Podcast appearances and mentions of sarah lustbader

After a deep dive on the Trump administration's horrifying misuse of the Alien Enemies Act to deport people from the US without due process, Kate and Leah preview upcoming SCOTUS cases about the Voting Rights Act and the Environmental Protection Agency. Along the way, they also touch on the Trump administration's targeting of certain law firms and its continued attacks on DEI. Hosts' favorite things this week: Leah: Fight! Fight! Fight!, Rebecca Traister; AOC's Bluesky feed during the CR debates/debacle; The Hidden Motive Behind Trump's Attacks on Trans People, M. Gessen; This Election Will Be a Crucial Test of Musk's Power, Kate Shaw; Trump Has Gone From Unconstitutional to Anti-Constitutional, Jamelle BouieKate: The Feminist Law Professor Who Wants to Stop Arresting People for Domestic Violence, Sarah Lustbader; The Dangerous Document Behind Trump's Campus Purges, Daphna Renan & Jesse  Hoffnung-Garskof; The Cost of the Government's Attack on Columbia, Christopher L. Eisgruber Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 5/31 – Washington DC6/12 – NYC10/4 – ChicagoLearn more: http://crooked.com/eventsPre-order your copy of Leah's forthcoming book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes (out May 13th)Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

Doug speaks with Matt Kierkegard and David Adler of the Progressive International on the Honduran and Chilean elections. Plus: an interview with Sarah Lustbader, author of this article, on why trials are no substitute for politics.Behind the News, hosted by Doug Henwood, covers the worlds of economics and politics and their complex interactions, from the local to the global. Find the archive here: https://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Radio.html See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Behind the News, 12/2/21 - guests: Matt Kierkegaard on Honduras's election, David Adler on Chile's; Sarah Lustbader on why trials aren't a substitute for politics - Doug Henwood

Episode 6 of (Re)Search for Solutions takes a hard look at how in some cases, communities, especially communities of color, are harmed by efforts claiming to be in service of stopping gun violence. We look at one of the most well-known examples of discriminatory policing, “Stop and Frisk,” and how these types of ineffective practices become legitimized. Sonali interviews Ekow Yankah, a Professor at the Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, and Sarah Lustbader, a public defender in New York City, about criminal law and policing as they relate to gun violence. Iesha Sekou, the CEO and founder of Street Corner Resources, also paints a picture of the profound effects gun violence has on communities. Visit the episode 6 page on researchforsolutions.com for transcripts and other resources.Production Team: Azsaneé Truss, Joe Riina-Ferrie, Sonali Rajan, and Lalitha VasudevanEditing: Azsaneé Truss with the help of the (Re)Search for Solutions teamSpecial thanks to Joe for mastering this episode!Music: “Research Area” by Poitr PacynaWebsite: ResearchforSolutions.comThe views expressed in this episode are solely those of the speaker to whom they are attributed. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the faculty, administration, staff or Trustees either of Teachers College or of Columbia University.

Episode 6 of (Re)Search for Solutions takes a hard look at how in some cases, communities, especially communities of color, are harmed by efforts claiming to be in service of stopping gun violence. We look at one of the most well-known examples of discriminatory policing, “Stop and Frisk,” and how these types of ineffective practices become legitimized. Sonali interviews Ekow Yankah, a Professor at the Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, and Sarah Lustbader, a public defender in New York City, about criminal law and policing as they relate to gun violence. Iesha Sekou, the CEO and founder of Street Corner Resources, also paints a picture of the profound effects gun violence has on communities. Visit the episode 6 page on researchforsolutions.com for transcripts and other resources. Production Team: Azsaneé Truss, Joe Riina-Ferrie, Sonali Rajan, and Lalitha Vasudevan Editing: Azsaneé Truss with the help of the (Re)Search for Solutions team Special thanks to Joe for mastering this episode! Music: “Research Area” by Poitr Pacyna Website: ResearchforSolutions.com The views expressed in this episode are solely those of the speaker to whom they are attributed. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the faculty, administration, staff or Trustees either of Teachers College or of Columbia University.

Published on 09 May 2020. Is a mobile home a home or a car? Is a car parked inside a home part of the home? The answer to these stoner philosophical questions determine the scope of police power. Over the last 100 years, the Supreme Court has presided over the expansion of police discretionary powers to stop, search, and arrest people through litigation over automobiles. This week, we look at the stories of those decisions, including Carroll, Ross, and Whren, We then turn to the political morality of police discretion, and why John Rawl's test of public reason places far more constraints on law enforcement than the Supreme Court ever would. We investigate the consequence of public reasons tests for targeted policing, racial profiling, and consider whether police should have the power to overrule democratically elected criminal laws. Guest voices include Sarah Seo, Brandon Del Pozo, and archival audio from SCOTUS.In Slate Plus, Sarah Lustbader and Barry talk about how to implement public reasons test for policing, and how the existing system has judges and prosecutors presume that arrest is the default rightful response to lawbreaking, rather than being a default wrongful response for malum prohibitum crimes. To get the full bonus episode, sign up for Slate Plus at slate.com/hiphiplus/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Opinion: Black people didn't trust Kamala Harris, and they were wise not to | Ricky L. Jones | Courier Journal What happened to Kamala Harris? The once-celebrated presidential candidate recently called it quits, and mainstream pundits struggled to explain why. Some argued Harris never articulated a clear and consistent message distinguishing her from competitors. Others believed she irreparably damaged herself by supporting “Medicare for All” (albeit offering several confusing iterations), which many see as a political non-starter. Some said Harris’ campaign was simply poorly run. Others opined she was the victim of a racially stacked primary deck. Even though Barack Obama surprisingly won Iowa in 2008, Harris struggled to gain support in the small, mostly white state whose African American population is a whopping 3.8%. All that may be true, but it misses the most important part of the story. It was one thing for Harris to receive little to no support from whites in Iowa, but how could the fact that blacks in South Carolina (and beyond) weren’t excited about her either be explained? Indeed, Harris was quick to showcase her racial bona fides early in her candidacy. She is a graduate of Howard University, a legendary historically black school that has yielded American icons from Thurgood Marshall to Toni Morrison to Chadwick Bozeman. She is also a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha, a blue blood black sorority with a socio-political network supposedly so extensive that CNN’s Maeve Reston called it Harris’ “secret weapon.” Harris even announced her candidacy on Martin Luther King Jr. Day in 2019. That and her blindside of Joe Biden on his busing record made it clear she was attempting to lure African American votes by wrapping herself in the cloak of black struggle. It didn’t sell. While some members of the self-involved black bourgeoisie nauseatingly praised her, younger blacks and black progressives were taking deeper, dispassionate dives into Harris’ real-world record. They didn’t like what they found. To the chagrin of her supporters, close examinations of the woman who took pride in the title of California’s “top cop” by writers like Lara Bazelon, C.J. Ciaramella, Sarah Lustbader, Vaidya Gullapalli, Joe Garafoli and others revealed that Harris had been nothing close to the civil rights warrior she claimed to be. In actuality, she had spent much of her professional life prosecuting and persecuting poor people and minorities. Bazelon wrote that Harris “opposed or stayed silent” on multiple aspects of criminal justice reform. She “laughed” when a reporter asked her about decriminalizing marijuana before reversing course years later as public opinion changed. She opposed a bill requiring her office to investigate police shootings. She also opposed statewide police officer body-camera regulations. Her record on police reform was so troubling for many that Garafoli cited former Harris supporter and California activist Phelicia Jones lamenting, “How many more people need to die before she steps in?” Harris didn’t stop there. She even fought for a law that would prosecute parents of “habitually truant” elementary schoolers, “despite concerns that it would disproportionately affect low-income people of color.” When Harris released her memoir, “The Truths We Hold,” Ciaramella reviewed it and wrote, “Kamala Harris’ new book tries to massage her record as a prosecutor, but the facts aren’t pretty.” In the book, Harris claims, “America has a deep and dark history of people using the power of the prosecutor as an instrument of injustice.” She goes on, “I know this history well — of innocent men framed, of charges brought against people without sufficient evidence, of prosecutors hiding information that would exonerate defendants, of the disproportionate application of the law.”

On this episode, we look at feminist and progressive prosecution; how does a prosecutor balance the aims of prosecuting more gender-based crimes while also being sensitive to the problems of mass incarceration? We look at the story of one Maine prosecutor who is winning victories in sexual assault cases that were once deemed unwinnable, and whether this lowers the bar of burden of proof to unjust levels for gender crimes. Finally, we look at how one study in 1984 started a 40-year trend in mandatory arrest policies for domestic violence, and how these policies have backfired for the communities those policies were meant to protect. Guest voices include Natasha Irving, Michelle Madden Dempsey, Aya Gruber, and Lawrence Sherman. In Slate Plus, Sarah Lustbader and Barry talk about whether the adversarial system of prosecution and defense makes the criminal justice system a bad way to pursue improvements in gender relations and reduce gender-based crime. Get the Slate Plus bonus episode by signing up at www.slate.com/hiphiplus Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode, we look at feminist and progressive prosecution; how does a prosecutor balance the aims of prosecuting more gender-based crimes while also being sensitive to the problems of mass incarceration? We look at the story of one Maine prosecutor who is winning victories in sexual assault cases that were once deemed unwinnable, and whether this lowers the bar of burden of proof to unjust levels for gender crimes. Finally, we look at how one study in 1984 started a 40-year trend in mandatory arrest policies for domestic violence, and how these policies have backfired for the communities those policies were meant to protect. Guest voices include Natasha Irving, Michelle Madden Dempsey, Aya Gruber, and Lawrence Sherman. In Slate Plus, Sarah Lustbader and Barry talk about whether the adversarial system of prosecution and defense makes the criminal justice system a bad way to pursue improvements in gender relations and reduce gender-based crime. Get the Slate Plus bonus episode by signing up at www.slate.com/hiphiplus Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week we go inside investigative operations in NYPD internal affairs and in the war and drugs to look at the police use of discretion to selectively break laws in order to pursue the bad guys. One former FBI special agent turned political philosopher argues that local and federal law enforcement are the biggest threat to the rule of law in their ongoing use of discretion to secure informant deals, perform sting operations, and otherwise break laws in order to enforce them. Guest voices include Robert Bryan, Luke Hunt, Nick Taiber, and Sarah Lustbader. In Slate Plus bonus episode: Sarah Lustbader talks about the incentive public defenders have to make informant deals, and whether we can justify liking police discretionary actions to break laws in the interest of busting crooked cops and politicians, but despise their use for low-level drug offenses. They conclude with talk about what makes for valid and free contracts between unequal parties, and whether there is a difference between and offer and a threat. To get the bonus episode, sign up at www.slate.com/hiphiplus/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week we go inside investigative operations in NYPD internal affairs and in the war and drugs to look at the police use of discretion to selectively break laws in order to pursue the bad guys. One former FBI special agent turned political philosopher argues that local and federal law enforcement are the biggest threat to the rule of law in their ongoing use of discretion to secure informant deals, perform sting operations, and otherwise break laws in order to enforce them. Guest voices include Robert Bryan, Luke Hunt, Nick Taiber, and Sarah Lustbader. In Slate Plus bonus episode: Sarah Lustbader talks about the incentive public defenders have to make informant deals, and whether we can justify liking police discretionary actions to break laws in the interest of busting crooked cops and politicians, but despise their use for low-level drug offenses. They conclude with talk about what makes for valid and free contracts between unequal parties, and whether there is a difference between and offer and a threat. To get the bonus episode, sign up at www.slate.com/hiphiplus/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is a mobile home a home or a car? Is a car parked inside a home part of the home? The answer to these stoner philosophical questions determine the scope of police power. Over the last 100 years, the Supreme Court has presided over the expansion of police discretionary powers to stop, search, and arrest people through litigation over automobiles. This week, we look at the stories of those decisions, including Carroll, Ross, and Whren, We then turn to the political morality of police discretion, and why John Rawl's test of public reason places far more constraints on law enforcement than the Supreme Court ever would. We investigate the consequence of public reasons tests for targeted policing, racial profiling, and consider whether police should have the power to overrule democratically elected criminal laws. Guest voices include Sarah Seo, Brandon Del Pozo, and archival audio from SCOTUS. In Slate Plus, Sarah Lustbader and Barry talk about how to implement public reasons test for policing, and how the existing system has judges and prosecutors presume that arrest is the default rightful response to lawbreaking, rather than being a default wrongful response for malum prohibitum crimes. To get the full bonus episode, sign up for Slate Plus at slate.com/hiphiplus/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is a mobile home a home or a car? Is a car parked inside a home part of the home? The answer to these stoner philosophical questions determine the scope of police power. Over the last 100 years, the Supreme Court has presided over the expansion of police discretionary powers to stop, search, and arrest people through litigation over automobiles. This week, we look at the stories of those decisions, including Carroll, Ross, and Whren, We then turn to the political morality of police discretion, and why John Rawl's test of public reason places far more constraints on law enforcement than the Supreme Court ever would. We investigate the consequence of public reasons tests for targeted policing, racial profiling, and consider whether police should have the power to overrule democratically elected criminal laws. Guest voices include Sarah Seo, Brandon Del Pozo, and archival audio from SCOTUS. In Slate Plus, Sarah Lustbader and Barry talk about how to implement public reasons test for policing, and how the existing system has judges and prosecutors presume that arrest is the default rightful response to lawbreaking, rather than being a default wrongful response for malum prohibitum crimes. To get the full bonus episode, sign up for Slate Plus at slate.com/hiphiplus/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this Slate Plus segment, Barry is joined by Sarah Lustbader to discuss the issues raised in Episode 1: Criminal Minds. Sarah expresses skepticism about the significance of mens rea in ordinary prosecution of street crimes, Barry uses the opportunity to discuss the issue of moral luck as an explanation of why egregiousness of outcome seems to be the driving factor for prosecution rather than mens rea. The two end with a discussion of why the deontological/consequentialist distinction is so difficult to figure out for reform-minded advocates. To get all bonus episodes this season, and to get ad-free feeds of this and every other Slate podcast, sign up for Slate Plus at http://www.slate.com/hiphiplus. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Everywhere we turn, local media — TV, digital, radio — is constantly telling us about the scourge of crime lurking around every corner. This, of course, is not new. It’s been the basis of the local news business model since the 1970s. But what is new is the rise of surveillance and snitch apps like Amazon’s Ring doorbell systems and geo-local social media like Nextdoor. They are funded by real estate and other gentrifying interests working hand in glove with police to provide a grossly distorted, inflated and hyped-up vision of crime. One of the major factors fueling this misconception is the feedback loop where media — both traditional and social — provide the ideological content for the forces of gentrification. Police focus their “law enforcement” in low income areas, local news reports on scourges of crime based on police sources, then both pressure and reinforce over-policing of communities of color, namely those getting in the way of real estate interests' designs––All animated by an increase in police-backed surveillance tech like Amazon’s Ring. On this episode we will break down these pro-carceral interests, how they create a self-reinforcing cycle of racist paranoia and how local “crime” reporting plays a role in creating this wildly distorted perception of “crime.” We are joined by two guests: Sarah Lustbader, senior legal counsel at The Justice Collaborative, and Steven Renderos, co-director of MediaJustice.

When police showed up to question John Thompson, he was worried that it was because he had sold drugs to an undercover cop.  When he realized they were investigating a murder, he could only laugh: “Shit, for real? Murder?”Thompson was insistent on his innocence, but New Orleans prosecutors wanted a conviction for a high-profile murder, and they were not scrupulous about how they got it. Thompson quickly found himself on death row. Eighteen years later, just weeks before Thompson was due to be executed, his lawyers discovered that a prosecutor had hidden exculpatory evidence from the defense. Thompson had been set up. This was a violation of the Brady Rule, established by the Supreme Court, in 1963, to ensure fair trials. Ultimately, he was exonerated of both crimes, but his attempts to get a settlement from the district attorney’s office—compensation for his time in prison—were thwarted. Though an appeals court had upheld a fourteen-million-dollar settlement, the Supreme Court reversed the decision, declining to punish the D.A. for violating the Court's own ruling. Thompson’s case revealed fundamental imbalances that undermine the very notion of a fair trial.  Under the Brady Rule, prosecutors must share with the defense any evidence that could be favorable to the defendant.  But there is essentially no practical enforcement of this rule. In most states, prosecutors are the ones who hold the evidence and choose what to share, and disclosing exculpatory evidence makes their cases harder to win. We have absolutely no idea how many criminal trials are flawed by these violations.The staff writer Andrew Marantz, his wife, Sarah Lustbader, of the Fair Punishment Project, and the producer Katherine Wells reported on John Thompson’s story and its implications. They spoke with the late John Thompson (who died in 2017), with his lawyers, and with Harry Connick, Sr., the retired New Orleans D.A. who, despite having tried very hard to have Thompson killed, remains unrepentant. This episode contains explicit language and may not be suitable for children.

This hour, some of the winners of our annual documentary competition.Featuring...John Thompson vs. American Justice, produced by Andrew Marantz, Sarah Lustbader, and Katherine Wells and edited by David Krasnow for The New Yorker Radio Hour. Winner of the 2018 Best Documentary: Bronze Award When John Thompson was investigated for the murder of the son of a prominent family in New Orleans, he insisted on his innocence. But prosecutors wanted a conviction and he quickly landed on death row. Eighteen years later, and just weeks before his execution date, Thompson’s lawyers discovered that a prosecutor had hidden exculpatory evidence from the defense. Uncounted Civilian Casualties in Iraq, produced by Annie Brown, with reporter Azmat Khan and edited by Lisa Tobin for The Daily. Winner of a 2018 Best Documentary: Honorable Mention Award The American-led battle against the Islamic State has been hailed as the most precise air campaign in history. But its airstrikes have killed far more Iraqi civilians than anyone has acknowledged. Basim Razzo lost his family and his home in one of these airstrikes. Why was Mr. Razzo’s home targeted? And how often does this happen? Summer Rain, produced by Nanna Hauge Kristensen for Danish Radio P1. Winner of the 2018 Best Documentary: Foreign Language Award Visibility and invisibility. Severance and openings. Everyday life, loss and rain. This short documentary is a personal piece about Chemo therapy. Host’s Fat, produced by Jonathan Zenti and edited by Cathy Fitzgerald for Meat. Winner of the 2018 Skylarking Award Jonathan Zenti is an overweight man. He explains how the shape of his body and the diets he underwent in his life has often caused him to question his identity. Hidden Problems of Silicon Valley, produced by Will Evans and Alyssa Jeong Perry and edited by Taki Telonidis with Ziva Branstetter for Reveal in partnership with KQED. Winner of the 2018 Radio Impact Award This investigation into Tesla’s safety practices shows how the company has prioritized production over safety and disregarded the warnings of its own safety staff. Tesla responded by calling Reveal an "extremist organization." Overnight in the E.R., produced by Sammy Mack and edited by Alicia Zuckerman for WLRN News. Winner of the 2018 Best News Feature Award Over the course of a night at the Ryder Trauma Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, it’s not uncommon to see a gunshot wound victim come through the doors. This story shows what happens in those crucial moments after a shooting in real-time. Man Choubam (I am good), produced by Sharon Mashihi with editors Bob Carlson and Kaitlin Prest for UnFictional from KCRW. Winner of the 2018 Best Documentary: Silver Award Sharon calls herself a weirdo and refuses to conform to cultural standards. Her mom does not approve. They confront their longstanding differences on an Iranian self-help cruise. This hour of Best of the Best was produced by Isabel Vázquez.Listen to the full pieces at ThirdCoastFestival.org. Learn more about this year's Third Coast / Richard H. Driehaus Foundation Competition Awards Ceremony here.Find the full tracklist of songs featured in this hour at ThirdCoastFestival.org. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.