Podcasts about Jury

In Episode 12 of The No Treason Podcast, Jonathan Drake continues a deep exploration of trial by jury through the lens of Lysander Spooner's Trial by Jury, arguing that modern courts have stripped juries of their historic power and turned justice into a government-controlled illusion. Building from last week's foundation, this episode confronts the claim that government already represents the people, examining why unchecked authority, judicial supremacy, and managed elections undermine genuine self-government. Drake walks through Spooner's rebuttals, connects theory to real-world cases like Tina Peters, and explains why unanimous juries once served as a true barrier against tyranny. This episode challenges listeners to reconsider liberty, consent, and the role of the people in determining justice, asking whether modern trials protect freedom or merely perform it.

Ist Trotz grundsätzlich verkehrt, weil infantil? Oder vor allem ärgerlich, weil jemand gegen bessere Einsicht stur an etwas festhält? Oder manchmal schlicht notwendig als Bedingung für politischen und anderen Widerstand? Und wenn die Bewegung „Querdenker“ Trotz als etwas Positives für sich beansprucht, was dann? Daniela Strigl, eine der einflussreichsten Literaturkritikerinnen, Mitglied der Jury der „SWR Bestenliste“, macht in ihrem neuen Essay klar, dass ohne Auseinandersetzung mit dieser zwiespältigen Eigenschaft heute fast nichts geht. Erschienen ist das Buch in der Reihe „Unruhe bewahren“.

Each week Hot off the Wire looks at a variety of stories in business, science, health and more. This week's headlines include: What Americans think about giving cash as holiday gifts, according to a new AP-NORC poll. US tariffs are having an uneven effect on holiday prices and purchases. A nightly tradition brings light and hope to children at Michigan hospital. Young conservative women find a home in Turning Point with Charlie Kirk's widow at the helm. DOJ vowed to punish those who disrupt Trump's immigration crackdown. Dozens of cases have crumbled. Along the Texas Coast, a new sanctuary aims to protect the endangered and rare whooping crane. More loons are filling Maine's lakes with their ghost-like calls. Rubio fields questions on Russia-Ukraine, Gaza and Venezuela at wide-ranging news conference. Justice Department will not release all its Jeffrey Epstein files Friday,, which is the deadline set in law. The Kennedy Center has started work on adding Donald Trump’s name to the building. Jury finds Judge Hannah Dugan guilty of obstruction for helping an immigrant evade federal agents. Dry needling is common around the NFL, and players aren't worried despite Watt's collapsed lung. How sewage can be used to heat and cool buildings. New York City is getting its first 3 Las Vegas-style casinos. Teen drug use remains low, but survey finds small rise in heroin and cocaine use. Gaza amputees struggle to rebuild lives as the enclave faces shortages of prosthetic limbs. Millions are pledged to a Syrian Australian man who stopped a gunman and became a national hero. Louvre reopens fully after staff vote to suspend strike. Syria welcomes the permanent repeal of sweeping US sanctions. On this week's AP Religion Roundup, a Hanukkah message from the late Rob Reiner and New York has a new Catholic archbishop. —The Associated Press About this program Host Terry Lipshetz is managing editor of the national newsroom for Lee Enterprises. Besides producing the daily Hot off the Wire news podcast, Terry conducts periodic interviews for this Behind the Headlines program, co-hosts the Streamed & Screened movies and television program and is the former producer of Across the Sky, a podcast dedicated to weather and climate. Theme music The News Tonight, used under license from Soundstripe. YouTube clearance: ZR2MOTROGI4XAHRX

December 8, former Colleton County Clerk of Court, Becky Hill, pled guilty to four charges but not to jury tampering. Attorney, Joe McCulloch joined Impact to give his reaction to the non guilty verdict. McCulloch has represented clients in front of the SC Supreme Court so he is qualified to give us insight into how the Alex Murdaugh appeal might look in front of the South Carolina Supreme Court. McCulloch represents two of the jurors from the Murdaugh double murder trial and he has intimate knowledge on what they have told investigators. To contact Joe Mculloch http://www.mccullochlaw.com Seton Tucker and Matt Harris began the Impact of Influence podcast shortly after the murders of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh. Now they cover true crime past and present from the southeast region of the U.S. Impact of Influence is part of the Evergreen Podcast Company. Look for Impact of Influence on Facebook and Youtube. Please support our sponsors Refresh your winter wardrobe with Quince. . Go to Quince dot com slash IMPACT for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada, too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-Edot com slash IMPACT. Free shipping and 365-day returns. Quince dot com slash IMPACT. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is presented by Create A Video – A leftist judge in Milwaukee, Wisconsin was convicted of obstruction for trying to help a criminal illegal alien flee from immigration agents outside her courtroom. She was, however, acquitted on a lesser charge. Whether she'll actually face any serious penalty remains to be seen at sentencing. Subscribe to the podcast at: https://ThePetePod.com/ All the links to Pete's Prep are free: https://patreon.com/petekalinershow Media Bias Check: GroundNews promo code! Advertising and Booking inquiries: Pete@ThePeteKalinerShow.com Get exclusive content here!: https://thepetekalinershow.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Frank and Shirley break down the Survivor Season 49 finale, starting with the big picture: why Savannah's win felt earned, and why the all-women final three (Sophie, Savannah, Sage) was such a standout moment. From there, they rewind through the endgame chaos, including the advantage hunt, Savannah's reward pick, Christina and Sage battling to stay alive at tribal, and Rizzo finally playing his idol after sitting on it for most of the season.They also get into Sophie's clutch final immunity, the pressure-packed fire-making decision, and the details of how Savannah pulled off the win when it mattered most. Plus: quick reunion talk, “On Fire” shoutouts, and some fun Survivor 50 hype before wrapping the season.00:00:00 Intro and first reactions to the winner and the all-women final three00:02:25 “Resume” talk: targets, votes, and what mattered at the end00:03:05 Post-tribal fallout and the advantage hunt setup00:09:15 Savannah wins immunity plus reward, then makes a surprising sanctuary pick00:13:40 Sophie weighs endgame threats and who she actually wants to face at final tribal00:15:25 Social media reaction to Savannah's blunt honesty00:16:25 Tribal pressure: Christina vs Sage, and who can really sell a case to the jury00:18:45 Rizzo plays the idol, the votes land, and the final four is set00:23:30 Sophie wins final immunity and the “who goes to fire” decision becomes everything00:28:40 Final four tribal: past mistakes, “make the right choice,” and the fire matchup is locked00:30:20 Fire-making breakdown and how Savannah actually pulls it off00:32:05 Final three vibes and the “three girls on the beach” moment00:33:05 Jury temperature check: who's locked in, who's not, and why Sophie's social game mattered00:45:10 Final vote results and why Savannah's win works as a throwback-style “villain you can root for” win00:56:10 Reunion chatter and Survivor 50 speculation01:01:20 Season wrap, feedback request, and where to find the showSavannah's win felt satisfying because it combined challenge dominance with owning her game instead of trying to soften it for the jury.Sophie's biggest strength was social access: people fed her information even when they probably should not have.Rizzo's idol story is a reminder that timing and threat-management can be as powerful as the actual play.Christina staying as long as she did became its own endgame fear, especially with fire-making looming.Final immunity is still the true “endgame boss fight” because it decides fire, and fire can swing the million.The all-women final three gave the finale a different energy, especially with Sage embracing the moment even as the longshot.The jury read felt pretty clear by the time votes were cast, but the episode still had real tension because of fire-making.“I don't have time to make friends out here, I'm trying to win $1 million.”“Fire can be everything.”“Three girls on the beach.”“When he walks in the room, everybody's cheering. When I walk in the room, crickets.”If you enjoyed this finale breakdown, make sure you subscribe to the show, leave a review, and share the episode with #OutlastPodcast so other Survivor fans can find us.GeekFreaksPodcast.com (source of all news discussed during our podcast)“On Fire” is referenced during the finale discussion for extra context and post-game reactionsOutlast Podcast on Twitter: @OutlastPodcast1Geek Freaks on Twitter: @geekfreakspodGeek Freaks on Instagram: @geekfreakspodcastGeek Freaks on Threads: @geekfreakspodcastGeek Freaks on Facebook: Geek Freaks PodcastPatreon: GeekFreakspodcastGot thoughts on the finale, fire-making, or who you want back for Survivor 50? Send your questions or topic requests to us on Twitter at @OutlastPodcast1 (or message Geek Freaks on socials), and we'll work them into a future episode.Timestamps And TopicsKey TakeawaysQuotesCall To ActionLinks And ResourcesFollow UsListener Questions

A Wisconsin judge accused of helping a Mexican immigrant dodge federal authorities has been convicted by a jury. AP correspondent Donna Warder reports.

A jury returns a guilty verdict in the case of Hannah Dugan. The Milwaukee judge was accused of allowing an undocumented immigrant defender to evade immigration agents

Ontario Premier Doug Ford boasted about his government's anti-tariff ad that ran south of the border briefly this fall, saying, 'it's the best ad that's ever been run.'; Jury deliberations get underway for the second-degree murder in the fatal shooting of Karolina Huebner-Makurat in July 2023; All the details for those looking to experience a true winter wonderland this holiday season at the Distillery District's Winter Village.

In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdf

Today's top stories:President Trump addresses the nation Jury still in deliberations for the Maya Hernandez trial Anabell Correa due in court Thursday Lawsuit filed against KHSD after Foothill High teacher found in inappropriate relationship with student Pinpoint Weather Forecast: Dec. 18, 2025For more local news, visit KGET.com. Stream local news for free on KGET+. Visit KGET.com/plus for more information. 

AP correspondent Haya Panjwani reports on an Arizona murder trial.

Ron takes a unique look at injury lawyers and our courtroom legal system........Guest: Dr. Robert Hartwig, Director of Center For Risk Management

Is Keir Starmer heading for another reset in January — and will it work?In this episode of Whitehall Sources, Calum Macdonald, former No.10 special adviser Kirsty Buchanan and political strategist Jo Tanner examine the growing pressure on the Labour leadership as 2026 looms.The panel breaks down:Why Labour MPs are rebelling over proposals to restrict jury trialsWhether Starmer has lost his political narrative — and public trustWhat the Bank of England's interest rate cut to 3.75% really means for households and businessesWhy the courts backlog, assisted dying, and constitutional reform are becoming political flashpointsAnd whether Labour is drifting away from its manifesto promisesWith sharp analysis, blunt criticism, and a few festive laughs, this episode asks a simple question: Does Keir Starmer still know what he stands for — and does anyone else?

Years before Brian Walshe was charged with murdering and dismembering his wife Ana, he allegedly pulled off another calculated crime—this time against his own father. Dr. Thomas Walshe, a prominent neurologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital, hadn't spoken to his son in over a decade when he died unexpectedly while traveling in India in September 2018. And for good reason: according to court documents, Brian had stolen nearly $800,000 from his father during a Lenox home refinance deal years earlier—took the check, then vanished for over a decade.  Thomas made his feelings clear in his will, leaving his only child "my best wishes but nothing else from my estate." He even appointed his nephew Andrew as executor. But Brian, according to family friends, got into his father's Hull home before anyone else, allegedly destroyed the will, then convinced Plymouth County Probate Court he was the rightful heir. By the time Thomas's friends intervened, Brian had already drained at least $250,000 from bank accounts, sold off a Salvador Dalí painting, a Miró, oriental rugs, jewelry, even the car—and nearly unloaded the waterfront house itself.  The only reason the scheme was stopped? One of Thomas's friends had photographed the will with his cell phone. Court filings also reveal allegations that Brian once tried to smuggle antiquities out of China and allegedly attacked guards when confronted. One longtime friend wrote that Brian was diagnosed as a sociopath at Austen Riggs psychiatric hospital. The pattern here is impossible to ignore: allegedly forge, destroy, manipulate, and take what isn't yours. This is the same man now accused of killing his wife days after learning of her affair—and standing to collect $2.7 million in life insurance. Jury deliberations resume Monday. #BrianWalshe #AnaWalshe #TrueCrime #WalsheTrial #ThomasWalshe #InheritanceFraud #CohassetMurder #CrimePodcast #MurderTrial #TrueCrimeYouTube 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

Years before Brian Walshe was charged with murdering and dismembering his wife Ana, he allegedly pulled off another calculated crime—this time against his own father. Dr. Thomas Walshe, a prominent neurologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital, hadn't spoken to his son in over a decade when he died unexpectedly while traveling in India in September 2018. And for good reason: according to court documents, Brian had stolen nearly $800,000 from his father during a Lenox home refinance deal years earlier—took the check, then vanished for over a decade.  Thomas made his feelings clear in his will, leaving his only child "my best wishes but nothing else from my estate." He even appointed his nephew Andrew as executor. But Brian, according to family friends, got into his father's Hull home before anyone else, allegedly destroyed the will, then convinced Plymouth County Probate Court he was the rightful heir. By the time Thomas's friends intervened, Brian had already drained at least $250,000 from bank accounts, sold off a Salvador Dalí painting, a Miró, oriental rugs, jewelry, even the car—and nearly unloaded the waterfront house itself.  The only reason the scheme was stopped? One of Thomas's friends had photographed the will with his cell phone. Court filings also reveal allegations that Brian once tried to smuggle antiquities out of China and allegedly attacked guards when confronted. One longtime friend wrote that Brian was diagnosed as a sociopath at Austen Riggs psychiatric hospital. The pattern here is impossible to ignore: allegedly forge, destroy, manipulate, and take what isn't yours. This is the same man now accused of killing his wife days after learning of her affair—and standing to collect $2.7 million in life insurance. Jury deliberations resume Monday. #BrianWalshe #AnaWalshe #TrueCrime #WalsheTrial #ThomasWalshe #InheritanceFraud #CohassetMurder #CrimePodcast #MurderTrial #TrueCrimeYouTube Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdf

In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdf

In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

What happens when jurors' gut instincts clash with your expert's data? In this episode, IMS Senior Jury Consulting Advisor Chris Dominic teams up with Affiliate Advisor Steve Pomerantz, PhD, and Trial Consultant Michelle Cooper, JD, to tackle one of the courtroom's trickiest challenges: making statistical significance make sense to the jury.  From framing fairness and randomness in everyday language to using simple checklists that keep jurors focused, this conversation is packed with practical strategies to help trial teams turn complex numbers into clear storytelling.  If you have ever wondered how to explain science by “speaking juror”, this episode offers a roadmap. Listen now or watch the original LinkedIn Live here: https://www.linkedin.com/events/imselevate-explainingstatistica7402744841094537216/theater/Learn about Steve Pomerantz's expertise: https://imslegal.com/team/steve-pomerantz  Learn about Michelle Cooper's expertise: https://imslegal.com/team/michelle-cooper-jdExplore IMS's litigation support services: https://imslegal.com/services IMS has delivered strategic litigation consulting and expert witness services to leading global law firms and Fortune 500 companies for more than 30 years, in more than 65,000 cases. IMS consultants become an extension of your legal team from pre-suit investigation services to discovery and then on to arbitration and trial. Learn more at imslegal.com.

As the UK joins 26 other Council of Europe States in calling for a rebalancing of the European Convention on Human Rights as between the individual rights of irregular migrants and the public interest in defending freedom and security, Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC discuss the political imperatives which drove Justice Secretary David Lammy and Attorney General Lord Hermer to attend a potentially highly significant meeting in Strasbourg designed to head off the rise of populist, anti-ECHR parties across Europe.  Click this link to read the statement issued by the 27 States following the Strasbourg meeting - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-to-the-conference-of-ministers-of-justice-of-the-council-of-europe Ken and Tim then turn to answering listeners' questions - what do the statistics concerning the number of defeats for the UK in the European Court of Human Rights over the past 45 years really tell us?  Is it really the case that trial by Judge alone is less fair than trial by jury?  If trial by magistrates in the Youth Court is largely the case for children why not for adults?  Should defendants be able to elect judge only trial in the Crown Court in all cases? And what is the evidence that an increase in magistrates' sentencing powers leads to a rise in the prison population? Finally, the duo anticipate the special episodes of Double Jeopardy to be released over the holiday period in which their guest is the former New Zealand High Court Judge and Chief Prosecutor for Auckland, Simon Moore KC.  At a time when comparisons are often made with the New Zealand criminal justice system's experience in 2011 of reforming the right to trial by jury, Simon gives his thoughts on the Lammy/Leveson proposals, explains current issues in the NZ criminal justice system and also discusses his extraordinary role as the chief prosecutor in the Pitcairn Island sexual abuse trials between 2002-2004. -- Covering the critical intersections of politics and law in the UK with expert commentary on high-profile legal cases, political controversies, prisons and sentencing, human rights law, current political events and the shifting landscape of justice and democracy. With in-depth discussions and influential guests, Double Jeopardy is the podcast that uncovers the forces shaping Britain's legal and political future.    What happens when politics and law collide? How do politics shape the law - and when does the law push back? What happens when judicial independence is tested, human rights come under attack, or freedom of expression is challenged? And who really holds power in Britain's legal and political system?  Get answers to questions like these weekly on Wednesdays.   Double Jeopardy is presented by Ken Macdonald KC, former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Tim Owen KC, as they break down the legal and political issues in Britain. From high-profile legal cases to the evolving state of British democracy, Double Jeopardy offers expert legal commentary on the most pressing topics in UK law, politics, and human rights.    Ken Macdonald KC served as Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003-2008, shaping modern prosecutorial policy and advocating for the rule of law. He is a former Warden of Wadham College, Oxford, a crossbench member of the House of Lords, and a leading writer, commentator and broadcaster on politics and the rule of law.  Tim Owen KC has been involved in many of the most significant public, criminal and human rights law cases over the past four decades.  Both bring unparalleled experience from the frontline of Britain's legal and political landscape.    If you like The Rest Is Politics, Talking Politics, Law Pod UK and Today in Focus, you'll love Double Jeopardy.

Get 15% off OneSkin with the code LAWNERD at http://oneskin.co/LAWNERD  #oneskinpod #ad Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D. Baker YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/DLVObga3t0g  Day 11 of the Brian Walshe Trial happened on December 15, 2025. Discussion on the scheduling of the sentencing for December 17th at 9:00 a.m., including the judge's consideration of victim impact statements and sentencing on the other counts (to which Walshe previously pleaded guilty). An in-depth look at the potential grounds for appeal by the defense and why the judge may "max out" Walshe on the underlying crimes, ensuring he remains in custody during the appeal process. Final thoughts on the trial, including a thank you to law enforcement (specifically Detective Sergeant Harrison Schmidt), and comments from Anna's sister: "Justice has been served." A reminder is given to remember Anna's three young children. RESOURCES Brian Walshe Case Overview - https://youtu.be/VbbXdPf4aXY  MA v Brian Walshe Trial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gK0wNHtj-4Xm0KF84vD6VIW  Brian Walshe Trial Daily Case Brief Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFdNnRZUqH63SQSsTnj7ofHMBjdhgSEfKDonna Adelson Trial - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gL0_OPy2AliqyEjGcI8QzBu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In “Sean Combs: The Reckoning Pt 3 — Closing Remarks”, Ern & Iso wrap up the entire Diddy discussion with their final thoughts and a bigger convo about accountability, “trickle-down” success, and why public opinion flips depending on who's on the hot seat.They break down why it feels like everybody wants one person to carry the whole blame, even though whole teams, execs, and insiders benefited when things were good. They also talk about the jury outrage, the Cassie situation, and why people often prefer the more entertaining lie over the truth. From there, the conversation expands into the ugly realities of the music business: bad contracts, 360 deals, “opportunity” vs fair pay, and why artists keep signing anyway.They close with a real message: fame can make people accept deals and compromises they'll regret later, and in the end—knowledge, lawyers, and accountability matter.Tap in, and let us know in the comments: is the culture being consistent… or just picking sides?Support the show: Like

As jury deliberations go into day 2 in Brian Walshe's murder trial, what is taking the jury so long in reaching a verdict in Brian's trial, where he faces charges of murdering his wife, Ana Walshe? Plus, Rob Reiner and his wife were found stabbed to death.#CourtTV - What do YOU think?Binge all episodes of #OpeningStatements here: https://www.courttv.com/trials/opening-statements-with-julie-grant/Watch the full video episode here: Watch 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 the Opening Statements Podcast is hosted by Julie Grant, produced by Eric Goldson, 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.

durée : 00:58:33 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Muhlmann, Nassim El Kabli - Le temps irrigue l'ensemble de l'œuvre de Jankélévitch avec ses deux notions piliers : son irréversibilité et la question de l'instant. De ce constat radical découle l'idée que "ce qui est passé demeure irrémédiablement perdu" et une éthique de l'occasion : saisir l'instant ou le perdre à jamais. - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Robert Maggiori Philosophe, critique littéraire au journal "Libération" et co-fondateur et président du Jury des Rencontres philosophiques de Monaco; Frédéric Worms Philosophe, directeur de l'École Normale Supérieure (Ulm)

Sponsored by EasyDNS https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord ## Episode Description In Episode 194 of Not on Record, seasoned Canadian criminal defense lawyers Joseph Neuberger and Michael Lacy dive deep into the realities of jury trials in Canada. Sparked by a recent National Post article exploring the inner workings of juries, they debate whether they'd choose a jury or a judge-alone trial if charged with a serious offense. The discussion covers the impact of the 2019 abolition of peremptory challenges, the challenges of selecting an impartial jury in today's polarized climate, the importance of storytelling and engagement in jury addresses, cultural shifts affecting civic duty and bias, and why many defense lawyers now lean toward bench trials especially in sexual assault cases. With candid insights from decades of trial experience, dog interruptions, and a call to restore peremptory challenges, this episode is a raw look at the strengths, flaws, and uncertainties of Canada's jury system.

TOP STORIES - Jury recommends life in prison for man who killed Hollywood Police officer, Police ID woman found dead inside freezer at Miami Dollar Tree, Miami, St. Pete Home to Some of the Worst Winter Drivers in U.S., Florida officials clarify restrictions on license plate frames, covers, elderly Pasco County woman becomes fugitive over HOA violations, Wilton Simpson offers personalized certificates recognizing Santa's imminent entry into FloridaSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The murder trial of Brian Walshe nears its conclusion as a Massachusetts jury returns for deliberations. Walshe is accused of murdering and dismembering his wife, Ana. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Breaking News Alert: A jury has convicted Brian Walshe of first-degree murder. Listen for more details. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Brian Walshe murder trial has reached its final stage. A jury of six men and six women is now deliberating whether the Massachusetts father of three is guilty of murdering and dismembering his wife Ana Walshe on New Year's Day 2023. Closing arguments revealed two starkly different narratives.  Prosecutor Anne Yas pointed directly at Walshe and declared Ana is dead because he murdered her, describing him as cool and calculated as he bought hacksaws and cleaning supplies with cash while searching online for how to dispose of a body. The defense countered that Walshe found his wife dead in bed from sudden unexplained causes and panicked, making terrible decisions but never planning to harm the woman he loved.  The jury has three options on their verdict slip: not guilty, first-degree murder which carries life without parole, or second-degree murder which would make Walshe eligible for parole after 15 to 25 years. During deliberations the jury asked to see exhibit 97, a photograph of Ana lying on a rug in her living room. That same rug was later found cut into pieces in a dumpster, soaked in her blood, with a fragment of her necklace embedded in the fibers.  Ana Walshe's body has never been recovered. Brian Walshe has already pleaded guilty to disposing of her remains and misleading police, though the jury was not told about those admissions. Whatever verdict comes back, it won't answer the question haunting this case: what actually happened in that Cohasset home between the champagne toast at midnight and the first Google search at 4:52 a.m. #BrianWalshe #AnaWalshe #WalsheTrial #TrueCrime #MurderTrial #JuryDeliberation #CohassetMurder #ClosingArguments #TrueCrimeNews #JusticeForAna 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

The Brian Walshe murder trial has reached its final stage. A jury of six men and six women is now deliberating whether the Massachusetts father of three is guilty of murdering and dismembering his wife Ana Walshe on New Year's Day 2023. Closing arguments revealed two starkly different narratives.  Prosecutor Anne Yas pointed directly at Walshe and declared Ana is dead because he murdered her, describing him as cool and calculated as he bought hacksaws and cleaning supplies with cash while searching online for how to dispose of a body. The defense countered that Walshe found his wife dead in bed from sudden unexplained causes and panicked, making terrible decisions but never planning to harm the woman he loved.  The jury has three options on their verdict slip: not guilty, first-degree murder which carries life without parole, or second-degree murder which would make Walshe eligible for parole after 15 to 25 years. During deliberations the jury asked to see exhibit 97, a photograph of Ana lying on a rug in her living room. That same rug was later found cut into pieces in a dumpster, soaked in her blood, with a fragment of her necklace embedded in the fibers.  Ana Walshe's body has never been recovered. Brian Walshe has already pleaded guilty to disposing of her remains and misleading police, though the jury was not told about those admissions. Whatever verdict comes back, it won't answer the question haunting this case: what actually happened in that Cohasset home between the champagne toast at midnight and the first Google search at 4:52 a.m. #BrianWalshe #AnaWalshe #WalsheTrial #TrueCrime #MurderTrial #JuryDeliberation #CohassetMurder #ClosingArguments #TrueCrimeNews #JusticeForAna 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

durée : 00:58:06 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Muhlmann, Nassim El Kabli - L'amour est la première des vertus, selon Jankélévitch, et commence par un oui sans réserve à autrui : une affirmation inconditionnelle de sa valeur, de sa préférabilité. - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Cynthia Fleury Philosophe et psychanalyste française; Robert Maggiori Philosophe, journaliste de "Libération" et co-fondateur et président du Jury des Rencontres philosophiques de Monaco

Jonathan Drake begins a new series with the first episode of his deep dive into Lysander Spooner's An Essay on the Trial by Jury, framing it as the next critical pillar in understanding natural law after concluding No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. He walks through Spooner's argument that true liberty depends on juries judging not just facts, but the justice of laws themselves, placing ultimate authority in the hands of the people rather than the state. Jonathan traces the ancient roots of trial by jury through English common law, the Magna Carta, and the American founding, contrasting “trial by country” with modern courtrooms that function as trials by government. Using the Tina Peters case as a modern example, he explains how judicial control of evidence and jury instruction has hollowed out the system while preserving its appearance. This episode lays the philosophical groundwork for why jury nullification, unanimity, and random selection are essential safeguards against despotism, and why reclaiming this knowledge may be one of the last peaceful checks on unchecked power.

A Texas man has been served a life sentence for gunning down a good Samaritan over a filet-o-fish sandwich. An 84yo dad guns his son in the face over a missed hospice visit to his dying mom. Plus, shop with a cop event ends in cuffs for a woman who was trying to get a 5-finger discount! Jennifer Gould reports. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ecoutez Le Cave' réveil avec Philippe Caverivière du 15 décembre 2025.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

This Day in Legal History: Bill of Rights RatifiedOn December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was officially ratified, marking a foundational moment in American legal history. With Virginia becoming the crucial eleventh state to approve the measure, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution achieved the three-fourths majority required for adoption. These amendments were crafted in response to fears that the newly formed federal government might trample on individual freedoms, a concern strongly voiced by the Anti-Federalists during the Constitution's ratification debates. Drafted primarily by James Madison, the Bill of Rights was intended to secure essential civil liberties and limit government power.The amendments enshrine core protections such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press, the right to bear arms, and safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. They also provide important rights to those accused of crimes, including the right to a fair trial, protection against self-incrimination, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. At the time, these provisions applied only to the federal government, but their scope was later expanded through the Incorporation Doctrine using the Fourteenth Amendment.The ratification of the Bill of Rights represented a political compromise but ultimately became a defining element of American constitutional identity. Over the centuries, courts have invoked these amendments in countless rulings, from free speech cases to gun rights and due process protections. The Bill of Rights not only shapes modern legal debates but also remains a symbol of the nation's enduring commitment to individual liberty and the rule of law. Its ratification on this day in 1791 continues to influence how justice is understood and delivered in the United States.Judge Hannah Dugan of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court is on trial for allegedly obstructing an immigration arrest in her courtroom, a case seen as a test of Donald Trump's aggressive immigration enforcement policies. Federal prosecutors accuse Dugan of helping a Mexican migrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, evade arrest by redirecting ICE agents and escorting the defendant through a non-public exit after his hearing. Dugan, who has been suspended from the bench, has pleaded not guilty to charges of concealing a person from arrest and obstructing federal proceedings.Prosecutors claim she acted corruptly and misled law enforcement, allegedly showing anger when she learned of ICE's presence and insisting a judicial warrant was needed. Dugan's defense argues she acted in good faith, following courthouse policy designed to handle ICE encounters after previous controversial arrests. The trial highlights growing legal and political tensions around courthouse arrests, which critics say intimidate immigrants and undermine trust in the legal system. The outcome could influence how far judges and local officials can go in pushing back against federal immigration actions.Wisconsin judge faces trial for stopping courtroom arrest of migrant in Trump crackdown | ReutersCalifornia filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for cutting over $33 million in federal grants intended for commercial vehicle safety programs. The U.S. Department of Transportation, led by Secretary Sean Duffy, justified the funding termination by claiming California failed to properly enforce English proficiency requirements for truck drivers. California argues its standards align with federal rules and called the decision unlawful and harmful to public safety and the economy.The lawsuit comes amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to crack down on non-English-speaking and non-U.S. citizen truck drivers. This includes halting commercial driver visas and threatening similar funding cuts in states like New York and Minnesota. The administration has also targeted Democrat-led states for other transportation-related penalties. In California's case, the withheld funds were designated for safety inspections, audits, traffic enforcement, and education programs.California contends that its licensed drivers are involved in significantly fewer fatal crashes than the national average, challenging the administration's justification. The legal dispute reflects escalating tensions between federal agencies and Democratic states over immigration and transportation enforcement.California sues Trump administration over terminated transportation grants | ReutersA federal judge ruled that evidence seized from Daniel Richman, a former attorney for ex-FBI Director James Comey, was wrongfully retained by prosecutors, presenting a hurdle for any new charges against Comey. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered the Department of Justice to return the files but allowed a sealed copy to remain with the court should prosecutors later obtain a valid warrant. Richman had filed a lawsuit claiming the DOJ had improperly held onto materials seized during an investigation that ended in 2021 without charges.While the judge found the DOJ's actions amounted to an unreasonable seizure, she declined to prevent the department from pursuing future leads based on the information already reviewed. The seized files had been used earlier this year to support an indictment against Comey, accusing him of making false statements and obstructing Congress over his 2020 testimony.That indictment, along with one against New York Attorney General Letitia James, was dismissed last month after it was found the prosecutor involved had been unlawfully appointed. The judge's ruling now complicates the DOJ's ability to revive its case against Comey, a frequent critic of Donald Trump and a central figure in past investigations into Trump's conduct.Judge says Comey evidence was wrongfully retained, creating hurdle for new charges | ReutersA California jury has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $40 million to two women who claimed its talc-based baby powder caused their ovarian cancer. The jury awarded $18 million to Monica Kent and $22 million to Deborah Schultz and her husband, finding the company failed to warn consumers despite allegedly knowing of the product's risks for decades. Both women testified that they used the powder for over 40 years and have undergone extensive cancer treatments since their diagnoses in 2014 and 2018.J&J denies the product causes cancer and plans to appeal the verdict, calling it an “aberrant” outcome. The company points out that no major U.S. health agency has definitively linked talc to ovarian cancer and argues that plaintiffs' claims rely solely on legal arguments rather than scientific consensus.This is the first talc trial to move forward since J&J's latest bankruptcy attempt, aimed at resolving over 67,000 similar lawsuits, was rejected by the courts. The company previously stopped selling talc-based baby powder in the U.S. in 2020. While it has faced some large verdicts—including a $4.69 billion award in a past case—it has also won dismissals and reductions on appeal. In addition to ovarian cancer claims, J&J is also facing suits linking its talc products to mesothelioma, with some recent verdicts exceeding $900 million.Jury orders Johnson & Johnson to pay $40 million to two women in latest talc trial | 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

Ecoutez Le Cave' réveil avec Philippe Caverivière du 15 décembre 2025.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

LIVE COURTROOM COVERAGE — NO COMMENTARY This is the raw, uninterrupted courtroom feed from The Trial of Brian Walshe, presented exactly as it unfolds inside the courtroom. Brian Walshe is standing trial in connection with the disappearance and death of his wife, Ana Walshe, a case that has captured national attention and raised urgent questions about digital evidence, marital dynamics, and investigative timelines. This series provides unfiltered access to the testimony, exhibits, expert witnesses, and courtroom decisions as they happen. There is no editorializing, no added narration, and no commentary — just the court, the attorneys, the witnesses, and the judge. Viewers can follow every moment as the prosecution lays out its timeline, the defense challenges the state's case, and the court works through a complex and highly scrutinized trial that has been years in the making. If you're watching our live companion analysis on Hidden Killers or catching up with the highlight segments later, this raw feed serves as the complete, original source for everything happening inside the courtroom. #BrianWalshe #AnaWalshe #Courtroom #TrialCoverage #TrueCrime #LiveTrial #HiddenKillers #CourtFeed #LegalProceedings #TrialUpdates 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

The Brian Walshe murder trial took a stunning turn Thursday morning when the defense rested without calling a single witness. Not Brian Walshe. Not their forensic experts. Not the medical professional who was supposed to explain how a healthy 39-year-old woman just drops dead in bed. Nothing. This comes just 24 hours after Walshe's attorneys told the judge he would take the stand. Instead, when asked directly by Judge Diane Freniere, Walshe confirmed: "I will not testify." After eight days of prosecution testimony and 50 witnesses, the defense offered zero counter-evidence to support the "sudden unexplained death" theory they promised in opening statements.  This morning, both sides deliver 45-minute closing arguments, then deliberations begin. The prosecution built their case on Brian Walshe's Google searches starting at 4:52 a.m. on January 1st, 2023 — searches for how to dispose of a body, how to dismember, hacksaw recommendations, and how to clean DNA from a knife. The jury saw surveillance footage of Walshe buying hatchets, hacksaws, Tyvek suits, and cleaning supplies while wearing a surgical mask and blue gloves, paying in cash. They heard that Ana's DNA was found on the hacksaw blade with statistical certainty in the nonillions. They learned about the $2.7 million life insurance policy naming Brian as sole beneficiary, and the affair with D.C. real estate broker William Fastow — whose name Brian searched on Christmas Day 2022. Brian Walshe has already pleaded guilty to dismembering Ana's body and misleading police. He faces life in prison without parole if convicted of first-degree murder. We break down everything the jury heard, what the defense accomplished in cross-examination, and what to expect as this case goes to deliberation. #BrianWalshe #AnaWalshe #WalsheTrial #TrueCrime #MurderTrial #ClosingArguments #Massachusetts #CohassetMurder #TrueCrimeNews #JusticeForAna 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

The Brian Walshe murder trial took a stunning turn Thursday morning when the defense rested without calling a single witness. Not Brian Walshe. Not their forensic experts. Not the medical professional who was supposed to explain how a healthy 39-year-old woman just drops dead in bed. Nothing. This comes just 24 hours after Walshe's attorneys told the judge he would take the stand. Instead, when asked directly by Judge Diane Freniere, Walshe confirmed: "I will not testify." After eight days of prosecution testimony and 50 witnesses, the defense offered zero counter-evidence to support the "sudden unexplained death" theory they promised in opening statements.  This morning, both sides deliver 45-minute closing arguments, then deliberations begin. The prosecution built their case on Brian Walshe's Google searches starting at 4:52 a.m. on January 1st, 2023 — searches for how to dispose of a body, how to dismember, hacksaw recommendations, and how to clean DNA from a knife. The jury saw surveillance footage of Walshe buying hatchets, hacksaws, Tyvek suits, and cleaning supplies while wearing a surgical mask and blue gloves, paying in cash. They heard that Ana's DNA was found on the hacksaw blade with statistical certainty in the nonillions. They learned about the $2.7 million life insurance policy naming Brian as sole beneficiary, and the affair with D.C. real estate broker William Fastow — whose name Brian searched on Christmas Day 2022. Brian Walshe has already pleaded guilty to dismembering Ana's body and misleading police. He faces life in prison without parole if convicted of first-degree murder. We break down everything the jury heard, what the defense accomplished in cross-examination, and what to expect as this case goes to deliberation. #BrianWalshe #AnaWalshe #WalsheTrial #TrueCrime #MurderTrial #ClosingArguments #Massachusetts #CohassetMurder #TrueCrimeNews #JusticeForAna 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

LIVE COURTROOM COVERAGE — NO COMMENTARY This is the raw, uninterrupted courtroom feed from The Trial of Brian Walshe, presented exactly as it unfolds inside the courtroom. Brian Walshe is standing trial in connection with the disappearance and death of his wife, Ana Walshe, a case that has captured national attention and raised urgent questions about digital evidence, marital dynamics, and investigative timelines. This series provides unfiltered access to the testimony, exhibits, expert witnesses, and courtroom decisions as they happen. There is no editorializing, no added narration, and no commentary — just the court, the attorneys, the witnesses, and the judge. Viewers can follow every moment as the prosecution lays out its timeline, the defense challenges the state's case, and the court works through a complex and highly scrutinized trial that has been years in the making. If you're watching our live companion analysis on Hidden Killers or catching up with the highlight segments later, this raw feed serves as the complete, original source for everything happening inside the courtroom. #BrianWalshe #AnaWalshe #Courtroom #TrialCoverage #TrueCrime #LiveTrial #HiddenKillers #CourtFeed #LegalProceedings #TrialUpdates 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

Join my Patreon for access to all court docs, podcasts and more! https://www.Patreon.com/imnotalawyerbut Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@imnotalawyerbut Merch: https://cc0463-4.myshopify.com/ Booking/Email: info@imnotalawyerbut.com  Time Stamps:  00:00:20 - Intro  00:03:00 - Romeca Meeks Blackmon  00:18:46 - Alicia Andrews  00:40:41 - Doing Away with Jury Trials?  00:44:00 - Objection about Jury Trials  00:46:32 - Alicia Andrews Objection  00:49:20 - Jesse Butler Objection  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A jury has been chosen for the trial of Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan next week.

In this episode of The Truth with Lisa Boothe, Lisa sits down with Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett for an in-depth look at the explosive case surrounding Tyler Robinson, the man accused of assassinating conservative leader Charlie Kirk. Jarrett walks through the evidence prosecutors say makes this a strong case, the challenges of seating an impartial jury in today’s hyper-politicized climate, and why allowing Robinson to appear in civilian clothing could influence public perception. Lisa and Gregg also explore the legal path to the death penalty, concerns about politicized prosecutions, and the broader implications this case holds for the justice system. The episode closes with a breakdown of recent U.S. military strikes on Venezuelan drug cartels, including the constitutional and legal justification behind the operations. The Truth with Lisa Boothe is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Kenneth Parks committed one of the strangest and most controversial crimes in modern history. In 1987, he drove fourteen miles in the middle of the night to his in-laws home and attacked them, leaving his mother-in-law dead and his father-in-law severely injured. Then, covered in blood, he walked into a police station and confessed.But Parks insisted he had been asleep the entire time. Doctors found no signs of psychosis, only a lifelong pattern of sleepwalking and night terrors. His defense argued that he experienced a violent sleepwalking episode and never woke up during the attack.In a shocking outcome, the jury agreed. Parks was acquitted of murder and walked free, creating one of the most debated legal precedents in Canadian history. He has lived quietly ever since, with no further violence.So what do you think happened that night? A tragic medical mystery or the perfect excuse for murder?

In this segment, defense attorney Bob Motta joins us to dismantle one of the most bizarre strategies unfolding in the Brian Walshe murder trial: the claim that Ana Walshe simply died in her sleep… and Brian responded by dismembering her. Brian has already pleaded guilty to cutting up his wife's body and dumping her remains across multiple towns. That part isn't in dispute. So why is the defense leaning into this “medical emergency” narrative? Bob walks us through the bizarre tactical logic of admitting to the worst possible post-mortem crime while insisting the death itself was natural. We break down how defense attorney Larry Tipton tried to pry open a sliver of possibility during cross-examination — pushing the medical examiner to concede that sudden cardiac events, pulmonary collapses, arrhythmias, even neurological events can happen to healthy adults. But when the doctor immediately added that such an event would be “pretty rare” for a healthy 39-year-old and placed spontaneous arrhythmia “at the bottom of the list,” is there even enough left for reasonable doubt? Bob explains what's really going on here: not proving innocence, but planting a microscopic question mark in the jury's mind. And he weighs in on whether this kind of narrative feels clever… or insulting. We also explore Brian's history — the federal fraud conviction, the ankle bracelet, the pattern of deception — and ask Bob whether juries can realistically separate “bad character” from the question of guilt. Does a convicted con artist get the same benefit of the doubt as everyone else, or do jurors come in expecting manipulation? This one is a psychological and strategic autopsy of a defense theory that's either brilliant misdirection… or a Hail Mary with no receiver downfield. #BrianWalshe #AnaWalshe #BobMotta #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #SuddenDeathDefense #LegalAnalysis #MurderTrial #TonyBrueski Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

In this segment, defense attorney Bob Motta joins us to dismantle one of the most bizarre strategies unfolding in the Brian Walshe murder trial: the claim that Ana Walshe simply died in her sleep… and Brian responded by dismembering her. Brian has already pleaded guilty to cutting up his wife's body and dumping her remains across multiple towns. That part isn't in dispute. So why is the defense leaning into this “medical emergency” narrative? Bob walks us through the bizarre tactical logic of admitting to the worst possible post-mortem crime while insisting the death itself was natural. We break down how defense attorney Larry Tipton tried to pry open a sliver of possibility during cross-examination — pushing the medical examiner to concede that sudden cardiac events, pulmonary collapses, arrhythmias, even neurological events can happen to healthy adults. But when the doctor immediately added that such an event would be “pretty rare” for a healthy 39-year-old and placed spontaneous arrhythmia “at the bottom of the list,” is there even enough left for reasonable doubt? Bob explains what's really going on here: not proving innocence, but planting a microscopic question mark in the jury's mind. And he weighs in on whether this kind of narrative feels clever… or insulting. We also explore Brian's history — the federal fraud conviction, the ankle bracelet, the pattern of deception — and ask Bob whether juries can realistically separate “bad character” from the question of guilt. Does a convicted con artist get the same benefit of the doubt as everyone else, or do jurors come in expecting manipulation? This one is a psychological and strategic autopsy of a defense theory that's either brilliant misdirection… or a Hail Mary with no receiver downfield. #BrianWalshe #AnaWalshe #BobMotta #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #SuddenDeathDefense #LegalAnalysis #MurderTrial #TonyBrueski 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

Segment 1 • Jury trials scrapped in Britain for offenses under 3 years—what's next? • Canadian pastor jailed for protesting drag story hour; euthanasia stats in Canada shock the world. • Nigeria: over 200 school kids kidnapped as Christian persecution runs rampant. Segment 2 • 61% of pastors now using AI weekly—how should congregants think about this? • Ridiculous complaints raised by cheater website Ashley Madison about AI chatbots. • 90% of college students think “words = violence.” Segment 3 • Christians face two dangerous extremes: being consumed by bad news vs. living in ignorance. • "Wise as serpents, infuriated at evil" — we're called to be informed, not indifferent. • A United Methodist preacher announces he's “transitioning” — and claims it's part of his ministry. Segment 4 • UMC pastor tells kids they don't need to obey their parents if feelings are hurt. • Claims he's not “becoming a woman,” just stopping the charade of acting like a man. • This isn't deep thinking — it's moral sophistry being fed to children. ___ Thanks for listening! Wretched Radio would not be possible without the financial support of our Gospel Partners. If you would like to support Wretched Radio we would be extremely grateful. VISIT https://fortisinstitute.org/donate/ If you are already a Gospel Partner we couldn't be more thankful for you if we tried!