming transparency, honesty, and divine understanding — while prosecutors say those same words expose the lies that fueled the killing. In this episode, Tony Brueski breaks down how a pastor's moral branding turned into manipulation, how a so-called modern “ethic” became a weapon of deceit, and why this trial isn't just about one shooting — it's about the danger of self-righteous hypocrisy hiding behind the language of enlightenment. This is not about alternative lifestyles. This is about control, delusion, and the rot that grows when a man of God decides the rules no longer apply to him.

This episode examines Juror #2, Clint Eastwood's most recent—and perhaps final—film. Juror #2 centers around the trial of a man accused of murdering his girlfriend after a fight at a bar, leaving her in a ditch by the side of a road. The twist comes early: Justin Kemp a/k/a Juror #2 (played by Nicholas Hoult) soon realizes that the wrong man is on trial—as he hears the evidence, Kemp figures out that he, and not the defendant, killed the victim. Kemp realizes that he accidentally hit the defendant's girlfriend with his car while she was walking along the side of a road on a dark and rainy night—thinking at the time, that he had hit a deer. Kemp, otherwise portrayed as a good man—a loving husband with a baby on the way—must navigate the moral dilemma as he serves on a jury that seems prepared to condemn an innocent man. Eastwood's first courtroom drama in a long and legendary career, Juror #2 explores themes of justice, morality, and the imperfections of the legal system. Timestamps:0:00      Introduction2:46       A flawed process7:05       The ex-police detective on the jury and the motion for a mistrial15:40     The lawyer's problematic advice23:16     A prosecutor who eventually does the right thing27:17      The public defender31:28      A good person caught in terrible circumstances?40:40    Missing scenes in the legal narrative44:46     A dark picture of the U.S. criminal justice systemFurther reading:“A Forensic Review of ‘Juror #2,'” J. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, vol. 53(1) (2025)  Banner, Adam, “Honesty in jury pool examined in ‘Juror #2,'” ABA Bar Journal (Jan. 28, 2025)Brody, Richard, “In ‘Juror #2,' Clint Eastwood Judges the System Harshly,” New Yorker (Oct 30, 2024)Melonic, Emina, “The Storytelling of Clint Eastwood,” Law & Liberty (Jan. 10, 2025)Upendra, Chidella, “The Ethical Vision of Clint Eastwood,” Journal of Religion & Film, vol. 17(2) (Oct. 2013)Zagha, Muriel, “Clint Eastwood's Puritan Morality Tale,” Engelsberg Ideas (Dec. 2, 2024)  Law on Film is created and produced by Jonathan Hafetz. Jonathan is a professor at Seton Hall Law School. He has written many books and articles about the law. He has litigated important cases to protect civil liberties and human rights while working at the ACLU and other organizations. Jonathan is a huge film buff and has been watching, studying, and talking about movies for as long as he can remember. For more information about Jonathan, here's a link to his bio: https://law.shu.edu/profiles/hafetzjo.htmlYou can contact him at jonathanhafetz@gmail.comYou can follow him on X (Twitter) @jonathanhafetz You can follow the podcast on X (Twitter) @LawOnFilmYou can follow the podcast on Instagram @lawonfilmpodcast

True Crime was the 94th-highest grossing movie of 1999, grossing just $17 million on a $50 million budget with a fairly limited release. Starring and directed by Clint Eastwood, True Crime was largely forgotten and remains overlooked most likely due to its release at what can be described as Eastwood's most prolonged artistic lull in the mid 1990s, starting with 1997's Absolute Power and Midnight in the Garden of Eden, 2000's Space Cowboys, and 2002's Blood Work. That lull would end with 2003's acclaimed Mystic River, which earned Oscars for both Sean Penn and Tim Robbins as well as Best Director and Best Picture nominations for Eastwood. But True Crime is still an interesting entry on Eastwood's resume, exploring many of the themes of injustice and moral ambiguity that he frequently explores in his work. So does the similarly-themed 2024 film Juror #2, which Eastwood directed in his mid-90s. So this week we're talking about them both, and joining is us is Aaron from the podcast Hit Factory.

Jurors reach a verdict in the civil trial over the fatal shooting of a protester, changes could be coming to the gaming industry in light of the gambling scandal tied to the NBA and the mafia, free events bring thousands of people to Downtown Las Vegas and more on 7@7.

At Scott Peterson's 2004 trial, one expert witness sealed his fate. Dr. Terry D'Vor told jurors that baby Connor's fetal measurements proved Laci Peterson died on or before Christmas Eve 2002—the same day Scott went fishing. Jurors called his testimony “the nail in the coffin.” Now, in 2024, D'Vor has recanted. After reviewing modern NIH and WHO fetal-growth studies, he signed an affidavit admitting the old 1990s charts he used were scientifically obsolete. The updated data show Connor's gestational age was consistent with a January death, not December 24. That's when Scott Peterson was already under 24-hour police surveillance. Meaning: he couldn't have done it. This episode dissects the science that collapsed and the law that lets outdated forensics destroy lives. We'll explain California's Penal Code § 1473 (b)(2), written for exactly this scenario—when an expert's own recantation proves the state's theory was wrong. If modern science shows Laci and Connor died while Scott was being followed by cops, what's left of the prosecution's timeline? #ScottPeterson #LaciPeterson #LAInnocenceProject #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #TonyBrueski #WrongfulConviction #ForensicScience #JusticeForLaci #CrimePodcast Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod

At Scott Peterson's 2004 trial, one expert witness sealed his fate. Dr. Terry D'Vor told jurors that baby Connor's fetal measurements proved Laci Peterson died on or before Christmas Eve 2002—the same day Scott went fishing. Jurors called his testimony “the nail in the coffin.” Now, in 2024, D'Vor has recanted. After reviewing modern NIH and WHO fetal-growth studies, he signed an affidavit admitting the old 1990s charts he used were scientifically obsolete. The updated data show Connor's gestational age was consistent with a January death, not December 24. That's when Scott Peterson was already under 24-hour police surveillance. Meaning: he couldn't have done it. This episode dissects the science that collapsed and the law that lets outdated forensics destroy lives. We'll explain California's Penal Code § 1473 (b)(2), written for exactly this scenario—when an expert's own recantation proves the state's theory was wrong. If modern science shows Laci and Connor died while Scott was being followed by cops, what's left of the prosecution's timeline? #ScottPeterson #LaciPeterson #LAInnocenceProject #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #TonyBrueski #WrongfulConviction #ForensicScience #JusticeForLaci #CrimePodcast Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod

At Scott Peterson's 2004 trial, one expert witness sealed his fate. Dr. Terry D'Vor told jurors that baby Connor's fetal measurements proved Laci Peterson died on or before Christmas Eve 2002—the same day Scott went fishing. Jurors called his testimony “the nail in the coffin.” Now, in 2024, D'Vor has recanted. After reviewing modern NIH and WHO fetal-growth studies, he signed an affidavit admitting the old 1990s charts he used were scientifically obsolete. The updated data show Connor's gestational age was consistent with a January death, not December 24. That's when Scott Peterson was already under 24-hour police surveillance. Meaning: he couldn't have done it. This episode dissects the science that collapsed and the law that lets outdated forensics destroy lives. We'll explain California's Penal Code § 1473 (b)(2), written for exactly this scenario—when an expert's own recantation proves the state's theory was wrong. If modern science shows Laci and Connor died while Scott was being followed by cops, what's left of the prosecution's timeline? #ScottPeterson #LaciPeterson #LAInnocenceProject #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #TonyBrueski #WrongfulConviction #ForensicScience #JusticeForLaci #CrimePodcast Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod

Cleanup begins in Jamaica following Hurricane Melissa's wrath that has cause death and destruction from Haiti to Cuba. Jurors find Illinois deputy guilty of second-degree murder in the shooting death of a Black woman who called 9-1-1 for help. President Trump set to meet China's President Xi in South Korea. CBS News Correspondent Jennifer Keiper with tonight's World News Roundup. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

AP correspondent Jennifer King reports on the jury verdict in the shooting death of Sonya Massey.

Ghislaine Maxwell's legal team requested that the court allow them to privately screen potential jurors ahead of her federal sex-trafficking trial, arguing that extensive media coverage and the high-profile nature of the case made it impossible to ensure impartiality in a public setting. Her lawyers pushed for closed-door questioning sessions, claiming that prospective jurors might be reluctant to speak candidly about sensitive topics like sexual abuse if reporters or spectators were present. They also urged the court to keep juror questionnaires sealed, arguing that making them public could allow individuals to manipulate their answers to secure a place on the jury.The court, however, rejected Maxwell's motion, siding with prosecutors and media organizations that argued transparency was vital in a case of such public importance. The judge ruled that jury selection must remain open to ensure accountability and to preserve confidence in the judicial process. Critics of Maxwell's request saw it as a strategic ploy—one more attempt to control optics and quietly shape the jury pool in her favor. Given the longstanding pattern of secrecy surrounding Maxwell and Epstein's operations, her team's push for privacy only reinforced perceptions that she sought to keep damaging information from ever seeing daylight.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bill Kanasky, Jr. Ph.D. shares a comparison between two different performances by witnesses at a recent mock trial and how their deposition performance impacted jurors' perceptions of the credibility of the witnesses and jurors' views of the case. One of the witnesses gave several pivoting responses, using phrases like "Yeah, but...." many times, which the jurors found evasive and did not like. Bill talks about how to handle situations where witnesses are asked questions related to bad facts or potentially problematic information and describes a much better approach than pivoting or arguing with the questioning attorney. Bill emphasizes the importance of owning your conduct and why that's the best way to diffuse this line of questioning from opposing counsel. Lastly, Bill addresses how to help witnesses address accusatory questions without pivoting.

Owner of Clinton Twp. building that exploded, caught fire in 2024 ordered to trial Northville street closures bring rift to traditionally tight-knit community Jurors in trial of ex-Zamboni driver Sobotka speak out: 'Something was a little fishy'

Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/eYoYVbkEDX0 Today's podcast is interesting on many levels. Rich is going to tell you a story about the time when he was a juror on a murder trial… and how the district attorney's failure to clearly educate the jury on certain specific points that he THOUGHT were readily apparent to everyone confused the heck out of the jury and caused them to draw all kinds of false conclusions. Cool story--but what does it have to do with marketing, you may ask?! In a word: EVERYTHING! Your business is on trial, your product or service is the defendant, your customers are the jury… and YOU are the attorney in charge of defense. You've got to make absolutely 100% sure that the jury understands exactly what you mean every time you open your mouth. Because guess what? They're NOT experts on what you do and what you sell and how you do it and what they should look out for. So it's your job to educate them.

Jurors will have an unusual choice in the Bionca Ellis case: they're not deciding between guilty and not guilty; they're deciding if Ellis was legally insane when she stabbed a toddler and his mom in a store parking lot, killing the boy. #CourtTV - What do YOU think?Binge all episodes of #ClosingArguments here: https://www.courttv.com/trials/closing-arguments-with-vinnie-politan/Watch the full video episode here: https://youtu.be/TVFwtaUogbAWatch 24/7 Court TV LIVE Stream Today https://www.courttv.com/Join the Investigation Newsletter https://www.courttv.com/email/Court TV Podcast https://www.courttv.com/podcast/Join the Court TV Community to get access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCo5E9pEhK_9kWG7-5HHcyRg/joinFOLLOW THE CASE:Facebook https://www.facebook.com/courttvTwitter/X https://twitter.com/CourtTVInstagram https://www.instagram.com/courttvnetwork/TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@courttvliveYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/COURTTVWATCH +140 FREE TRIALS IN THE COURT TV ARCHIVEhttps://www.courttv.com/trials/HOW TO FIND COURT TVhttps://www.courttv.com/where-to-watch/This episode of Closing Arguments Podcast was hosted by Vinnie Politan, produced by Kerry O'Connor and Robynn Love, and edited by Autumn Sewell. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Join Tom Fox as he welcomes back MoFo partner James M. Koukios to discuss the themes and strategies observed in recent FCPA trials and the DOJ's prosecutorial approach. They explore the importance of making juries care about corruption cases, the themes of abuse of power and financial motive, and the significance of concealment in establishing guilt. The conversation also touches on the future of FCPA trials and the DOJ's commitment to prosecuting individuals involved in corporate misconduct. And of course Go Blue!  Key Highlights  ·      Making juries care about the impact of corruption is crucial. ·      Abuse of power is a central theme in corruption cases. ·      Concealment of actions indicates consciousness of guilt. ·      Compliance programs must emphasize transparency and documentation. ·      Jurors expect good governance and are sensitive to abuse of power. ·      Financial incentives in corporations should align with compliance. ·      Prosecuting individuals remains a priority for the DOJ.  Resources  Morrison Foerster James Koukios Expect DOJ To Repeat 4 Themes From 2024's FCPA Trials  Tom Fox Instagram Facebook YouTube Twitter LinkedIn   For more information on the use of AI in Compliance programs, my new book, Upping Your Game. You can purchase a copy of the book on Amazon.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Have you ever heard a phrase in court and cringe a little? Not because it's wrong, but because it's so… overused.  We've all said them. BUT.  The game has changed. Jurors are sharper. Attention is shorter.  And credibility is everything. So in this week's podcast, I'm breaking down 7 phrases that are killing your case and offering better ways to build connection and trust. Tune in NOW!

A jury is deliberating the guilt or innocence of an 18 year old boy accused of murdering his father. What seems like an open and shut case gets flipped upside down when Juror #8 expresses reasonable doubt.

Sean “Diddy” Combs has been sentenced to four years and two months in prison for his conviction on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. He also must pay a $500,000 fine. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Jurors, we need your help! What should we call our "catch up" episodes? We value your input so let us know your thoughts! We break down the BravoCon lineup, with what panels are being featured and what Bravolebs will be on-site. We chat some pop culture news, including Nicole & Keith break up, looking forward to The Life of a Showgirl, Lala and Ocean and so much more! We also discuss this week's episode of Dancing with the Stars, our professional critiques and ranking the dances. Come judge with us!You can find us:Instagram & Threads: @twojudgeygirlsTikTok: @marytwojudgeygirls & @courtneytjgFacebook: www.facebook.com/twojudgeygirlsPodcast: ACast, iTunes, Spotify, wherever you listen!Merch: www.etsy.com/shop/twojudgeygirls Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/FNr4NPpIs3U We delve into the case of the very chatty Karen Read grand juror, who was indicted for leaking confidential grand jury information and pleaded guilty on August 4th, 2025. We discuss the initial media reports, the details of the indictment, and the common practice of grand jurors serving on multiple cases. Find out how the leak became public, leading to serious consequences, including the loss of the leaker's job at the Department of Children and Families, a position she had worked years to achieve. The defendant communicated with a former friend, to whom she disclosed grand jury information, believing it would remain private. The government's perspective, highlighting that the defendant divulged information across several months, including witness identities, testimony topics, and even a sealed indictment before arrests were made! The joint recommendation for a sentence of incarceration for one day (deemed served) and 24 months of supervised release, aimed at deterring similar offenses in the future. RESOURCES Massachusetts Grand Juror Charged - https://youtu.be/iiBTBRG3hLg Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode, Michael and Sari discuss the intricacies of jury selection, the importance of understanding juror bias, and the application of the funnel method in trial strategy. They emphasize the need for attorneys to engage jurors through personal experiences and the significance of practicing trial skills. The conversation also highlights the mindset required for attorneys to effectively communicate with juries and the critical role of damages in trials.TakeawaysBias is inherent in jurors; understanding it is crucial.Jurors are not the enemy; they can be motivated to act.Principle-centered voir dire focuses on universal truths.The funnel method guides jurors to key principles.Engaging jurors through personal experiences can be effective.Practice is essential for trial preparation and success.Mindset impacts how jurors perceive attorneys and cases.Asking for damages requires confidence and clarity.Money is a tool for justice, not a taboo subject.There are no bad answers in jury selection; they can be leveraged.

Inside the Heuermann Gilgo Killer's Home Search: Secret Room, Cage, and the Eerie Doll Big procedural swing: one jury hears all seven counts. With Jennifer Coffindaffer we break down why prosecutors pushed for joinder and why the defense is already circling “prejudice” in red ink. The state's pitch is pattern—victim type, geography, MO—one coherent story. The defense counters: decades apart, different methods, and the danger of letting weaker counts draft behind stronger ones. We also cut through the “creepy” optics of the search haul—secret room, large doll, cage. Creepy is not the standard. Agents don't cart off curios for sport; they seize what they believe they can justify in court. Those items matter only when tied to timelines, transfer, and corroboration that shrink alternatives. There's a trust problem too. This investigation lived under a cloud for a long time. Jurors will want clean lines, not shortcuts. That's why joinder is both rocket fuel and a tripwire—the narrative has to stay tight. This segment lays out the rules of engagement: what gets in, what's risky, and how you tell a decades-long story without losing a 12-person audience in the first act. Hashtags  #HiddenKillers #GilgoBeach #RexHeuermann #Court #Joinder #Evidence #LongIsland #TrueCrime #TonyBrueski #JenniferCoffindaffer Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Inside the Heuermann Gilgo Killer's Home Search: Secret Room, Cage, and the Eerie Doll Big procedural swing: one jury hears all seven counts. With Jennifer Coffindaffer we break down why prosecutors pushed for joinder and why the defense is already circling “prejudice” in red ink. The state's pitch is pattern—victim type, geography, MO—one coherent story. The defense counters: decades apart, different methods, and the danger of letting weaker counts draft behind stronger ones. We also cut through the “creepy” optics of the search haul—secret room, large doll, cage. Creepy is not the standard. Agents don't cart off curios for sport; they seize what they believe they can justify in court. Those items matter only when tied to timelines, transfer, and corroboration that shrink alternatives. There's a trust problem too. This investigation lived under a cloud for a long time. Jurors will want clean lines, not shortcuts. That's why joinder is both rocket fuel and a tripwire—the narrative has to stay tight. This segment lays out the rules of engagement: what gets in, what's risky, and how you tell a decades-long story without losing a 12-person audience in the first act. Hashtags  #HiddenKillers #GilgoBeach #RexHeuermann #Court #Joinder #Evidence #LongIsland #TrueCrime #TonyBrueski #JenniferCoffindaffer Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Did This Ex-Police Officer Get a Fair Trial? Was he guilty of 2nd degree murder? The case of former Rocky Ford Police Officer James Ashby continues to raise questions. You can listen and decide for yourself. The Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast promoted across their Facebook , Instagram , LinkedIn , Medium and other social media platforms. A Fatal Encounter in Colorado. James is the guest on the Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast, available for free on their website, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and most podcast platforms. In October 2014, Ashby shot and killed a 27-year-old inside his home while on duty. Prosecutors said Ashby followed the young man after a confrontation on the street and ultimately fired the fatal shot in front of his mother. Look for supporting stories about this and much more from Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast in platforms like Medium , Blogspot and Linkedin . Did This Ex-Police Officer Get a Fair Trial? Was he guilty of 2nd degree murder? In 2016, a jury convicted Ashby of second-degree murder, making him the first Colorado officer in decades to be found guilty of murder for an on-duty shooting. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison. Ashby's Side of the Story Speaking recently on the Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast, available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and other major platforms, Ashby described the trial as deeply flawed. “I was bewildered by the continued prosecution,” Ashby said. “There were problems with the investigation, and I couldn't believe it when the jury came back with a guilty verdict.” Available for free on their website and streaming on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and other podcast platforms. Did This Ex-Police Officer Get a Fair Trial? He spent more than eight years behind bars before being transferred to a halfway house. Ashby now says his prison experience was nothing like what the public sees from Hollywood. “So much of what people think they know about prison comes from TV and legacy media,” he explained. “The reality is far different.” Legal Challenges and Appeals Ashby has not stopped fighting his conviction. His defense has filed multiple appeals, most recently a 35C motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and lack of access to critical police reports. Despite these claims, the court denied relief, leaving his 16-year sentence in place. “It's frustrating,” Ashby said. “We know there were serious issues in the trial, but the system doesn't want to admit mistakes.” The trial judge himself called it “the most difficult case he's had and probably will ever have.” Did This Ex-Police Officer Get a Fair Trial? Was he guilty of 2nd degree murder? Rare Conviction for a Police Officer The rarity of Ashby's conviction cannot be overstated. In the United States, it is unusual for law enforcement officers to be prosecuted and convicted of murder in the line of duty. Jurors deliberated for 11 hours before finding him guilty. Though Ashby originally faced up to 48 years in prison, he received a 16-year sentence. Meanwhile, the young man's family won a $1.3 million settlement against the City of Rocky Ford, alleging that city officials acted irresponsibly in hiring Ashby. A Mission to Clear His Name Now, Ashby is speaking out through social platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, sharing his story under the page Prisoner of War on Police. Did This Ex-Police Officer Get a Fair Trial? “I don't want this to happen to anyone else,” he said. “I'm determined to clear my name and to shed light on what went wrong in my case.” Final Thoughts The story of James Ashby remains divisive. Supporters believe he was unfairly targeted and prosecuted, while critics argue that justice was delivered for what they called a bad police shooting. Listeners can hear Ashby's full account on the Law Enforcement Talk Podcast, streaming on Apple, Spotify, and other podcast platforms. So the question remains for the public to decide: Did this ex-police officer get a fair trial—or was he wrongfully convicted of 2nd degree murder? The full interview is streaming now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and the Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show website. Get the latest news articles, without all the bias and spin, from the Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast on Medium , which is free. Find a wide variety of great podcasts online at The Podcast Zone Facebook Page , look for the one with the bright green logo. Be sure to check out our website . Be sure to follow us on MeWe , X , Instagram , Facebook, Pinterest, Linkedin and other social media platforms for the latest episodes and news. You can help contribute money to make the Gunrunner Movie . The film that Hollywood won't touch. It is about a now Retired Police Officer that was shot 6 times while investigating Gunrunning. He died 3 times during Medical treatment and was resuscitated. You can join the fight by giving a monetary “gift” to help ensure the making of his film at agunrunnerfilm.com . Background song Hurricane is used with permission from the band Dark Horse Flyer. You can contact John J. “Jay” Wiley by email at Jay@letradio.com , or learn more about him on their website . The Law Enforcement Talk Radio Show and Podcast promoted across their Facebook , Instagram , LinkedIn , Medium and other social media platforms. Did This Ex-Police Officer Get a Fair Trial? Was he guilty of 2nd degree murder? Attributions KKTV Reuters The Denver Post Facebook Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to the "Week in Review," where we delve into the true stories behind this week's headlines. Your host, Tony Brueski, joins hands with a rotating roster of guests, sharing their insights and analysis on a collection of intriguing, perplexing, and often chilling stories that made the news.       This is not your average news recap. With the sharp investigative lens of Tony and his guests, the show uncovers layers beneath the headlines, offering a comprehensive perspective that traditional news can often miss. From high-profile criminal trials to in-depth examinations of ongoing investigations, this podcast takes listeners on a fascinating journey through the world of true crime and current events.       Each episode navigates through multiple stories, illuminating their details with factual reporting, expert commentary, and engaging conversation. Tony and his guests discuss each case's nuances, complexities, and human elements, delivering a multi-dimensional understanding to their audience.  Whether you are a dedicated follower of true crime, or an everyday listener interested in the stories shaping our world, the "Week in Review" brings you the perfect balance of intrigue, information, and intelligent conversation. Expect thoughtful analysis, informed opinions, and thought-provoking discussions beyond the 24-hour news cycle. Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Welcome to the "Week in Review," where we delve into the true stories behind this week's headlines. Your host, Tony Brueski, joins hands with a rotating roster of guests, sharing their insights and analysis on a collection of intriguing, perplexing, and often chilling stories that made the news.       This is not your average news recap. With the sharp investigative lens of Tony and his guests, the show uncovers layers beneath the headlines, offering a comprehensive perspective that traditional news can often miss. From high-profile criminal trials to in-depth examinations of ongoing investigations, this podcast takes listeners on a fascinating journey through the world of true crime and current events.       Each episode navigates through multiple stories, illuminating their details with factual reporting, expert commentary, and engaging conversation. Tony and his guests discuss each case's nuances, complexities, and human elements, delivering a multi-dimensional understanding to their audience.  Whether you are a dedicated follower of true crime, or an everyday listener interested in the stories shaping our world, the "Week in Review" brings you the perfect balance of intrigue, information, and intelligent conversation. Expect thoughtful analysis, informed opinions, and thought-provoking discussions beyond the 24-hour news cycle. Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on  ⁨@TheEmilyDBaker⁩  YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/sZPcuRkkWVwEmily delves into Donna Adelson's motion for a new trial and exploring the legal arguments presented. We cover the defense's claims of juror misconduct, including instances of jurors posting on social media and appearing on podcasts, and the implications of these actions. The discussion also examines the defense's argument that Donna Adelson did not have sufficient time to make a knowing and voluntary decision regarding her testimony. Join us as we break down the complexities of this case, the standards for a new trial, and what these legal maneuvers could mean for the appeal process. RESOURCES Donna Adelson Trial Playlist - https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gL0_OPy2AliqyEjGcI8QzBu&si=Zgsa0W2Rnp6LiCkoSarah Boone Trial Playlist - https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gIpOZ3VSy0hcyIRjHn86Mac&si=BIQJoAX7B79X_4v4Alex Murdaugh Trial Playlist - https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gK8GOeWkGfi7acMnT-D0zaw&si=9iOx1G2JbzWeqp04 Ghislaine Maxwell & Prince Andrew Playlist - https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gL31tnzpu6Du3wLHoQRaIq8&si=I7zk1CK-ijRnoEk2Juror Foreperson Speaks on TikTok - https://youtu.be/DX1_r1vbw0c STAY IN THE LOOP WITH EMILY D. BAKER Download Our FREE App: https://lawnerdapp.com Get the Free Email Alert: https://www.LawNerdAlert.com Case Requests & Business Inquiries: TeamEmilyDBaker@wmeagency.com Help with the shop: https://www.lawnerdshop.com/pages/contact Mailing Address: Emily D. Baker 2000 Mallory Ln. St. 130-185, Franklin TN 37067 LAW NERD MERCH! https://www.LawNerdShop.com LONG FORM CONTENT https://www.youtube.com/@TheEmilyDBaker The Emily Show Podcast on YouTube: https://emilydbaker.com/TheEmilyShowPlaylist Apple Podcasts: https://emilydbaker.com/AppleTheEmilyShow Spotify Podcasts: https://emilydbaker.com/SpofityTheEmilyShow On your favorite podcast player Mondays EMILY ON SOCIAL @TheEmilyDBaker Instagram: https://www.Instagram.com/TheEmilyDBaker Twitter: https://www.Twitter.com/TheEmilyDBaker Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheEmilyDBaker MY YOUTUBE TOOLS **My Favorite YOUTUBE TOOL VidIQ https://vidiq.com/LawNerd Follow My Cats on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fredandgeorge_cat Emily's glasses lenses are Irlen tint https://www.irlen.com *This video is not legal advice; it is commentary for educational and entertainment purposes. Some links shared are affiliate links, all sponsorships are stated in video. Videos are based on publicly available information unless otherwise stated. Sharing a resource is not an endorsement; it is a resource. Copyright 2020-2025 Baker Media, LLC* Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Donna Adelson Juror's TIKTOK Posts Could TRIGGER A Mistrial!  Just when you thought the Adelson family saga couldn't get more chaotic, convicted murderer Donna Adelson is already making a bold play for a new trial. In this segment, we're joined by defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis to break down the explosive allegations at the heart of her appeal—and it centers on a juror's shocking behavior on social media. We reveal the defense's claim that the jury foreperson was actively posting on TikTok during the trial, identifying herself and her role in this high-profile case. This single act could have opened the door to a flood of outside influence, tainting the entire legal process and potentially violating Donna Adelson's right to a fair trial. Eric Faddis provides his expert legal analysis on whether this constitutes grounds for a mistrial. This case exposes a massive crisis in our modern justice system. How can courts ensure an impartial jury in the age of smartphones and constant connectivity? We engage in a heated debate about the practicality of instructing jurors to stay offline and whether self-control is a reasonable expectation anymore. Is the integrity of our legal system being destroyed by our addiction to social media? This isn't just about Donna Adelson; it's a critical look at a problem that threatens every future trial in America. The verdict is in, but the battle is far from over. Hashtags: #DonnaAdelson #DanMarkel #JurorMisconduct #Mistrial #TrueCrime #JusticeForDan #AdelsonFamily #LawAndCrime #CourtTV #LegalAnalysis Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Donna Adelson Juror's TIKTOK Posts Could TRIGGER A Mistrial! Just when you thought the Adelson family saga couldn't get more chaotic, convicted murderer Donna Adelson is already making a bold play for a new trial. In this segment, we're joined by defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis to break down the explosive allegations at the heart of her appeal—and it centers on a juror's shocking behavior on social media. We reveal the defense's claim that the jury foreperson was actively posting on TikTok during the trial, identifying herself and her role in this high-profile case. This single act could have opened the door to a flood of outside influence, tainting the entire legal process and potentially violating Donna Adelson's right to a fair trial. Eric Faddis provides his expert legal analysis on whether this constitutes grounds for a mistrial. This case exposes a massive crisis in our modern justice system. How can courts ensure an impartial jury in the age of smartphones and constant connectivity? We engage in a heated debate about the practicality of instructing jurors to stay offline and whether self-control is a reasonable expectation anymore. Is the integrity of our legal system being destroyed by our addiction to social media? This isn't just about Donna Adelson; it's a critical look at a problem that threatens every future trial in America. The verdict is in, but the battle is far from over. Hashtags: #DonnaAdelson #DanMarkel #JurorMisconduct #Mistrial #TrueCrime #JusticeForDan #AdelsonFamily #LawAndCrime #CourtTV #LegalAnalysis Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Donna Adelson's DESPERATE Appeal: Juror TikTok, Bias Claims & More The focus shifts squarely onto Donna Adelson's official appeal — and the cracks in her defense are glaring. Tony, Stacy, and Todd lay out the claims point by point, revealing just how shaky her legal team's strategy appears. Among the arguments: a juror posted on TikTok during the trial, another juror spoke out after the fact, and Donna's defense insists her courtroom reactions shouldn't have been considered at all. Add to that an allegation of “judicial favoritism” because the prosecution was given more time to set up technology, and the picture becomes clear: this isn't a strong legal attack, it's a desperate attempt to find any lifeline. The team doesn't let these arguments slide. They dissect them with sharp analysis and biting humor. Should a TikTok post really overturn a conviction in a murder-for-hire conspiracy? Should a jury ignore how a defendant reacts in the middle of trial testimony? And is it really the judge's fault if Donna's lawyer can't figure out how to use a projector? What becomes obvious in this breakdown is that Donna's defense isn't presenting new evidence or major legal flaws — they're trying to poke holes where none exist. This segment highlights just how weak the appeal looks in real time and raises the question: Is this just going through the motions, or does Donna truly believe these arguments will set her free?

Donna Adelson's DESPERATE Appeal: Juror TikTok, Bias Claims & More The focus shifts squarely onto Donna Adelson's official appeal — and the cracks in her defense are glaring. Tony, Stacy, and Todd lay out the claims point by point, revealing just how shaky her legal team's strategy appears. Among the arguments: a juror posted on TikTok during the trial, another juror spoke out after the fact, and Donna's defense insists her courtroom reactions shouldn't have been considered at all. Add to that an allegation of “judicial favoritism” because the prosecution was given more time to set up technology, and the picture becomes clear: this isn't a strong legal attack, it's a desperate attempt to find any lifeline. The team doesn't let these arguments slide. They dissect them with sharp analysis and biting humor. Should a TikTok post really overturn a conviction in a murder-for-hire conspiracy? Should a jury ignore how a defendant reacts in the middle of trial testimony? And is it really the judge's fault if Donna's lawyer can't figure out how to use a projector? What becomes obvious in this breakdown is that Donna's defense isn't presenting new evidence or major legal flaws — they're trying to poke holes where none exist. This segment highlights just how weak the appeal looks in real time and raises the question: Is this just going through the motions, or does Donna truly believe these arguments will set her free?

Donna Adelson isn't done fighting. Just days after being convicted on September 4th for the brutal murder of her ex–son-in-law, Dan Markel, Adelson and her defense team have filed an explosive 18-page motion for a new trial. In it, they question jurors and say they want to interview them about their conduct and verdict. The motion also points fingers at the jail informants and allege the trial itself was unfair from the start. Once the controlling matriarch of the Adelson family, Donna is now battling for her freedom behind bars—her latest legal move raising new questions about whether justice for Dan Markel will finally stand, or if the courtroom drama is far from over. Welcome to Surviving the Survivor, the show that brings you the #Bestguests in all of #truecrime. In this STS episode, Emmy Award-Winning Host Joel Waldman brings on Attorney Tim Jansen, Law Professor Jo Potuto and Justice for Dan's Jared Ross to discuss the latest motions and if any of will stick.Thanks for supporting the show and being a part of #STSNation! Donate to STS' Trial Travel: Https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/GJ...VENMO: @STSPodcast or Https://www.venmo.com/stspodcastCheck out STS Merch: Https://www.bonfire.com/store/sts-store/Joel's Book: Https://amzn.to/48GwbLxSupport the show on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivor Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Recapping after Donna Adelson's guilty verdict with victim impact statements, Prosecutor Cappleman's presser, and juror interviews since the verdict. Court TV Juror 6 - https://www.courttv.com/title/donna-adelson-juror-6-reveals-what-went-on-in-the-deliberation-room/Foreperson Tik Tok - https://www.tiktok.com/@laceywithaj/video/7546688064698027294STS interview with Juror 5 - https://www.youtube.com/live/eHV39boZWXcVictim impact statements - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGsfmmnOE10ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout  - NEW STYLES Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibisVenmo - @prettyliesalibisBuy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesrCash App- PrettyliesandalibisAll links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibisMerch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.comPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis(Weekly lives and private message board)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on  ⁨@TheEmilyDBaker⁩  YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/DX1_r1vbw0c The Donna Adelson trial has concluded, with a guilty verdict delivered on Thursday, September 4th, 2025. In this Case Brief, we dive deep into what the jury foreperson had to say! In less than 24 hours after the conviction, she took to TikTok to share her experience. And yes, she even talks about Wendi Adelson! Don't miss this insightful look into the jury's perspective on one of the most talked-about murder-for-hire cases! RESOURCES Tallahassee Democrat Article - https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/2025/09/05/donna-adelson-trial-jury-foreman-takes-to-tiktok-after-guilty-verdict/85996070007/ Foreperson's TikToks - https://www.tiktok.com/@laceywithajDonna Adelson Trial Playlist - https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gL0_OPy2AliqyEjGcI8QzBu Karen Read 2024 Mistrial Playlist - https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKUeCUzApgsEuQRXu5IXeTS Hannah Gutierrez Trial Playlist - https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKWeltMPnhrxlML9y75pbj6 Gwyneth Paltrow Trial Playlist - https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gIlMUdeLtN4mNQCerfWxONy Depp v. Heard Trial Playlist - https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gLVeg1x2AInDBfPU6-ffnD0 STAY IN THE LOOP WITH EMILY D. BAKER Download Our FREE App: https://lawnerdapp.com Get the Free Email Alert: https://www.LawNerdAlert.com Case Requests & Business Inquiries: TeamEmilyDBaker@wmeagency.com Help with the shop: https://www.lawnerdshop.com/pages/contact Mailing Address: Emily D. Baker 2000 Mallory Ln. St. 130-185, Franklin TN 37067 LAW NERD MERCH! https://www.LawNerdShop.com LONG FORM CONTENT https://www.youtube.com/@TheEmilyDBaker The Emily Show Podcast on YouTube: https://emilydbaker.com/TheEmilyShowPlaylist Apple Podcasts: https://emilydbaker.com/AppleTheEmilyShow Spotify Podcasts: https://emilydbaker.com/SpofityTheEmilyShow On your favorite podcast player Mondays EMILY ON SOCIAL @TheEmilyDBaker Instagram: https://www.Instagram.com/TheEmilyDBaker Twitter: https://www.Twitter.com/TheEmilyDBaker Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheEmilyDBaker MY YOUTUBE TOOLS **My Favorite YOUTUBE TOOL VidIQ https://vidiq.com/LawNerd Follow My Cats on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fredandgeorge_cat Emily's glasses lenses are Irlen tint https://www.irlen.com *This video is not legal advice; it is commentary for educational and entertainment purposes. Some links shared are affiliate links, all sponsorships are stated in video. Videos are based on publicly available information unless otherwise stated. Sharing a resource is not an endorsement; it is a resource. Copyright 2020-2025 Baker Media, LLC* Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Juror “Sprinkler Man” breaks his silence LIVE on STS! He reveals why he thought Donna Adelson was guilty in the Dan Markel murder trial, the testimony that stood out most, and answers YOUR burning questions. Don't miss this rare behind-the-scenes look at how justice for Dan Markel was delivered. In this Special STS Episode, STS Host Joel Waldman brings on a juror, known to STS as "Sprinkler Man," as a #BestGuest to answers all the questions we've been wanting to know about the jury. This episode also includes #BestGuests Tim Jansen and Jo Potuto.Thanks for supporting the show and being a part of #STSNation! Donate to STS' Trial Travel: Https://www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/GJ...VENMO: @STSPodcast or Https://www.venmo.com/stspodcastCheck out STS Merch: Https://www.bonfire.com/store/sts-store/Joel's Book: Https://amzn.to/48GwbLxSupport the show on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivor