POPULARITY
34 episodes with legal analysis
69 episodes with legal analysis
50 episodes with legal analysis
17 episodes with legal analysis
9 episodes with legal analysis
8 episodes with legal analysis
6 episodes with legal analysis
8 episodes with legal analysis
10 episodes with legal analysis
9 episodes with legal analysis
6 episodes with legal analysis
4 episodes with legal analysis
6 episodes with legal analysis
4 episodes with legal analysis
7 episodes with legal analysis
37 episodes with legal analysis
4 episodes with legal analysis
2 episodes with legal analysis
3 episodes with legal analysis
5 episodes with legal analysis
2 episodes with legal analysis
5 episodes with legal analysis
3 episodes with legal analysis
3 episodes with legal analysis
6 episodes with legal analysis
4 episodes with legal analysis
2 episodes with legal analysis
In this week’s episode of Zone 7, Sheryl McCollum is joined by former judge, legal analyst, and former Court TV anchor Ashley Willcott to discuss her decades-long career advocating for children in the legal system, her transition from the bench to television, and her new microformat focusing on fast, fact-based case analysis. Sheryl and Ashley also reflect on cases they have carried with them over the years including Abby and Libby in Delphi and Melissa Wolfenbarger in Atlanta. They emphasize the importance of showing up, returning to the facts, and continuing the work on behalf of victims and families. The episode closes with a tribute to the late Captain Dr. Duanne Thompson, honoring his legacy of quiet loyalty, humility, and lifelong commitment to service. Highlights: (0:00) Sheryl McCollum welcomes Ashley Willcott to Zone 7 (1:45) Court TV’s transition, Law & Crime, and the importance of cameras in the courtroom (3:30) The emotional toll of child cases on professionals (4:30) Ashley explains why child welfare became the focus of her legal career (7:15) Sheryl reflects on Ashley’s hands-on work with the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute (9:15) Why showing up, knowing your strengths, and doing the legwork can change case outcomes (11:15) Facts vs. opinions: Ashley explains how judges must separate evidence from assumptions (13:45) Ashley’s new 60-second legal updates and the need for fast, fact-based case analysis (19:30) From the bench to television Ashley’s path through child advocacy, Law & Crime, and Court TV (23:00) “Surround yourself with good”: Ashley and Sheryl discuss learning from people who make you better (25:15) The Delphi case, Abby and Libby, and why going to the scene can change how a case is understood (27:45) Melissa Wolfenbarger, returning to square one, and the importance of boots-on-the-ground cold case work (29:15) Remembering Dr. Henry Lee and the unexpected lesson that took over a crime convention classroom (31:00) Sheryl and Ashley honor Captain Dr. Duanne Thompson and his lifelong commitment to service (35:30) Sheryl shares the story of Duanne sitting in her mother-in-law’s driveway night after night (38:00) Final reflections and Sheryl’s closing quote from Captain Dr. Duanne Thompson: “You know where to find me.” Enjoying Zone 7? Leave a rating and review where you listen to podcasts. Your feedback helps others find the show and supports the mission to educate, engage, and inspire. Ashley Willcott is a former judge, trial attorney, mediator, and Certified Child Welfare Law Specialist with more than 20 years of experience advocating for children in the legal system. She previously served as the Governor-appointed Child Advocate for the state of Georgia before transitioning to television, becoming a trusted legal analyst and anchor known for her work with Court TV and Law & Crime. She also serves as an expert with the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute. Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an active crime scene investigator for a metro Atlanta police department and the director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, which partners with colleges and universities nationwide. With more than four decades of experience, she has worked on thousands of cold cases using her investigative system, The Last 24/361, which integrates evidence, media, and advanced forensic testing. Her work on high-profile cases, including The Boston Strangler, Natalie Holloway, Tupac Shakur and the Moore’s Ford Bridge lynching, led to her Emmy Award for CSI: Atlanta and induction into the National Law Enforcement Hall of Fame in 2023. Social Links: Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com X: @ColdCaseTips Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum Instagram: @officialzone7podcast TikTok: @Sheryl.McCollum Sheryl’s new book, Swans Don’t Swim in a Sewer: Solving the Cold Case of the Flint River Killer’s Daughter, is available now wherever books are sold.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The indictment centers on a year old social media post featuring seashells which was already investigated and set aside by the Secret Service. The timing of this renewed interest appears linked to recent events at the White House Correspondents Dinner and a desire to prove loyalty to Donald Trump. Critics suggest that the focus has shifted from obtaining actual guilty verdicts to simply filing indictments against perceived political enemies like the Southern Poverty Law Center and James Comey. Jim Jordan and other allies continue to support these moves publicly despite the legal weakness of the cases. Analysis of the charges under 18 USC section 871 reveals significant hurdles regarding free speech and the lack of imminent threat. This latest legal maneuver is being characterized by many as a political vendetta rather than a legitimate pursuit of justice. The Eastern District of North Carolina is now the staging ground for a case that many believe will be dismissed on substantive grounds just like previous attempts. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB
In this week’s episode of Zone 7, Sheryl McCollum talks to Court TV correspondent Matt Johnson about what it takes to cover high-profile criminal cases and trials, from the Lori Vallow Daybell case and Rex Heuermann to Karen Read and the Delphi murders. Matt explains how deadlines, jury reactions, and the pressure of live television shape the way he turns hours of courtroom testimony into clear, accessible coverage. They discuss the public’s fascination with true crime, investigative missteps, and the emotional weight of sitting near violent offenders, including a moment when Matt says it felt as if “the devil is real, and here he is. Highlights: (0:00) Sheryl McCollum welcomes Matt Johnson to Zone 7 (2:45) Matt’s process for turning complex cases into clear, headline-driven reporting (5:45) The pressure of explaining a full case narrative in seconds on live television (7:15) Matt describes seeing Bryan Kohberger in court and the feeling of being near what he describes as “pure creep and evil” (10:00) The psychological impact of observing defendants like Lori Vallow Daybell during trial (14:30) The Delphi murders, Richard Allen, and how courtroom access, investigative gaps, and missing details shape public trust (18:15) Rex Heuermann, plea deals, and the answers families may never fully receive (20:45) Matt describes Rex Heuermann’s courtroom presence and the unsettling behavior he observed (26:00) The early cases that shaped Matt’s career, including the Turpin family case and Rebecca Zahau (29:30) Matt shares his new YouTube venture: True Crime and Justice with Matt Johnson (31:00) Sheryl closes with a Karen Read quote that captures Matt’s next chapter Guest Bio: Matt Johnson is an Emmy Award-winning crime and justice correspondent for Court TV Network covering major criminal cases and high-profile trials. He hosts the award-winning true crime podcast True Crime Deadline and recently launched True Crime and Justice with Matt Johnson on YouTube Enjoying Zone 7? Leave a rating and review where you listen to podcasts. Your feedback helps others find the show and supports the mission to educate, engage, and inspire. Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an active crime scene investigator for a metro Atlanta police department and the director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, which partners with colleges and universities nationwide. With more than 4 decades of experience, she has worked on thousands of cold cases using her investigative system, The Last 24/361, which integrates evidence, media, and advanced forensic testing. Her work on high-profile cases, including The Boston Strangler, Natalie Holloway, Tupac Shakur and the Moore’s Ford Bridge lynching, led to her Emmy Award for CSI: Atlanta and induction into the National Law Enforcement Hall of Fame in 2023. Social Links: Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com X: @ColdCaseTips Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum Instagram: @officialzone7podcast TikTok: @Sheryl.McCollum Preorder Sheryl’s upcoming book, Swans Don’t Swim in a Sewer: Solving the Cold Case of the Flint River Killer’s Daughter, releasing May 12, 2026.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Former FBI Director James Comey is indicted after a controversial social media post allegedly threatening Donald Trump. Is this a legitimate legal case—or a dangerous escalation in political warfare? Tara breaks down the charges, the legal precedent, and what this moment could mean for political speech, accountability, and the future of high-profile prosecutions.
Hawk examines the legal filing signed by Matthew Petraca and the surrounding circumstances of the case. The timing of the charges follows an incident at the White House Correspondents Dinner and comes nearly a year after the social media post was originally shared and deleted. This prosecution follows a previous case against Comey that was dismissed due to the illegal appointment of Lindsay Halligan. Hawk reviews the motion to dismiss based on selective and vindictive prosecution while highlighting the First Amendment protections for political speech. The term 86 is historically recognized as restaurant jargon for removing an item or customer rather than a violent threat. Statements from Todd Blanche and Kash Patel suggest the Department of Justice is focused on the national mood following recent security events. Potential violations of grand jury secrecy by FBI officials and the role of Pam Bondi are also examined. The discussion includes legal commentary from Jonathan Turley and the history of personal animus between Donald Trump and the former FBI leadership. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB
The Atlantic published an article citing more than two dozen anonymous sources alleging that Kash Patel, the current FBI director, is frequently drunk at work, misses meetings, and has engaged in conduct that raises serious national security concerns. Within days, Patel filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Hawk walks through the legal standards that apply to public figures in defamation cases, including the actual malice standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan, and explains why Patel faces an extraordinarily high burden of proof. The lawsuit is represented by attorney Jesse Benall, who previously represented Donald Trump in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, and multiple January 6th related civil suits. The complaint itself is examined in detail, from its self-serving denials lacking evidentiary support, to its repetitive structure, to its irrelevant sections touting FBI statistics. Hawk also covers the court's same-day dismissal of Patel's earlier defamation suit against former FBI official Frank Figliuzzi, and what the discovery process could mean for Patel if this lawsuit proceeds. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB
Criminal defense attorney Bob Motta joins Tony Brueski and Robin Dreeke to provide detailed legal analysis of two significant active prosecutions: the first-degree murder case with special circumstances against David Anthony Burke (D4VD) in the death of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, and the multi-jurisdiction charges against Joseph and Kendra Duggar.In the Burke matter: Motta examines the three special circumstances—lying in wait, financial gain, and killing a witness—the prosecution's theory connecting the sexual abuse charges to the murder motive, the defense's stated position and its potential legal basis, the independent evidentiary challenge of the mutilation charge, and the strategic implications of a pending death penalty determination.In the Duggar matter: Motta addresses the Florida life felony charge and the defendant's alleged recorded admissions, the simultaneous Arkansas prosecution for child endangerment and false imprisonment, independent legal representation retained by the co-defendant, restricted access to court records in the Arkansas proceeding, and the potential admissibility and jury impact of publicly disclosed family communications.Comprehensive legal analysis of both active cases including charging strategy, evidentiary assessment, defense constraints, and anticipated developments.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#D4VD #CelesteRivasHernandez #JosephDuggar #DuggarFamily #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #BobMotta #JusticeForCeleste #FirstDegreeMurder #TrueCrimePodcast
Two major active cases with critical legal developments. David Anthony Burke, the 21-year-old recording artist known as D4VD, is being held without bail at a Los Angeles County facility following his arrest on suspicion of the murder of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez. The arrest was executed by LAPD's Robbery-Homicide Division without a grand jury indictment or filed criminal complaint. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Major Crimes Division is reviewing the case for filing consideration. The defense has issued a public statement specifically denying causation rather than involvement, asserting that Burke "was not the cause of her death."Grand jury proceedings included testimony from multiple witnesses over an extended period. Witness behavior — including reported flight from the jurisdiction, concealment, and reluctance to cooperate — is documented in the investigative record. The procedural path forward requires the DA to determine whether probable cause supports formal charges independent of grand jury action under California law.In the Nancy Guthrie matter, the 84-year-old mother of NBC anchor Savannah Guthrie remains missing from her Tucson, Arizona, residence. The FBI Phoenix Field Office and Pima County Sheriff's Department continue to lead the investigation. No suspect has been publicly identified. Combined reward funds exceed $1.2 million. Multiple purported ransom communications demanding cryptocurrency payment have been received by media outlets. The FBI has not confirmed the authenticity of any such communication. The investigative profile describes a suspect of average build, approximately 5'9" to 5'10", operating with indicators of local familiarity and limited sophistication.Retired FBI Special Agent Jennifer Coffindaffer provides procedural and strategic analysis across both matters.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#D4VD #CelesteRivasHernandez #NancyGuthrie #DavidAnthonyBurke #SavannahGuthrie #FBI #DAFiling #TrueCrimeToday #FederalKidnapping #TrueCrime
Mandy Wiener speaks to Constitutional law expert, Benedict Phiri about Malema's decision to appeal the sentencing. The Midday Report with Mandy Wiener is 702 and CapeTalk’s flagship news show, your hour of essential news radio. The show is podcasted every weekday, allowing you to catch up with a 60-minute weekday wrap of the day's main news. It's packed with fast-paced interviews with the day’s newsmakers, as well as those who can make sense of the news and explain what's happening in your world. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch up and listen to. Thank you for listening to this podcast of The Midday Report Listen live on weekdays between 12:00 and 13:00 (SA Time) to The Midday Report broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from The Midday Report go to https://buff.ly/BTGmL9H and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/LcbDdFI Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Africa Melane speaks to Jonathan Ratshibvumo, Founder and Chairperson of the Association of Former Judicial Officers of Southern Africa joins us to unpack what courts consider during sentencing. Early Breakfast with Africa Melane is 702’s and CapeTalk’s early morning talk show. Experienced broadcaster Africa Melane brings you the early morning news, sports, business, and interviews politicians and analysts to help make sense of the world. He also enjoys chatting to guests in the lifestyle sphere and the Arts. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch-up and listen. Thank you for listening to this podcast from Early Breakfast with Africa Melane For more about the show click https://buff.ly/XHry7eQ and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/XJ10LBU Listen live on weekdays between 04:00 and 06:00 (SA Time) to the Early Breakfast with Africa Melane broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3N Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In this week’s episode of Zone 7, Sheryl McCollum welcomes Julie Grant for a special Legend Series conversation about her path from journalism to the courtroom and the commitment to justice that drives her today. As a former prosecutor and Court TV host, Julie discusses her advocacy for domestic violence survivors, explaining how systemic failures, including those seen in the Gabby Petito case, leave victims vulnerable. She also shares her philosophy on justice-centered prosecution, arguing that being a “minister of justice” requires the discernment to hold dangerous predators accountable while offering grace and second chances to those who have simply lost their way. Highlights: (0:00) Sheryl McCollum welcomes Julie Grant to Zone 7 and reflects on her impact in true crime media (2:15) Julie’s background in prosecution, legal journalism, teaching, and victims’ rights advocacy (9:45) The balance between journalism and law, and the path that took Julie from the newsroom to law school (13:15) What public service taught Julie about prosecution, law enforcement, and the pursuit of justice (15:30) The domestic violence cases that stayed with Julie most, her advocacy work, and the realities survivors face after they leave (22:15) How safety planning can protect victims at the most dangerous point in an abusive relationship (23:45) The Gabby Petito case, missed warning signs, and the failures that stand out (25:45) Julie’s philosophy of prosecution, second chances, and why justice is not the same as winning (29:45) A tragic Georgia case and what it reveals about intent, accountability, and prosecutorial discretion (32:00) Why future prosecutors need empathy, perspective, and a case-by-case view of justice Guest Bio: Julie Grant is a former prosecutor, Court TV host, legal journalist, and law professor at Emory Law School. She has long been an advocate for victims’ rights, including domestic violence prevention, and also serves on the faculty of the National Institute for Trial Advocacy Enjoying Zone 7? Leave a rating and review where you listen to podcasts. Your feedback helps others find the show and supports the mission to educate, engage, and inspire. Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an active crime scene investigator for a Metro Atlanta Police Department and the director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, which partners with colleges and universities nationwide. With more than 4 decades of experience, she has worked on thousands of cold cases using her investigative system, The Last 24/361, which integrates evidence, media, and advanced forensic testing. Her work on high-profile cases, including The Boston Strangler, Natalie Holloway, Tupac Shakur and the Moore’s Ford Bridge lynching, led to her Emmy Award for CSI: Atlanta and induction into the National Law Enforcement Hall of Fame in 2023. Social Links: Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com Twitter: @ColdCaseTips Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum Instagram: @officialzone7podcast Preorder Sheryl’s upcoming book, Swans Don’t Swim in a Sewer: Lessons in Life,Justice, and Joy from a Forensic Scientist, releasing May 12, 2026. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Swans-Dont-Swim-in-a-Sewer/Sheryl-Mac-McCollum/9798895652824 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Africa Melane speaks to Benedict Phiri, legal analyst, on the National Prosecuting Authority’s decision to pursue criminal charges in the Life Esidimeni tragedy, unpacking what charges like culpable homicide mean, what evidence prosecutors must prove, and who could ultimately be held legally accountable for the deaths of over 140 mental health patients. Early Breakfast with Africa Melane is 702’s and CapeTalk’s early morning talk show. Experienced broadcaster Africa Melane brings you the early morning news, sports, business, and interviews politicians and analysts to help make sense of the world. He also enjoys chatting to guests in the lifestyle sphere and the Arts. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch-up and listen. Thank you for listening to this podcast from Early Breakfast with Africa Melane For more about the show click https://buff.ly/XHry7eQ and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/XJ10LBU Listen live on weekdays between 04:00 and 06:00 (SA Time) to the Early Breakfast with Africa Melane broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3N Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
15. Richard Epstein: Professor Richard Epstein provides a historical legal analysis of birthright citizenship, tracing arguments from the 1790 Naturalization Act to the 14th Amendment. He examines the 1898 Supreme Court ruling on Chinese immigrants and its implications for modern citizenship debates. (15)1958 STARDUST LV
Ryan and Dana are joined by Senior Editor at The Dispatch, Sarah Isgur, for a breakdown of President Trump's new Executive Order targeting mail-in voting and what changes it could bring nationwide. They also examine Governor Ron DeSantis signing Florida's version of the SAVE Act into law.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Ryan and Dana are joined by Senior Editor at The Dispatch, Sarah Isgur, for a breakdown of President Trump's new Executive Order targeting mail-in voting and what changes it could bring nationwide. They also examine Governor Ron DeSantis signing Florida's version of the SAVE Act into law.
Three major cases examined in full with Retired FBI Special Agent Jennifer Coffindaffer.In the Nancy Guthrie disappearance, Savannah Guthrie's first public interview confirmed that the suspect made two separate visits to the residence prior to the disappearance, and that investigators are actively pursuing the theory that the individual on doorbell camera footage was functioning as a lookout with at least one additional person already inside the home. FBI neighborhood canvassing has shifted to targeted questioning about specific categories of individuals — reflecting a working theory. Coffindaffer provides procedural context on the surveillance profile, the evidentiary implications of the family's public ransom responses, and the significance of the continued absence of confirmed proof of life.On the Nanos matter: the Pima County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to invoke state law compelling Nanos to provide sworn reports, with non-compliance constituting grounds for removal. This follows a 241-0 no-confidence vote from the deputies' union, citing records reported by the Arizona Republic and AZPM documenting approximately 26 disciplinary allegations from Nanos' El Paso tenure that deputies say were concealed from Pima County for over 40 years. Reporting also indicates that sworn testimony Nanos provided in a December 2025 deposition regarding his suspension history may be inconsistent with that documented record. Coffindaffer addresses the legal implications of that testimony and the operational consequences for the Guthrie investigation.On the Duggar matter: Joseph Duggar, 31, arrested March 18 in Arkansas on Florida charges of lewd and lascivious behavior on a child under 12, has waived extradition. His wife Kendra Duggar was arrested on four counts each of endangering the welfare of a minor and false imprisonment in Arkansas. The multi-jurisdictional nature of the allegations, the evidentiary significance of the recorded admissions, and the question of whether the pattern across two brothers in the same household opens any avenue for federal examination are all addressed directly.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#NancyGuthrie #JosephDuggar #SheriffNanos #TrueCrimeToday #JenniferCoffindaffer #HiddenKillers #FBIInvestigation #MissingPerson #DuggarFamily #BringNancyHome
The Kelsey Fitzsimmons bench trial has concluded its evidentiary phase. Both sides have rested. Closing arguments are pending, with a verdict potentially to follow the same day. A single judge will determine whether the single count — assault with a dangerous weapon — is supported beyond a reasonable doubt.The central factual dispute: the prosecution contends that Fitzsimmons, a former North Andover police officer, raised her service weapon and directed it at Officer Patrick Noonan's face, pulled the trigger on an unchambered round, and racked the slide before Noonan discharged his weapon. The defense contends the weapon was raised to Fitzsimmons's own temple throughout — that this was a mental health crisis and suicide attempt, not an assault — and that Fitzsimmons was shot while in crisis, not while threatening another officer.Fitzsimmons testified in her own defense on day three, providing her account of the sequence directly. Her testimony included statements made in the ambulance following the shooting. A neighbor of Noonan's also testified on day three. Fitzsimmons's mother testified that she was present in the home, heard two shots, and did not hear her daughter speak. A defense-requested site visit, litigated over two days, was cancelled without explanation following Fitzsimmons's testimony.Of legal significance: the grand jury declined to indict on armed assault with intent to murder prior to trial — the top charge the prosecution originally pursued. The case proceeded on the lesser assault count. Criminal defense attorney Bob Motta examines what that pre-trial grand jury outcome signals about the evidentiary posture, the strategic calculus behind the bench trial election, and the legal architecture of a mental health defense that incorporates postpartum depression, prior on-duty trauma, and post-incident clinical findings without becoming a prosecution narrative. Retired FBI behavioral analyst Robin Dreeke addresses the evidentiary weight of behavioral testimony and what officer statements on scene — including the words spoken immediately before the shot was fired — communicate about real-time perception under stress. Martha Coakley, former Massachusetts Attorney General, leads the defense.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#KelseyFitzsimmons #NorthAndoverPolice #BenchTrial #TrueCrimeToday #HiddenKillers #BobMotta #RobinDreeke #MarthaCoakley #MentalHealthCrisis #MassachusettsTrial
(SPOILER) More Taylor Frankie Paul talk with family lawyers, the @CustodyQueens from a legal perspective. What could happen to Ever in this situation? What would they suggest to Taylor if they were representing her? What mistakes she's already made? That and much, much more. Music written by Jimmer Podrasky (B'Jingo Songs/Machia Music/Bug Music BMI) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
(SPOILER) More Taylor Frankie Paul talk with family lawyers, the @CustodyQueens from a legal perspective. What could happen to Ever in this situation? What would they suggest to Taylor if they were representing her? What mistakes she's already made? That and much, much more. Music written by Jimmer Podrasky (B'Jingo Songs/Machia Music/Bug Music BMI) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A federal judge has quashed two grand jury subpoenas issued by the DC U.S. Attorney's Office against Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Hawk reads through the full 27-page ruling by Judge James Boesberg, unpacking the legal reasoning behind one of the most significant judicial rebukes of the Trump administration's weaponization of the criminal justice system. The subpoenas targeted Fed building renovation cost overruns and Powell's congressional testimony — neither of which the court found to contain any credible evidence of criminal activity. Judge Boesberg concluded that the subpoenas' dominant purpose was to harass and pressure Powell into either lowering interest rates or resigning, making way for a more compliant Fed chair. The ruling draws on Trump's own Truth Social posts, statements from White House officials, and the pattern of DOJ prosecutions targeting political opponents including Adam Schiff, James Comey, and Letitia James. Jeanine Pirro, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, held an unhinged post-ruling press conference in which she badly mischaracterized the judge's legal findings on probable cause. Judge Boesberg, the same judge who previously ordered a halt to deportation flights to El Salvador's CECOT prison, wrote that the government offered essentially zero evidence that Powell committed any crime "other than displeasing the president." The court rejected the DOJ's renovation fraud theory, Powell's congressional testimony as a basis for perjury, and the government's refusal to provide any confidential evidence even when the judge offered a private chambers review. The Federal Reserve's independence, monetary policy, interest rates, and the rule of law are all at the center of this landmark court order. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB
When we talk about gun violence, we count the dead.We count the injured.We debate the laws. But what about the financial cost? In this episode, former FBI executive Katherine Schweit examines the hidden economic impact of gun violence in America — from multi-million-dollar settlements to bankrupt gun manufacturers. Using real cases including: The 2022 Buffalo Tops Supermarket shooting The $73 million Sandy Hook settlement The $10 million award to a teacher shot by a 6-year-old student Lawsuits involving ghost guns, straw purchases, and firearm accessories Katherine breaks down: ✔ What the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) actually protects✔ Why a gun accessory manufacturer paid $1.75 million✔ How liability law is evolving✔ Whether firearm companies should be shielded from responsibility✔ And what shifting financial risk could mean for the future of gun policy This isn't a debate about the Second Amendment.It's a conversation about accountability, insurance, and the true cost of doing business in a country flooded with firearms. Because beyond grief and trauma — there is an economic impact. And someone always pays. Gun violence financial impact Firearm manufacturer liability PLCAA explained Sandy Hook lawsuit settlement Buffalo supermarket shooting 2022 Ghost guns and legal accountability Straw purchases and gun dealer liability School shooting lawsuits Insurance requirements for gun owners Economic cost of gun violence in America Relevant Resources and Links: Support us on Patreon for exclusive content and early access to episodes. Subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts. More insights from Katherine Schweit: Katherine Schweit.. Website: Sarah Ferris Media Email: conningthecon@yahoo.com Share: If you found this episode insightful, share it with someone who might benefit from it and join the conversation on social media. SUPPORTING OUR SPONSORS, SUPPORTS THE PODCAST CRIMECON UK TICKETS HERE CRIMECON US TICKETS HERE DON'T forget to use DISCOUNT CODE “FERRIS” RESOURCES Stop the Bleed training FBI RUN, HIDE, FIGHT This is a Sarah Ferris Media production on the Killer Podcasts Network.Check out more Sarah Ferris Media productions: CONmunity podcast KLOOGHLESS - THE LONG CON GUILTY GREENIE THE BRAVERY ACADEMY WATCHING TWO DETECTIVESGun Violence, Firearm Law, Sandy Hook, Buffalo Shooting, School Safety, Second Amendment, Public Policy, Crime Prevention, Legal Analysis, True Crime Education Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This deep dive explores the complex and foundational Erie Doctrine in federal civil procedure, covering its historical evolution, key cases, and modern analytical framework. Perfect for law students and legal practitioners aiming to master the balance of federal and state law.Most law students dread the eerie doctrine — often the most intimidating topic in civil procedure. But what if mastering it could unlock your highest exam scores? Imagine transforming this complex, fearsome concept into a crystal-clear decision tree that demystifies federalism, federal court limits, and the true boundaries of judicial power. This episode reveals the structured framework behind the Erie Doctrine, turning insurmountable confusion into strategic mastery.We begin by unpacking the core constitutional challenge Erie addressed: how federal courts navigate the delicate federal-state law balance after jurisdiction is established. Once jurisdiction hurdles are cleared, the final question emerges — whose law governs? This isn't just about procedural rules; it's about safeguarding federalism and preventing federal courts from overstepping their constitutional bounds. Learn why Erie rejected the Swift era's federal common law and reasserted states' sovereignty over substantive law, cementing the principle that federal courts must respect state law unless a federal rule or statute explicitly applies.Delve into the layered hierarchy of laws: the Constitution sits at the peak, followed by federal statutes and rules, then state substantive law, and finally, federal procedural rules at the base. We break down the pivotal tests: the Rules Enabling Act (REA), which validates federal rules if they regulate procedure without affecting substantive rights; and the twin aims of Erie — avoiding forum shopping and ensuring equitable law administration. Discover the historical flaws of outcome determinative and the refined, flexible approach introduced by Hanna and subsequent cases, which impose a careful, structural balance.You'll uncover the two critical tracks in Erie analysis: Track One, when a federal rule or statute directly conflicts with state law, where the REA controls; and Track Two, which involves assessing whether applying federal practice encourages forum shopping or inequities, using the modified outcome determinative test and the balancing framework from Byrd and Hanna. Our decision tree toolkit offers a step-by-step process, empowering you to evaluate any fact pattern confidently and avoid common pitfalls like mixing procedures and substance or misidentifying the appropriate track.The episode also tackles nuanced issues: federal common law's limited scope, how to handle novel state law issues through predictions or certification, and the layered hierarchy guiding judicial deferment. Plus, we explore a paradox — federal judges sometimes influence state law via Erie's dialogue, raising questions about federal-state interactions that could seem almost paradoxical.Perfect for exam takers, practitioners, and law lovers alike, this episode transforms daunting doctrine into an accessible, strategic tool. Master the Erie Doctrine's architecture, understand its constitutional heartbeat, and confidently navigate federal versus state law questions — all in one comprehensive, actionable guide.Whether you're preparing for the bar, tackling civil procedure, or just love understanding the architecture of our legal system, this episode provides the clarity and confidence to dominate Erie. Don't just memorize rules — understand the structure, so you can apply it seamlessly under exam pressure or in practice.Key TopicsErie Doctrine and its constitutional basisHistorical evolution from Swift v Tyson to Erie Railroad v Tompkins Erie Doctrine, Federal Civil Procedure, Federalism, Swift v Tyson, Hanna v Plumer, Rules Enabling Act, Outcome Determinative Test, Twin Aims, Federal Common Law, Legal Analysis
When President Trump declared a national emergency and imposed sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), businesses challenged the move, arguing the president did not have authority under that statute to impose tariffs. The Supreme Court recently agreed. On this episode of Stanford Legal, co-host Professor Pamela Karlan sits down with international trade expert Alan Sykes, professor of law and Warren Christopher Professor in the Practice of International Law and Diplomacy, to unpack the Court's 6–3 decision. Sykes is a leading expert on the application of economics to legal problems and the author of the book The Law and Economics of International Trade Agreements. At the heart of the case, Sykes explains, was the question of whether a statute that allows the president to “regulate importation” can be stretched to authorize taxes on imports. The majority said no, emphasizing that the Constitution assigns the taxing power to Congress, and that if Congress intended to hand that power over, it would have said so clearly. The conversation explores the statutory arguments, the role of the Major Questions Doctrine, and the unusual alignments among the justices. But the ruling raises as many questions as it answers, Sykes notes. What happens to billions in tariffs already collected? Do international trade deals struck in the shadow of these tariffs still stand? And with other statutory tools available is this really the end of the tariff saga, or just the next chapter? Links: Alan O. Sykes >>> Stanford Law page The Law and Economics of International Trade Agreements >>> Stanford Law page Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Rich Ford >>> Twitter/X Pam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School Page Diego Zambrano >>> Stanford Law School Page Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X (00:00:00) Tariffs and IEEPA (00:10:53) Statutory text and the history of tariffs (00:13:54) “Regulate importation” and the Major Questions Doctrine (00:17:56) Liquidation Timing, finality, and the 314‑day rule (00:19:11) The Court of International Trade (00:29:53) From IEEPA to Section 122 and what's next under Section 301 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
Nick Reiner pleaded not guilty to two counts of first-degree murder. The headlines wrote themselves. Most of them missed the point.In California criminal procedure, a not guilty plea at arraignment is a placeholder—not a declaration of innocence. If the defense intended to claim Nick didn't commit the killings, they'd say so. They didn't. What they're doing is preserving options while psychiatric evaluations continue and strategy crystallizes.Here's how California insanity defense works: if you want to claim you were legally insane at the time of the crime, you enter a dual plea—not guilty AND not guilty by reason of insanity. The court then bifurcates your trial. Phase one determines guilt. Phase two, if needed, determines sanity. The single not guilty plea suggests the defense hasn't committed to that path yet.Three doors remain open:M'Naghten insanity. Prove Nick didn't understand what he was doing or didn't know it was wrong. Legal experts are skeptical. He was reportedly arguing with his father at a party hours before the killings—suggesting awareness of conflict and context.Diminished actuality. Use his documented schizoaffective disorder and reported medication changes to argue he couldn't premeditate. This doesn't eliminate guilt—it reduces the charge. First-degree becomes second-degree or manslaughter.Incompetence to stand trial. Halt proceedings entirely until treatment restores Nick's ability to participate in his defense.Meanwhile, Jake, Romy, and Tracy Reiner face something the legal system has no category for: being mourners, crime victims, and the accused's family simultaneously. Sources say they've cut Nick off completely. Sources also say they oppose the death penalty. Whether prosecutors honor that preference remains to be seen.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#NickReiner #RobReiner #MicheleReiner #TrueCrimeToday #NotGuiltyPlea #CaliforniaLaw #InsanityDefense #LegalAnalysis #Parricide #HiddenKillers
Two of the most-watched cases in the country are reaching critical moments.The Kouri Richins murder trial is a battle between devastating motive evidence and investigative gaps. Prosecutors say she killed her husband for $4 million and a fresh start—pointing to five times the lethal fentanyl dose, a forged insurance policy, a boyfriend, internet searches about lethal doses, and Eric's alleged statement two weeks before his death: "I think my wife is trying to poison me."The defense counters with what's missing. The Moscow mule cups were never tested. The kitchen wasn't secured. White specks on Eric's nightstand went unanalyzed. The medical examiner says manner of death remains "undetermined." After ten searches over four years, there's no physical evidence connecting Kouri to the act itself.Which argument wins?Meanwhile, Nancy Guthrie has been missing for twenty-five days. The doorbell footage shows a masked man who cased the house, came back, and didn't know about the camera until he was standing in front of it. If this was a burglary that ended in an unintended death, Arizona's felony murder statute doesn't offer mercy. Intent is irrelevant.Defense attorney Eric Faddis, a former prosecutor, explains the difference between walking into a police station now and getting caught through genetic genealogy later. The person who hid Nancy also hid the evidence that could support their own defense. That clock is running.Two cases. Two legal reckonings. The walls are closing.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#KouriRichins #NancyGuthrie #TrueCrimeToday #KouriRichinsTrial #FelonyMurder #FentanylPoisoning #SavannahGuthrie #EricFaddis #LegalAnalysis #TrueCrime
Legal Issues from the Huckabee interview including what is the "right of return" and did Huckabee admit that Israel is conducting apartheid?FIND US ON SUBSTACKSubstack: tylerjanke.substack.comBecome a LPR memberSubstack: tylerjanke.substack.comSpotify: https://creators.spotify.com/pod/show/libertypodreview/subscribeSupport the show with a purchase from Fox n Sons coffee. Use the promo code "Review" for 18% off an order of $25 or more. www.foxnsons.comLPR On Other PlatformsRumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-1988814Spotify: https://creators.spotify.com/pod/show/libertypodreviewX: https://x.com/tylerjankeSubstack: tylerjanke.substack.com
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
Three major cases. One extended legal breakdown. Defense attorney Bob Motta analyzes the vulnerabilities in each—and what the defense will exploit.The Nancy Guthrie investigation is sixteen days old with no arrest—but the prosecution's case may already be compromised. Crime scene reportedly released early. FBI allegedly wanted evidence processed at Quantico; it was sent to a private Florida lab. Fifteen of sixteen gloves collected were reportedly contamination from the search team. Bob explains how each failure translates into courtroom strategy.The Anna Kepner case is sealed under federal juvenile protection laws. Anna, 14, died aboard the Carnival Horizon—ruled homicide by mechanical asphyxiation. Her stepbrother appeared in federal court three months later and was released to guardian custody. Bob explains what sealed proceedings look like, why the FBI kept the case federal, and what custody proceeding filings have revealed about potential defense strategies.The Kouri Richins trial begins February 23rd. Prosecutors allege she poisoned her husband Eric with fentanyl. But the alleged supplier, Robert Crozier, recanted. No fentanyl was recovered from the home. The judge excluded evidence that Eric was allegedly abusive. Bob analyzes what the defense is working with—including how to handle devastating Google searches and the "Walk the Dog" letter.He also addresses the shadow cast by Kouri's mother Lisa Darden, whose romantic partner died of an oxycodone overdose in 2006 shortly after naming her as beneficiary.This is the comprehensive defense perspective across three major cases.#NancyGuthrie #AnnaKepner #KouriRichins #DefenseAttorney #ThreeCases #LegalStrategy #CrimeSceneEvidence #MurderTrial #TrueCrime #HiddenKillersJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
A Washington DC grand jury refused to indict six Democratic members of Congress after Trump administration prosecutors sought felony charges of seditious conspiracy. The lawmakers targeted include Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Alyssa Slotkin, and Representative Jason Crow, all military veterans who released a video reminding service members of their legal obligation to disobey illegal orders. Attorney General Pam Bondi and US Attorney Janine Pirro brought the case before the grand jury, seeking 20-plus year prison sentences for the Congress members. The grand jury rejected the prosecution's attempt, demonstrating ordinary citizens standing against political prosecution. Trump had posted on Truth Social demanding punishment for what he called seditious behavior, even suggesting execution. Speaker Mike Johnson supported the prosecution attempt, claiming the lawmakers were obstructing law enforcement. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called the six lawmakers the "seditious six" and initiated proceedings against Mark Kelly to reduce his military rank and retirement pay. The video these Congress members released simply restated existing military law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice regarding illegal orders. This marks a pattern of federal prosecutors failing to secure indictments in politically motivated cases, with grand juries and trial juries across the country rejecting attempts to weaponize the criminal justice system. The grand jury's decision represents citizens protecting constitutional rights and the rule of law against authoritarian overreach by Trump appointees at the Department of Justice. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
Defense attorney Eric Faddis joins Hidden Killers to break down three of the most followed cases in true crime—the Nancy Guthrie kidnapping, the Charity Beallis family deaths, and the newly unsealed McKee affidavit.Nancy Guthrie, 84, was taken from her Tucson home. She's the mother of Today show anchor Savannah Guthrie. Investigators confirmed forced entry, DNA evidence, and bitcoin ransom demands sent to media outlets. Pacemaker sync data may establish the timeline. No suspects have been identified. Faddis analyzes the legal landscape—cryptocurrency evidence, medical device data at trial, and how law enforcement's conflicting public statements become defense material.Charity Beallis and her twins were shot to death December 3rd in Arkansas—one day after her divorce was finalized. Her father says she was shot twice. Two months, no arrest. The history includes a 2025 arrest for allegedly choking Charity, substantiated child maltreatment, and a prior wife dead in 2012 under similar circumstances. Faddis walks through what's causing the delay and what defense strategy emerges from this background.The McKee affidavit documents alleged obsession spanning eight years. Surveillance footage shows Michael McKee in the Tepes' yard while they were away. Stolen plates on his vehicle. Years of threats. A phone that went dark during the murder window. Automatic weapon or silencer specifications. No forced entry. Faddis breaks down what the prosecution is building and identifies potential defense challenges.Three cases. Three different evidence profiles. Three different stages of investigation and prosecution.Eric Faddis provides the legal framework for understanding each—what prosecutors have, what they need, and what the people at the center of these investigations should be thinking about their exposure right now.#NancyGuthrie #CharityBeallis #MichaelMcKee #SpencerTepe #MoniqueTepe #EricFaddis #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #CriminalDefense #LegalAnalysisJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
The recently released 2007 draft federal indictment against Jeffrey Epstein reveals the full scope of charges that were prepared but never filed. The 56-page document outlined 32 felony counts involving 19 girls under the age of 18, spanning a six-year period from 2001 to 2007. The charges included conspiracy to defraud the United States, sex trafficking of minors, enticement of a minor, and facilitating unlawful travel for illicit sex acts. Twenty-five of these counts carried potential life sentences with mandatory minimums between 10 and 15 years. Federal prosecutors in West Palm Beach had assembled exhaustive evidence and prepared an 82-page prosecution memo to support the indictment. Instead of facing these charges, Epstein's high-priced legal team, including Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz, negotiated a plea deal with US Attorney Alex Acosta that allowed Epstein to plead guilty to just two state charges. He served only 13 months in county jail with work release privileges, leaving the facility daily to work from his office. The draft indictment details how Epstein targeted vulnerable teenage girls, many from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and operated a systematic sex trafficking operation with the assistance of employees whose names remain redacted. The document reveals threats made to victims and a pattern of abuse that could have resulted in over 100 years of prison time if prosecuted. Hawk examines the legal framework, the specific charges, and the failure of justice that allowed Epstein to continue abusing minors for another 11 years until his 2019 arrest and death. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk - Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct - Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole - Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social - Connect on Substack: https://mdg650hawk.substack.com - Connect on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hawkpodcasts - Connect on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mdg650hawk - Connect on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mdg650hawk ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Content Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.comhttps://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTB
⚖️ Tara delivers a blistering breakdown of newly revealed secret non-prosecution deals tied to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation—and why they matter now.
We're going live with defense attorney Bob Motta for comprehensive legal analysis on two of the biggest murder cases right now.The Arkansas Supreme Court just removed Judge Barbara Elmore from Aaron Spencer's trial—the father who killed his daughter's alleged rapist. This is the second constitutional reversal in seven months. A retired judge is taking over. Prior rulings could be reopened. And Spencer still has to beat a second-degree murder charge while the prosecution uses prior statements about killing Fosler against him.Meanwhile, Michael McKee pleaded not guilty to four counts of aggravated murder in the deaths of Monique Tepe and Spencer Tepe. His attorney is Diane Menashe—who got Dr. William Husel acquitted of fourteen murders by calling one witness and letting the prosecution's case collapse. The state has ballistics, surveillance, vehicle tracking, and a suppressor. But Menashe doesn't defend cases—she attacks them.Bob Motta walks us through both situations live. How rare judicial removal is. What the new judge changes for Spencer. How defense-of-others works in practice. Whether Menashe's philosophy can beat the McKee evidence. We're taking your questions and comments as we break down the legal realities behind these cases.#BobMottaLive #AaronSpencer #MichaelMcKee #MoniqueTepe #JudgeElmore #DianeMenashe #TrueCrimeLive #MurderDefense #LegalAnalysis #HiddenKillersLiveJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
We're going live with defense attorney Bob Motta to break down the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision to remove Judge Barbara Elmore from Aaron Spencer's murder trial. This is the second time the high court has reversed Elmore on constitutional grounds in seven months. The first time, they called her gag order a "plain, manifest, clear, and gross abuse of discretion." This time, they didn't just reverse her—they pulled her off the case entirely.Aaron Spencer is charged with second-degree murder for killing Michael Fosler, the man who was out on bond for allegedly sexually assaulting Spencer's 14-year-old daughter. Fosler had 43 counts pending against him including rape, internet stalking of a child, and possession of child pornography. He had no business being anywhere near that child—yet she ended up in his vehicle after midnight, missing from her bedroom. Spencer found them, rammed the truck, and a confrontation followed.Now retired Judge Ralph Wilson is taking over, and the Supreme Court has opened the door to reviewing prior rulings through a Writ of Certiorari. Bob Motta walks us through what it takes for a state's highest court to remove a sitting judge, what three dissenting justices saw that the majority initially missed, and what the Spencer defense team should be asking for now. We'll take your questions and comments live. This is expert legal analysis in real time.#AaronSpencerLive #JudgeElmore #BobMotta #ArkansasSupremeCourt #MichaelFosler #JudicialRemoval #TrueCrimeLive #LononkeCounty #HiddenKillersLive #FairTrialJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.
SCOTUS hears Trump vs. Lisa Cook case, the Clintons are being held in contempt of Congress, and Minnesota lawmakers have been issued subpoenas. ABC News Legal Analyst Royal Oakes breaks down some legal headlines.
SCOTUS hears Trump vs. Lisa Cook case, the Clintons are being held in contempt of Congress, and Minnesota lawmakers have been issued subpoenas. ABC News Legal Analyst Royal Oakes breaks down some legal headlines. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Department of Justice faces mass resignations from the Civil Rights Division and the Minneapolis US Attorney's office over the handling of the killing of Renee Nicole Good.Judge Engelmayer asks the parties for briefing on whether he has jurisdiction to appoint a special master, and whether Congressmen Khanna and Massie have standing to ask for one.Jack Smith has agreed to testify publicly this week as experts debunk claims that he infringed on Donald Trump's free speech.President Trump is becoming disillusioned with Attorney General Pam Bondi and wants to create an office within the Justice Department that reports directly to the White House.Plus listener questions…Do you have questions for the pod? Thank you, Shopify!Sign up for a $1/month trial period at shopify.com/unjust Follow AG Substack|MuellershewroteBlueSky|@muellershewroteAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his book The ThreatThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpWe would like to know more about our listeners. Please participate in this brief surveyListener Survey and CommentsThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon and Supercast Supporters at the Justice Enforcers level and above:https://dailybeans.supercast.techOrhttps://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr when you subscribe on Apple Podcastshttps://apple.co/3YNpW3P Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
The United States Supreme Court reached a new level of absurdity—and the country watched it happen in real time. ⚖️ In this episode, we break down a stunning exchange that exposed a fundamental contradiction: refusing to define “woman” while simultaneously enforcing women's sports categories by law. From Justice Alito's sharp questioning to the ACLU's evasive answers, this conversation goes far beyond sports. It reveals an ideological system—one rooted in oppressor vs. oppressed class theory—that is reshaping law, culture, immigration policy, and even public safety.
In this explosive episode, Tara walks listeners straight into the courtroom—and straight into the ideology driving today's most controversial cultural battles. ⚖️ An ACLU lawyer argues that a biological boy should compete on a women's sports team… while simultaneously claiming the court cannot define what a woman is. The result? A legal meltdown that exposes something far bigger than sports: a Marxist oppressor–oppressed class system being embedded into American law. From women's athletics and locker rooms, to ICE agents being attacked with impunity, to NGOs controlling $14.2 TRILLION in assets, Tara connects the dots between culture, power, money, and enforcement—and explains why none of this is accidental.
Federal prosecutors have launched a criminal probe into Fed Chair Jerome Powell. The investigation centers on testimony about costly renovations at the Fed’s headquarters. Greg and Holly break down what's behind this lawsuit.
Welcome back to Lawyer Talk! On this special edition episode, hosts Steve Palmer and law student Troy Henricksen tackle the breaking and deeply tragic shooting involving an ICE officer in Minnesota.With raw emotion running high and the social media machine already passing judgment, Steve Palmer and Troy Henricksen set out to strip away the noise and confusion, providing a clear analysis of what actually happens legally after a police shooting like this.They look into the critical difference between how the law treats deadly force by a civilian versus a police officer, walking through self-defense standards, justification defenses, and landmark Supreme Court rulings like Graham v. Connor.You'll hear them debate both sides, untangle the legal elements involved, and explore what it means when state and federal authorities disagree on prosecuting an ICE agent.Most importantly, they break it all down without the politics—just the facts, legal standards, and framework you need to better understand the chaos and complexity when headlines erupt after a law enforcement shooting.As always, they're here not to take sides, but to help you make sense of the process.Moments00:00 "Civilian Self-Defense Legal Analysis"03:44 "Ohio Self-Defense Laws Explained"07:08 Self-Defense or Fault?10:47 "Understanding Real-Time Defendant Perspective"13:00 "Justification Defense in Murder Case"16:18 "Reasonableness of Police Force"19:52 The Dangers of Police Chases24:05 "Debating Crime Severity in Law"28:29 "Justified Force and Legal Debate"29:58 "Dual Sovereignty and Prosecution"35:23 "Analytical Framework for Complex Decisions"Key Takeaways:Legal Standards Are Crucial: Emotional reactions are expected, but the real decisions will follow established legal standards. The actions of law enforcement are viewed under a different framework than those of civilians, making the analysis more nuanced than social media quick takes might suggest.Objective Reasonableness Is the Benchmark: In police shooting cases, courts rely on the "objective reasonableness" standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court (Graham v. Connor). This means the officer's actions are judged by what a reasonable officer would do under tense, split-second circumstances—not perfect hindsight.Jurisdictional Complexities Can Shape Outcomes: Even if the federal government decides not to charge the officer, Minnesota authorities might still pursue prosecution. However, immunity issues and federal supremacy mean any state-level charges could lead to complicated federal-court battles over whether the officer was acting within the scope of federal duties.Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
Alan Jackson doesn't take cases he can't spin. The high-powered defense attorney — fresh off Karen Read's acquittal — is now representing Nick Reiner, charged with murdering his parents Rob and Michele Reiner in their Brentwood home. And he's already laying the groundwork for what's coming."Very complex and serious issues." "Restraint and dignity." That's defense attorney code for: we're going with insanity.Nick was diagnosed with schizophrenia years ago. His medication was reportedly adjusted weeks before the killings. A sealed court order regarding his mental health has already been signed. He appeared at his first hearing in a suicide prevention smock, wasn't medically cleared the day before, and said only two words: "Yes, your honor."The optics are being set. But can it actually work?California's M'Naghten standard is brutal for defendants. You have to prove you didn't understand what you were doing or didn't know it was wrong. Not that you were mentally ill. Not that you were hearing voices. The bar is specific and high.Bob Motta joins us to explain how insanity defenses actually play out in court. What evidence moves juries? How do prosecutors counter claims of psychosis? And here's the question no one wants to ask: if Nick spent seventeen years manipulating his parents, gaming rehab programs, and convincing them to ignore professional warnings — can he really claim he didn't understand what he was doing when he allegedly killed them?Mental illness is real. But so is accountability. Bob Motta breaks down where the law draws that line.#NickReiner #RobReiner #MicheleReiner #InsanityDefense #AlanJackson #TrueCrime #HiddenKillers #CaliforniaLaw #MentalHealth #ReinerCaseJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISDOES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872
Hour 2 covers a full sweep of stories as the new year kicks off. The show opens with Mark recapping Nicolas Maduro's arrest and transport to a New York courtroom, teasing the legal and political implications. Hans von Spakovsky breaks down the legal precedent, comparing Maduro's case to Manuel Noriega, confirming the U.S. had full authority for the operation. Dom Savino follows with market impacts, noting oil companies benefiting from Venezuela's crude reserves, slower car sales, tech updates from Samsung, and box office news on Avatar and Sidney Sweeney's latest film. The hour closes with “In Other News,” blending quirky and serious headlines—from McRib lawsuits and cheeseburger lifespan studies to AI takeout scams, Billy Joel's stage return, and a fatal mountain lion attack—keeping listeners informed and entertained. #Venezuela #Maduro #LegalAnalysis #Markets #InOtherNews #MarkCoxMorningShow
The verdict is in: Brian Walshe has been found guilty of first-degree murder in the death of his wife, Anna Walshe. This week on Zone 7, Sheryl McCollum is joined by Dani, creator and host of Dani After Dark. The two revisit the Brian Walshe trial, where months of evidence, emotion, and courtroom drama culminated in a single word: guilty. From the disturbing Google searches to the cash-only shopping trips for bleach, buckets, and a hacksaw, the jury weighed the evidence alongside the confession that Walshe dismembered his wife and disposed of her remains. Dani shares what she witnessed inside the courtroom, from the jurors’ reactions to the moment that sealed the case. Then she and Sheryl break down the digital evidence, behavioral patterns, and courtroom strategy that secured a first-degree murder conviction. Highlights: • (0:00) Sheryl opens with a summary of the Ana Walshe case, outlining the timeline and the accusations against her husband, Brian Walshe before welcoming Dani from Dani After Dark back to Zone 7 • (1:45) What Brian Walshe admitted before trial and what the jury did not hear • (3:15) Brian’s Google searches that dismantled the “sudden death” defense • (6:15) Cash-only shopping trips and the evidence captured on camera • (7:45) The moment the jury watched Walshe’s six-year-old son help him check out at Lowe’s • (13:30) Affair allegations and the life-insurance policy • (16:30) Body language inside the courtroom: Brian Walshe and his mother • (19:00) Why the defense never called on a psychologist, how that decision cost them, and the collapse during closing arguments • (22:45) Verdict day: Guilty of murder and justice for Ana Walshe • (23:45) Final reflections on the events that led to the first-degree murder conviction Guest Bio: Dani is the creator and host of Dani After Dark, a true-crime and legal analysis channel on YouTube where she covers high-profile criminal trials in real time. Connect with Dani on Instagram @dani_after_dark or follow her on YouTube at @DaniAfterDark. Enjoying Zone 7? Leave a rating and review where you listen to podcasts. Your feedback helps others find the show and supports the mission to educate, engage, and inspire. Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an active crime scene investigator for a Metro Atlanta Police Department and the director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, which partners with colleges and universities nationwide. With more than 4 decades of experience, she has worked on thousands of cold cases using her investigative system, The Last 24/361, which integrates evidence, media, and advanced forensic testing. Her work on high-profile cases, including The Boston Strangler, Natalie Holloway, Tupac Shakur and the Moore’s Ford Bridge lynching, led to her Emmy Award for CSI: Atlanta and induction into the National Law Enforcement Hall of Fame in 2023. Social Links: • Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com • Twitter: @ColdCaseTips • Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum • Instagram: @officialzone7podcast Preorder Sheryl’s upcoming book, Swans Don’t Swim in a Sewer: Lessons in Life, Justice, and Joy from a Forensic Scientist, releasing May 2026 from Simon and Schuster. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Swans-Dont-Swim-in-a-Sewer/Sheryl-Mac-McCollum/9798895652824 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Hawk sits down with his bestie - trial attorney and olive oil entrepreneur Shaana for an unfiltered conversation about the Supreme Court's shadow docket abuse, particularly the Texas gerrymandering case that enables racial discrimination in voting. The discussion covers how SCOTUS is dismantling constitutional protections through emergency rulings without oral arguments or proper opinions, leaving lower court judges with no guidance.The conversation shifts to Pam Bondi's tenure as Attorney General, examining her qualified background as Florida AG from 2010-2018 alongside her failures to investigate Jeffrey Epstein during that period. Despite her credentials, Bondi's DOJ has faced multiple grand jury rejections and court losses, including failed prosecutions and the spectacular dismissal of cases against James Comey and Letitia James.Hawk and Shaana analyze Justice Kavanaugh's concerning concurrence that carved out Fourth Amendment exceptions for ICE stops based solely on race and ethnicity. They explore how the current Supreme Court lacks the intellectual rigor of predecessors like Scalia, with justices like Alito producing poorly reasoned opinions while Thomas and Alito cherry-pick historical context to justify predetermined outcomes.The discussion touches on Supreme Court ethics violations, including Clarence Thomas's unreported gifts and Samuel Alito's luxury vacations from donors with business before the court. They examine how there are no ethics codes governing Supreme Court justices while state court judges face stringent rules. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk- Support Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com- Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@hawkeyewhackamole- Connect on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/mdg650hawk.bsky.social- Connect on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Podcasts Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.com- Listen to Hawk Podcasts On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTBSimplecast: https://hawk-droppings.simplecast.com- Hawk Podcasts RSS Feed: https://feeds.simplecast.com/pPVtxSNJ
A conversation with Justice Antonio Carpio.
On Monday, a majority of a 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the Trump administration can send members of the National Guard to Portland. The immediate impact of the ruling, however, is unclear. The Ninth Circuit’s decision only applies to one of the two temporary restraining orders U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut issued earlier this month blocking deployments both from Oregon and from any other state. Writing for the majority, Judges Ryan Nelson and Bridget Bade said that both of Judge Immergut’s restraining orders “rise or fall together” because they’re based on the same legal reasoning. In a dissent, Judge Susan Graber disagreed and said the Trump administration did not challenge the second restraining order, which therefore remains in effect. Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, Attorney General Dan Rayfield and Portland Mayor Keith Wilson responded to the ruling in a joint statement and called for a hearing before the full Ninth Circuit. “Oregon remains united in the fight against this unwanted, unneeded military intervention in Oregon,” Gov. Kotek wrote. Last week, a federal appeals court upheld an Illinois district court’s ruling that blocked the deployment of the National Guard to Chicago. The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the National Guard deployment in Chicago. Joining us for a legal analysis of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is Jessica Levinson, clinical professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
A special episode of Mea Culpa examines the crimes of Tom Barrack and how his indictment is the most consequential of all Trump's conspirators. We're going to follow this case all the way to the end. So stay tuned for much, much more. Will Barrack flip on Trump and spare himself the indignity of dying in prison or will he remain loyal to his “best friend” to the very end? 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
Yogurt Shop Murders Solved After 34 Years: Press Confession Reactions + Bob Motta's Legal Analysis This is the episode that finally puts everything in perspective. In this special Hidden Killers Live breakdown, we take you inside the full Austin Police press conference announcing the long-awaited resolution of the Yogurt Shop Murders—a case that haunted Austin for 34 years. But we don't just play the tape. We unpack every revelation, contradiction, and implication in real time. And joining us for this explosive episode is defense attorney Bob Motta, host of Defense Diaries, to offer a no-BS legal breakdown from the defense side—a perspective the public rarely hears. Here's what we cover: The Y-STR DNA match that finally named Robert Eugene Brashers as the killer Why that match took decades—despite the evidence being in storage for years The false confessions that led to two innocent men being convicted—one of them sentenced to death How prosecutors ignored exculpatory DNA, clung to a collapsing narrative, and refused to back down Bob's analysis of the coercive tactics used in the interrogations, and why courts continue to let this happen The broader systemic problem: tunnel vision, evidence suppression, and a culture of “win the case” over “get it right” Why Brashers was never on the radar, despite a violent criminal record and ties to multiple sexual assaults What real accountability looks like—and what reforms might actually prevent this from happening again This is more than a reaction. It's a legal autopsy of one of the most high-profile failures in American cold case history. Watch as we connect the dots the justice system refused to for over three decades.
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
Yogurt Shop Murders Solved After 34 Years: Press Confession Reactions + Bob Motta's Legal Analysis This is the episode that finally puts everything in perspective. In this special Hidden Killers Live breakdown, we take you inside the full Austin Police press conference announcing the long-awaited resolution of the Yogurt Shop Murders—a case that haunted Austin for 34 years. But we don't just play the tape. We unpack every revelation, contradiction, and implication in real time. And joining us for this explosive episode is defense attorney Bob Motta, host of Defense Diaries, to offer a no-BS legal breakdown from the defense side—a perspective the public rarely hears. Here's what we cover: The Y-STR DNA match that finally named Robert Eugene Brashers as the killer Why that match took decades—despite the evidence being in storage for years The false confessions that led to two innocent men being convicted—one of them sentenced to death How prosecutors ignored exculpatory DNA, clung to a collapsing narrative, and refused to back down Bob's analysis of the coercive tactics used in the interrogations, and why courts continue to let this happen The broader systemic problem: tunnel vision, evidence suppression, and a culture of “win the case” over “get it right” Why Brashers was never on the radar, despite a violent criminal record and ties to multiple sexual assaults What real accountability looks like—and what reforms might actually prevent this from happening again This is more than a reaction. It's a legal autopsy of one of the most high-profile failures in American cold case history. Watch as we connect the dots the justice system refused to for over three decades.
In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down the Trump administration's move to federalize the National Guard in Oregon amid Portland protests. She explains Oregon's lawsuit against the federal government, outlining key arguments such as the improper use of federal authority, possible violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, and state sovereignty issues. Jessica evaluates each argument's strength, noting that courts usually defer to presidential discretion in these cases. The episode offers a clear overview of the unfolding legal battle and what's at stake for both state and federal powers.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:1. Federalization of the National Guard in OregonThe episode opens by discussing the Trump administration's decision to federalize the National Guard in Oregon—specifically Portland. This move was made over local objections and parallels previous situations, such as federal intervention during protests in Los Angeles.2. Oregon's Legal Arguments Against FederalizationThe majority of the episode breaks down the legal case Oregon is making in its suit against the federal government.3. Legal Analysis of Oregon's ChancesEach argument is weighed in terms of likely success. The host points out that courts have historically given substantial deference to presidential discretion in these national security and public order matters, making Oregon's position a difficult one.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
