Podcasts about pena rodriguez

We have our FIRST GUEST! Our good friend, Pena, drops by to speak his thoughts on the CoronaVirus, his barber career and we all discuss the one and only male enhancement pill, “Blue chew”. Hear how our experiences went down in our 2nd episode now! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/GarageTalks/support

Expanding Pena-Rodriguez to Protect Criminal Defendants from Explicit Gender Animus. Katie Hicks (University of Arkansas School of Law) joins the podcast to advocate in favor of expanding Pena-Rodriguez to combat gender-based animus.

Criminal law saw some game-changing cases this year that cracked down on jury bias and developed exceptions to the exclusionary rule. In this episode of The Florida Bar Podcast from the 2018 Annual Florida Bar Convention, host Karla Eckhardt talks to Denis deVlaming about a couple important US Supreme Court cases including Pena Rodriguez v. Colorado, Birchfield v. North Dakota, and Utah v. Strieff and what their outcomes mean for future criminal law cases in Florida. Denis deVlaming is a criminal defense lawyer. He is board certified in criminal law and has been approved by the Florida Bar to give continuing legal education seminars on every aspect of the criminal trial.

Today's episode hits on some timely news stories, including Trump's latest kerfuffle with the NFL. In the pre-show, we talk a little bit about the Graham-Cassidy Bill, which is hopefully defunct by the time you hear this.  But can Trump save it via Executive Order?  (No.) Then, we return for a lengthy "Andrews Were Wrong!" segment in which we issue a correction from Episode 107, explain the difference between Ronnie Lott and Leon Lett, and also tackle friend of the show Andrew Seidel's recent article regarding whether churches will likely receive FEMA relief in the wake of the Trinity Lutheran decision. In the main segment, Andrew looks at the Supreme Court's recent order in Tharpe v. Warden and explains the significance in light of our prior discussion of jury deliberations. Before you listen to "Yodel Mountain," you'll want to go back and listen to Episode 57 and Episode 58, in which we go into detail on Donald Trump's rocky relationship with the NFL.  Then, we answer whether Donald Trump violated federal law by threatening NFL players who refuse to stand for the national anthem & some other questions.    You'll find out which senators oppose "State-Sponsored Patriotism" and the answer WILL surprise you! Finally, we end with a new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #43 about whether a "Letter of Intent" is binding in a business sale.  (Oooh, right in Andrew's professional wheelhouse!)  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances After being bombarded by 10,000 Twitter trolls, the guys are going to lay low for a little bit. Show Notes & Links We discussed the first GOP effort to repeal the AHCA back in Episode 80, and you can read about the changes to that bill (largely, to the slush fund) in this Bloomberg article. This CNN report suggested that Trump would "do an Executive Order" when Graham-Cassidy fails. If you want to read the trial court's ruling on ineffective assistance of counsel in the Syed case, you can do so. We first discussed whether churches will receive FEMA funds for disaster relief in Episode 102; Andrew Seidel respectfully disagreed with that conclusion in a recent article; we continue to think he's too optimistic in light of the Trinity Lutheran decision. We discussed Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado as a "landmark case" way back in Episode 56. You can read the Supreme Court's order staying execution in Tharpe v. Warden, as well as the District Court's opinion denying reopening of Tharpe's habeas petition. We're really proud of the episodes we did on the USFL v. NFL lawsuit back in Episode 57 and Episode 58, in which we go into detail as to exactly why Trump hates the NFL (and so much more)! The relevant statute at issue with Trump threatening the NFL is 18 U.S.C. § 227. That "LawNewz" article we referenced is here; read at your own risk! Finally, we definitely recommend reading the McCain-Flake report on "paid patriotism." Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct and harassment in state trial court. Two jurors later informed Pena-Rodriguez’s counsel that another juror made racially-biased statements about Pena-Rodriguez and an alibi witness during jury deliberations. The trial court authorized counsel to contact the two jurors for their affidavits detailing what the allegedly biased juror had said. Pena-Rodriguez moved for a new trial after learning from the affidavits that the juror had suggested Pena-Rodriguez was guilty because he was Hispanic (and this juror considered Hispanic males to be sexually aggressive toward females). According to the affidavits, the juror also deemed the alibi witness not credible because, among other things, that witness was “an illegal.” The trial court denied the motion and a divided Supreme Court of Colorado ultimately affirmed, applying Colorado Rule of Evidence 606(b)--which prohibits juror testimony on any matter occurring during the jury deliberations--and finding that none of the exceptions to the rule applied. In the dissenters’ view, however, Rule 606(b) should have yielded to “the defendant’s constitutional right to an impartial jury.” -- The question before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether a no-impeachment rule constitutionally may bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. -- By a vote of 5-3, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado and remanded the case. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, while held that when a juror makes a clear statement indicating that he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror's statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas joined. -- To discuss the case, we have John C. Richter, who is Partner at King & Spalding.

In today's episode, we look at a recent Supreme Court decision that could have wide-ranging effects on future trials. We begin, however, by "Breakin' Down the Law" regarding House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes.  Did he just violate the law Republicans kept trying to insist applied to Hillary Clinton's emails?  (Yes.) In our main segment, we delve into a recent Supreme Court decision, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, in which the Court held that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial means that jurors must be free to report blatant racial bias in otherwise-private jury deliberations, even if the law says otherwise.  How the Court came down on this issue is also reflective of the split on the Supreme Court between the originalist justices and the mainstream ones. Next, long-time friend of the show Eric Brewer returns with a question about felon voting rights. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #17 that asks about the common law behind "as is" used cars.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: Andrew and Thomas were guests on Eiynah's podcast, Polite Conversations, Panel Discussion #6 talking about liberals vs. conservatives on free speech.  Give it a listen! Show Notes & Links Here's the story on Devin Nunes's disclosures of confidential intelligence briefings to the press and to White House flacks. And this is the text of 18 U.S.C. § 793(f)(1), which is indeed the same statute Republicans sought to use against Hillary Clinton.  This counts as irony, right? And finally, this is the Supreme Court's decision in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

On March 6, 2017, the Supreme Court released its 5-3 decision in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, reveresed and remanded the case holding that when there is a juror's clear statement that he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the trial court consider the evidence of the statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee. John Richter, Partner at King & Spalding, joined us to discuss the important ramifications of the Court's striking decision. -- Featuring: John Richter, Partner, King & Spalding.

Today's mini-episode covers the recent decisions in Glouchester County School Board v. G.G. and Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, which were both resolved earlier this week.  Brett and Nazim also debate the merits of the "chili cheesesteak" and request very specific listener feedback on a question entitled "Beef on beef?"

(Bloomberg) -- David Strauss, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, allowing for more post-trial scruity of jury bias in criminal cases. He speaks with Greg Stohr, June Grasso, and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

(Bloomberg) -- David Strauss, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, discusses the Supreme Court's decision in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, allowing for more post-trial scruity of jury bias in criminal cases. He speaks with Greg Stohr, June Grasso, and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

On October 11, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. Miguel Angel Pena-Rodriguez was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct and harassment in state trial court. Two jurors later informed Pena-Rodriguez’s counsel that another juror made racially-biased statements about Pena-Rodriguez and an alibi witness during jury deliberations. The trial court authorized counsel to contact the two jurors for their affidavits detailing what the allegedly biased juror had said. Pena-Rodriguez moved for a new trial after learning from the affidavits that the juror had suggested Pena-Rodriguez was guilty because he was Hispanic (and this juror considered Hispanic males to be sexually aggressive toward females). According to the affidavits, the juror also deemed the alibi witness not credible because, among other things, that witness was “an illegal.” The trial court denied the motion and a divided Supreme Court of Colorado ultimately affirmed, applying Colorado Rule of Evidence 606(b)--which prohibits juror testimony on any matter occurring during the jury deliberations--and finding that none of the exceptions to the rule applied. In the dissenters’ view, however, Rule 606(b) should have yielded to “the defendant’s constitutional right to an impartial jury.” -- The question now before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether a no-impeachment rule constitutionally may bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. -- To discuss the case, we have John C. Richter, who is Partner at King & Spalding.

On Tuesday, October 11, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. This case involves the constitutionality of a Colorado rule that bars a defendant from introducing evidence that a juror was racially biased. The justices will consider whether applying a no-impeachment rule to block evidence in this context violates the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. -- Featuring: John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding.

Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado | 10/11/16 | Docket #: 15-606