Podcasts about Sixth Amendment

In this episode, we continue breaking down the State of Idaho's response to Lori Vallow Daybell's appeal, picking up deep into the brief as the State dismantles claims of constitutional violations.The State argues that Lori Vallow failed all three prongs of the fundamental error test — including claims that her Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated and that her due process rights were ignored while she was deemed incompetent.We walk through why the court says Mark Means had the opportunity to respond but chose not to, why this was not a structural error, and why any alleged error would be considered harmless under existing case law.The episode also dives into the key issue of competency, explaining why hearings held in Chad Daybell's separate criminal case did not violate Lori Vallow's rights — including her right not to be prosecuted while incompetent or her right to be physically present.This section of the appeal gives rare insight into what was happening behind the scenes while much of the case was under seal — and why the State is confident none of these arguments will impact her Idaho conviction.ALL MERCH 10% off with code Sherlock10 at checkout  - NEW STYLES Donate: (Thank you for your support! Couldn't do what I love without all y'all) PayPal - paypal.com/paypalme/prettyliesandalibisVenmo - @prettyliesalibisBuy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/prettyliesrCash App- PrettyliesandalibisAll links: https://linktr.ee/prettyliesandalibisMerch: prettyliesandalibis.myshopify.comPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/PrettyLiesAndAlibis(Weekly lives and private message board)00:00 – Intro & Where We Left OffRecap of the series and picking back up in the State's response to Lori Vallow's appeal00:55 – Mark Means & Alleged Right-to-Counsel ViolationState argues Means had the opportunity to respond but chose not to02:17 – Fundamental Error Test: “Error Plainly Exists”Explanation of the second prong of the Perry test and why the State says Vallow fails it04:18 – Misuse of Bodenbach ComparisonWhy the Idaho Supreme Court's Bodenbach ruling does not apply here06:34 – Harmless Error vs Structural ErrorState argues this was not a complete deprivation of counsel08:52 – Hearings Focused on Chad Daybell, Not Lori VallowWhy Means' limited role did not violate Vallow's Sixth Amendment rights10:01 – No Showing of PrejudiceState explains why Vallow's arguments are speculative and unsupported11:19 – New Argument: Due Process & CompetencyWhether Vallow's rights were violated while she was deemed incompetent13:04 – Right Not to Be Prosecuted While IncompetentIdaho law on suspension of proceedings and why it didn't apply here16:37 – Separate Criminal Case ExplainedWhy hearings in Chad Daybell's case did not violate Vallow's rights18:55 – Balancing Competing Constitutional RightsCourt's duty to protect conflict-free counsel and fairness of proceedings21:10 – Mark Means' Actions During IncompetencyWhy the court acted quickly to disqualify Means22:33 – Court Left Door Open After Restoration to CompetencyOpportunity Vallow had to revisit issues later24:01 – Right to Be Present at HearingsWhy due process does not require presence in another defendant's case26:24 – Why Vallow's Presence Would Not Have Changed AnythingCompetency, waiver issues, and harmless error analysis29:39 – Failure to Show Error Plainly Exists (Again)State argues tactical decisions undermine Vallow's claims33:03 – Harmless Error Analysis AppliesWhy prejudice cannot be presumed36:14 – Wrapping Up & What's NextPreview of the next episode and appeal timeline going forwardBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/pretty-lies-and-alibis--4447192/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell's habeas corpus petition is, at its core, a reheated attempt to relitigate issues that were already raised, argued, and rejected at trial and on direct appeal—most notably her fixation on alleged juror misconduct. Maxwell centers her petition on the claim that a juror failed to fully disclose past experiences with sexual abuse during voir dire, arguing this tainted the verdict and violated her Sixth Amendment rights. But courts that have already examined this issue concluded that there was no evidence of intentional deception or bias sufficient to overturn the conviction. Habeas relief is not a “do-over” for defendants unhappy with a jury's conclusion, and Maxwell's petition conspicuously ignores the extremely high bar required to show that any alleged juror error had a decisive, unconstitutional impact on the outcome of the trial.Beyond the juror issue, the petition leans heavily on familiar defense talking points—claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and constitutional violations framed in sweeping, conclusory language rather than supported by new, compelling evidence. What's striking is how little the petition grapples with the overwhelming testimonial and documentary record that led to Maxwell's conviction for facilitating and participating in the sexual abuse of minors. Instead, it attempts to recast procedural disputes as fundamental injustices while sidestepping the reality that multiple courts have already found the trial to be fair, the evidence to be strong, and the verdict to be sound. In that sense, the habeas filing reads less like a serious constitutional challenge and more like a last-ditch effort to chip away at a lawful conviction by exhausting every remaining procedural avenue—no matter how thin the underlying arguments have become.to contact me:Ghislaine Maxwell files petition challenging sex trafficking conviction

Ghislaine Maxwell's habeas corpus petition is, at its core, a reheated attempt to relitigate issues that were already raised, argued, and rejected at trial and on direct appeal—most notably her fixation on alleged juror misconduct. Maxwell centers her petition on the claim that a juror failed to fully disclose past experiences with sexual abuse during voir dire, arguing this tainted the verdict and violated her Sixth Amendment rights. But courts that have already examined this issue concluded that there was no evidence of intentional deception or bias sufficient to overturn the conviction. Habeas relief is not a “do-over” for defendants unhappy with a jury's conclusion, and Maxwell's petition conspicuously ignores the extremely high bar required to show that any alleged juror error had a decisive, unconstitutional impact on the outcome of the trial.Beyond the juror issue, the petition leans heavily on familiar defense talking points—claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and constitutional violations framed in sweeping, conclusory language rather than supported by new, compelling evidence. What's striking is how little the petition grapples with the overwhelming testimonial and documentary record that led to Maxwell's conviction for facilitating and participating in the sexual abuse of minors. Instead, it attempts to recast procedural disputes as fundamental injustices while sidestepping the reality that multiple courts have already found the trial to be fair, the evidence to be strong, and the verdict to be sound. In that sense, the habeas filing reads less like a serious constitutional challenge and more like a last-ditch effort to chip away at a lawful conviction by exhausting every remaining procedural avenue—no matter how thin the underlying arguments have become.to contact me:Ghislaine Maxwell files petition challenging sex trafficking convictionBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell's habeas corpus petition is, at its core, a reheated attempt to relitigate issues that were already raised, argued, and rejected at trial and on direct appeal—most notably her fixation on alleged juror misconduct. Maxwell centers her petition on the claim that a juror failed to fully disclose past experiences with sexual abuse during voir dire, arguing this tainted the verdict and violated her Sixth Amendment rights. But courts that have already examined this issue concluded that there was no evidence of intentional deception or bias sufficient to overturn the conviction. Habeas relief is not a “do-over” for defendants unhappy with a jury's conclusion, and Maxwell's petition conspicuously ignores the extremely high bar required to show that any alleged juror error had a decisive, unconstitutional impact on the outcome of the trial.Beyond the juror issue, the petition leans heavily on familiar defense talking points—claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and constitutional violations framed in sweeping, conclusory language rather than supported by new, compelling evidence. What's striking is how little the petition grapples with the overwhelming testimonial and documentary record that led to Maxwell's conviction for facilitating and participating in the sexual abuse of minors. Instead, it attempts to recast procedural disputes as fundamental injustices while sidestepping the reality that multiple courts have already found the trial to be fair, the evidence to be strong, and the verdict to be sound. In that sense, the habeas filing reads less like a serious constitutional challenge and more like a last-ditch effort to chip away at a lawful conviction by exhausting every remaining procedural avenue—no matter how thin the underlying arguments have become.to contact me:Ghislaine Maxwell files petition challenging sex trafficking convictionBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This Day in Legal History: 21st Amendment RatifiedOn December 5, 1933, the United States ratified the Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution, officially ending the era of national Prohibition. This amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, which had banned the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors since 1920. Prohibition, championed by temperance movements and moral reformers, was initially seen as a solution to social problems such as crime and poverty. However, over the following decade, it led instead to a surge in organized crime, illegal speakeasies, and widespread disregard for the law.The Twenty-first Amendment is unique in American legal history—it is the only amendment to repeal a previous amendment. It is also the only amendment ratified through state conventions rather than by state legislatures, a strategic move to bypass potential legislative gridlock. Utah became the 36th state to ratify the amendment, securing the three-fourths majority needed for adoption.The repeal of Prohibition returned control over alcohol regulation to the states, many of which continued restrictions at the local level. The amendment's passage marked a shift toward a more pragmatic and less moralistic approach to federal lawmaking. It also highlighted the limits of federal power to regulate personal behavior and underscored the complexities of enforcing unpopular laws.In the broader context of constitutional law, the Twenty-first Amendment demonstrated the capacity of the Constitution to adapt and self-correct. It remains a pivotal example of how constitutional amendments can respond to changing public sentiment and unintended legal consequences.A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump to continue deploying National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., halting a lower court ruling that would have required the troops to withdraw by December 11. The temporary order from the D.C. Circuit Court does not address the underlying legality of the deployment but permits it to proceed while litigation continues. The deployment, which began in August, intensified after a November 26 shooting near the White House left two National Guard members injured—one fatally. Trump responded by sending 500 additional troops and renewing his call to halt immigration from what he called “third-world countries,” after a 29-year-old Afghan national was charged in the attack.D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued the administration in September, arguing Trump unlawfully took over local policing authority and violated federal restrictions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. A federal judge initially sided with Schwalb, calling the deployment likely unlawful, but delayed enforcement of her ruling to allow time for appeal. The Trump administration maintains it can deploy troops to D.C. without local approval, citing the city's unique federal status. Meanwhile, similar deployments in other Democratic-led cities have sparked lawsuits and accusations that Trump is using federal force for political purposes. Lower courts have largely ruled against these moves, and the Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on the legality of the Chicago deployment soon.Appeals court allows Trump National Guard deployment in DC to continue | ReutersTom Goldstein, a prominent Washington attorney and co-founder of SCOTUSblog, is fighting to sell his $3 million home in D.C.'s Wesley Heights to fund his defense against 22 financial crime charges, including tax evasion. Prosecutors allege that Goldstein, who has made millions as a poker player, misrepresented his financial situation to obtain loans, including one used to purchase the property. A Maryland federal judge barred the sale, ruling the house is likely connected to the alleged crimes. Goldstein has appealed, arguing that blocking the sale violates his Sixth Amendment right to use untainted assets for legal defense, and insists the home is not tied to the alleged misconduct.The appeal is before the 4th Circuit, where Goldstein—representing himself—says he's accumulated millions in legal fees. Prosecutors maintain the house is tainted because Goldstein omitted over $15 million in debt from the mortgage application. The home is also collateral for Goldstein's appearance bond, due to his being labeled a flight risk. One of Goldstein's key financial backers, litigation funder Parabellum Capital, is a witness in the case but not accused of wrongdoing. Legal experts say his effort to sell the house faces steep odds given the property's legal entanglements and standard federal practices regarding tainted assets.Tom Goldstein fights to sell home as tax trial looms | ReutersA federal grand jury has declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, rejecting prosecutors' second attempt to bring criminal charges against her, according to sources familiar with the matter. The Justice Department had sought to revive a case involving allegations of bank fraud and false statements related to a mortgage, after the initial indictment was dismissed in November due to the unlawful appointment of the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan. Despite the setback, prosecutors reportedly plan to seek a new indictment.James, a Democrat and prominent critic of Donald Trump, was accused of misrepresenting financial information to obtain favorable mortgage terms on a Virginia property. She pleaded not guilty to the original charges. The failed indictment effort comes amid broader DOJ efforts targeting Trump critics, including former FBI Director James Comey and ex-national security adviser John Bolton—cases that have also faced legal hurdles.Grand jury rejections are rare, as prosecutors usually face a low threshold of probable cause to proceed. James is now the highest-profile figure to have such a case rejected during Trump's second term. The president has publicly attacked James for leading a civil fraud lawsuit against him, which resulted in a massive financial penalty, later reduced on appeal but with Trump still found liable for fraud.Grand jury rejects second criminal case against New York Attorney General Letitia James, sources say | ReutersLawyers representing authors and publishers in a $1.5 billion copyright settlement with AI company Anthropic have requested $300 million in legal fees, amounting to 20% of the total settlement. Filed in federal court in San Francisco, the fee request comes after Anthropic agreed in October to settle claims it used pirated books to train its AI models, including its commercial product Claude. As part of the agreement, Anthropic will pay over $3,000 per infringed work, destroy the infringing datasets, and certify they are not part of its commercial systems.The legal team, led by Susman Godfrey and Lieff Cabraser, argued that the fee is “conservative” by class action standards, citing more than 26,000 hours of high-risk work. The settlement, which received preliminary approval in September, is being described as the largest reported copyright class action resolution to date. Anthropic has denied wrongdoing and retains the right to contest the fee amount.Authors have until January 15 to opt out of the class action and pursue individual claims. A final fairness hearing before U.S. District Judge William Alsup is scheduled for April, where objections from class members and fee disputes will be reviewed.Authors' lawyers in $1.5 billion Anthropic settlement seek $300 million | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a composer of some note.On December 5, 1791, the world lost one of its greatest musical minds: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Just 35 years old at the time of his death, Mozart left behind an astonishing body of work that shaped the course of Western classical music. His death, shrouded in speculation and mystery, came while he was in the midst of composing what would become one of his most profound and haunting works—the Requiem in D minor, K. 626. The Lacrymosa movement, in particular, captures the emotional gravity of that moment, as if echoing his own impending end.Although Mozart did not live to finish the Requiem, the fragments he left behind were completed by his student Franz Xaver Süssmayr, guided by sketches and oral instruction. The Lacrymosa, with its solemn melodies and aching harmonies, stands as one of the most emotionally resonant sections of the work. Franz Liszt later transcribed it for solo piano, creating a version that retains its choral intensity while adding a layer of intimate, virtuosic expressiveness.Listening to Liszt's transcription of the Lacrymosa is like hearing Mozart's farewell whispered through the keys of a piano—stark, mournful, and deeply human. December 5, then, is not only the date of Mozart's passing but also a reminder of the enduring beauty he left behind, etched into every phrase of the Requiem. His music, especially in this piece, speaks across centuries to the depths of loss and the hope of transcendence.Without further ado, Mozart's Requiem in D. minor – enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Pitts v. Mississippi. In this case, The Court considered whether the trial court violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause by allowing a child witness to testify behind a physical screen without first holding a case-specific hearing and making a case-specific finding of necessity, as required by Coy v. Iowa and Maryland v. Craig.In other words, the issue was: Does the Sixth Amendment permit a child witness to be screened from the defendant based solely on a mandatory state statute, without evidence or a case-specific judicial finding that such screening is necessary to prevent trauma?The Supreme Court held no—a mandatory statute isn't enough; the trial court must hear evidence and make a case-specific necessity finding.The case was decided on November 24, 2025. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

The newly released book "Youth Voting Rights: Civil Rights, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, and the Fight for American Democracy on College Campuses" uses the history of the 26th Amendment and the ongoing fight to promote and defend youth voting rights as a prism through which to teach the history of the struggle for the fundamental right to vote in the United States.Jonathan Becker is Vice President for Academic Affairs and Professor of Politics at Bard College where he is also the Director of the Center for Civic Engagement. He has published extensively on student voting rights.

This conversation delves into the complexities of hearsay in evidence law, particularly focusing on Federal Rule of Evidence 801. The discussion covers the definition of hearsay, the policy reasons behind its exclusions, and the distinctions between hearsay exclusions and exceptions. Key concepts such as the TOMA framework, non-TOMA purposes, and the implications of the Confrontation Clause are explored, providing a comprehensive understanding of hearsay and its application in legal contexts.In the realm of evidence law, few topics are as daunting as hearsay. For students preparing for finals or the bar, mastering the intricacies of hearsay is crucial. In our latest Deep Dive session, we explore Federal Rule of Evidence 801, aiming to demystify this often-confusing area.The Foundation of Hearsay AnalysisUnderstanding Rule 801 is key to tackling any hearsay problem. Before diving into the rule book, it's essential to grasp the policy behind hearsay exclusions. The rule exists to ensure the reliability of evidence presented in court, emphasizing the importance of testimony being tested through procedures like cross-examination.The Three SafeguardsThe Anglo-American tradition values three key safeguards for ideal testimony: the witness testifying under oath, the presence of the witness before the jury or judge, and the opportunity for cross-examination. These elements are crucial in assessing the credibility of statements and are at the heart of the hearsay rule.Non-Hearsay Categories and ExclusionsHearsay analysis begins with defining whether a statement is offered for the truth of the matter asserted (TOMA). If not, it falls into non-hearsay categories such as verbal acts, effect on the listener, or the declarant's state of mind. Understanding these categories is vital for identifying non-TOMA purposes and navigating hearsay exclusions under Rule 801D.Hearsay Exceptions and the Confrontation ClauseWhile hearsay exceptions under Rules 803 and 804 allow certain statements to be admitted due to circumstantial reliability, the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause adds another layer of complexity. The Crawford v. Washington case revolutionized the approach, emphasizing the need for confrontation through cross-examination for testimonial hearsay.A Thought-Provoking DebateThe intricate structure of hearsay rules raises fundamental questions about their necessity. Some critics argue for abolishing the categorical rule against hearsay, suggesting reliance on other rules like Rule 403 to weigh the probative value of statements. This debate challenges us to consider whether the current system is the optimal way to uncover the truth.TakeawaysHearsay is a complex topic that often confuses law students.Understanding the policy behind hearsay rules is crucial for legal analysis.The TOMA framework is essential for defining hearsay.Non-TOMA purposes include verbal acts, effect on the listener, and state of mind of the declarant.Hearsay exclusions under Rule 801D are not considered hearsay due to procedural safeguards.Prior statements of testifying witnesses have specific admissibility requirements.Admissions by a party opponent do not require guarantees of trustworthiness.The Confrontation Clause ensures defendants can confront their accusers.Testimonial statements have specific requirements for admissibility under the Confrontation Clause.The complexity of hearsay rules raises questions about their necessity in the legal system.hearsay, evidence law, federal rules of evidence, TOMA, legal analysis, hearsay exclusions, hearsay exceptions, confrontation clause, testimonial statements, legal education

Criminal Procedure: Does the Sixth Amendment guarantee criminal defendants the right to discussing their testimony with counsel during an overnight recess? - Argued: Mon, 06 Oct 2025 8:52:56 EDT

A case in which the Court will decide whether a trial court violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by banning discussion of the defendant's ongoing testimony with counsel during an overnight recess.

Villarreal v. Texas | 10/06/25 | Docket #: 24-557 24-557 VILLARREAL V. TEXAS DECISION BELOW: 707 S.W.3d 138 CERT. GRANTED 4/7/2025 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a trial court abridges the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: PD-0048-20

This Day in Legal History: Anita HillOn October 6, 1991, Anita Hill, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma, accused Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, dramatically shifting the course of his confirmation process. Hill, who had previously worked under Thomas at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleged that Thomas made repeated sexually inappropriate comments during their professional relationship. Her allegations were leaked to the press after the Senate Judiciary Committee had already voted to send Thomas's nomination to the full Senate. In response, the Committee reopened the hearings, and Hill testified publicly on October 11, describing in detail the behavior she claimed to have experienced. Her testimony was televised nationally, drawing intense media coverage and sparking widespread public debate about sexual harassment, gender dynamics, and power in the workplace.The hearings were often contentious, with Hill subjected to sharp questioning from senators, many of whom expressed skepticism about her motives. Thomas categorically denied the allegations, famously calling the proceedings a “high-tech lynching” during his own testimony. Despite the controversy, the Senate narrowly confirmed Thomas to the Supreme Court by a 52-48 vote on October 15, one of the closest margins in modern confirmation history. Hill's testimony, however, had a lasting impact beyond the nomination itself.The episode galvanized public awareness of workplace sexual harassment and is often credited with sparking a surge in women seeking elected office in 1992, dubbed the “Year of the Woman.” It also led to changes in how such allegations were addressed in professional and legal contexts. The legacy of the hearings continues to influence discussions of gender and accountability in government and law.The U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term today with a docket that includes significant cases related to President Donald Trump's exercise of executive power. Key cases center on Trump's efforts to impose tariffs and remove certain federal officials—moves that could test the constitutional boundaries between presidential authority and congressional control. The Court has already sided with Trump in several emergency rulings this year, including a June decision that curtailed judges' ability to block presidential policies nationwide.In addition to executive power disputes, the justices will take up cases touching on contentious social issues, including the legality of a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy” for minors, rights of transgender student athletes, gun control, and race-related policies. The Court's conservative 6-3 majority, including three Trump appointees, is expected to play a crucial role in shaping these outcomes.Other notable cases this term involve a Texas murder conviction potentially violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and a malpractice suit that questions whether federal courts must apply state laws requiring expert affidavits in medical negligence claims. The justices will also consider a campaign finance case involving Vice President JD Vance and a law allowing lawsuits over property seized by the Cuban government.US Supreme Court opens new term, with major Trump cases in store | ReutersA federal judge in Oregon, Karin Immergut, has temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's administration from deploying any National Guard troops—whether from Oregon or other states—to Portland. The order, issued on Sunday, follows an earlier ruling by the same judge that stopped Trump from sending 200 Oregon National Guard troops. In response, the administration tried to redirect troops from California and Texas, arguing that their prior federalization allowed for deployment anywhere. Judge Immergut rejected that argument, stating there was no justification for military presence given the current protest activity in Portland.Oregon officials accused the administration of legal “gamesmanship,” calling the attempt to bypass the initial order an affront to the court's intent. The ruling will remain in place until at least October 19 while broader legal challenges play out. The Pentagon had planned to send troops to support federal agencies like ICE and protect federal property. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had also called up Texas troops for deployment in multiple cities, including Chicago and Portland.National Guard units are generally controlled by state governors unless federalized, a point central to Oregon's legal argument that Trump was overreaching by seizing control of state resources. Governor Gavin Newsom of California called the deployment an abuse of power, echoing broader concerns about the erosion of state sovereignty. Judge Immergut emphasized that presidential military authority, while broad, is not unlimited and cannot override facts on the ground or constitutional limits.US judge blocks Trump from sending any National Guard troops to Portland for now | ReutersA coalition of unions, employers, and religious groups has filed a federal lawsuit in San Francisco challenging a recent proclamation by President Donald Trump that imposes a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications. The plaintiffs, including the United Auto Workers, the American Association of University Professors, and others, argue that Trump exceeded his legal authority by unilaterally altering a visa program created and regulated by Congress. They claim the president cannot impose such a fee without congressional approval, calling the move unconstitutional and a misuse of executive power.The H-1B visa program, widely used by tech companies and other industries to hire skilled foreign workers, currently costs employers between $2,000 and $5,000 per application. Trump's new order blocks new visa recipients from entering the U.S. unless their sponsoring employer pays the additional $100,000. The administration claims the measure is necessary to protect American jobs, prevent wage suppression, and safeguard national security.Critics of the new policy say it amounts to a “pay-to-play” system that grants exemptions only at the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security, opening the door to arbitrary enforcement. Plaintiffs also accuse government agencies of failing to follow proper administrative rulemaking procedures and warn that the excessive fee could stifle innovation and deter employers from hiring needed talent. The lawsuit underscores ongoing tensions over the scope of executive authority in shaping immigration policy and regulating labor markets.Trump's $100,000 fee for H-1B worker visas challenged in lawsuit | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Villarreal v. Texas (October 6) - Sixth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a trial court abridges a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess. Berk v. Choy (October 6) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court. Barrett v. U.S. (October 7) - Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j). Chiles v. Salazar (October 7) - First Amendment; Issue(s): Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections (October 8) - Election Law; Issue(s): Whether petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections. U.S. Postal Service v. Konan (October 8) - Federal Tort Claims Act; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because U.S. Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of "the loss" or "miscarriage" of letters or postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Bowe v. U.S. (October 14) - Habeas Corpus; Issue(s): (1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; and (2) whether Subsection 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under Section 2255. Ellingburg v. U.S. (October 14) - Criminal Law; Issue(s): Issue(s): Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of the Constitution's ex post facto clause. Case v. Montana (October 15) - Fourth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause. Louisiana v. Callais (October 15) - Election Law; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature's enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable. Featuring: Jana Bosch, Deputy Solicitor General, Ohio Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute Amanda Gray Dixon, Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Prof. Michael T. Morley, Assistant Professor, Florida State University College of Law Richard B. Raile, Partner, Baker Hostetler LLP (Moderator) Erielle Azerrad, Of Counsel, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC

OA1190 - “You have the right to remain silent.” Anyone who grew up on American crime dramas can recite the rest of these famous warnings from memory, but do you know the whole story of Miranda v. Arizona (1966)? In today's entry in our “Still Good Law” series Matt and Jenessa voluntarily waive their rights, cautiously accept a cigarette and a Styrofoam cup of bad coffee from an alcoholic cop with a dark past, and spill everything they know about the most important criminal case in Supreme Court history. Matt provides the background on Ernesto Miranda's literal life (and death) of crime and the circumstances of his arrest, interrogation, and appeal to the Warren Court while Jenessa breaks down the science of false confessions and why not just having but knowing our Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights is so important for all of us. Oral arguments and decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Miranda: The Story of America's Right to Remain Silent, Gary Stuart (2008) Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do! To support the show (and lose the ads!), please pledge at patreon.com/law!

In her reply supporting the petition for a writ of certiorari, Ghislaine Maxwell—referred to as Sealed Defendant 1—argues that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals erred in denying her appeal and that the Supreme Court must intervene to correct what she claims are fundamental constitutional violations. Maxwell's legal team contends that the trial was tainted by extensive pretrial publicity, juror misconduct, and decisions that unfairly limited her ability to present a full defense. Central to her argument is the assertion that the lower courts failed to safeguard her Sixth Amendment rights to an impartial jury and effective counsel, especially given the media firestorm surrounding her case and her association with Jeffrey Epstein.Maxwell also challenges the handling of jury selection and post-trial revelations regarding a juror who failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during voir dire, which her attorneys argue should have triggered a new trial. Her legal team insists that the appellate court's deference to the district court's findings undermines the integrity of the judicial process, especially in a case involving such serious allegations and public scrutiny. The reply urges the Supreme Court to take up the case to ensure that high-profile defendants are not denied due process and to reaffirm standards that protect the fairness of criminal trials nationwide.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:20250728111721067_24-1073ReplyInSupportOfPetitionForWritOfCertiorari.pdf

In her reply supporting the petition for a writ of certiorari, Ghislaine Maxwell—referred to as Sealed Defendant 1—argues that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals erred in denying her appeal and that the Supreme Court must intervene to correct what she claims are fundamental constitutional violations. Maxwell's legal team contends that the trial was tainted by extensive pretrial publicity, juror misconduct, and decisions that unfairly limited her ability to present a full defense. Central to her argument is the assertion that the lower courts failed to safeguard her Sixth Amendment rights to an impartial jury and effective counsel, especially given the media firestorm surrounding her case and her association with Jeffrey Epstein.Maxwell also challenges the handling of jury selection and post-trial revelations regarding a juror who failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during voir dire, which her attorneys argue should have triggered a new trial. Her legal team insists that the appellate court's deference to the district court's findings undermines the integrity of the judicial process, especially in a case involving such serious allegations and public scrutiny. The reply urges the Supreme Court to take up the case to ensure that high-profile defendants are not denied due process and to reaffirm standards that protect the fairness of criminal trials nationwide.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:20250728111721067_24-1073ReplyInSupportOfPetitionForWritOfCertiorari.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In her reply supporting the petition for a writ of certiorari, Ghislaine Maxwell—referred to as Sealed Defendant 1—argues that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals erred in denying her appeal and that the Supreme Court must intervene to correct what she claims are fundamental constitutional violations. Maxwell's legal team contends that the trial was tainted by extensive pretrial publicity, juror misconduct, and decisions that unfairly limited her ability to present a full defense. Central to her argument is the assertion that the lower courts failed to safeguard her Sixth Amendment rights to an impartial jury and effective counsel, especially given the media firestorm surrounding her case and her association with Jeffrey Epstein.Maxwell also challenges the handling of jury selection and post-trial revelations regarding a juror who failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during voir dire, which her attorneys argue should have triggered a new trial. Her legal team insists that the appellate court's deference to the district court's findings undermines the integrity of the judicial process, especially in a case involving such serious allegations and public scrutiny. The reply urges the Supreme Court to take up the case to ensure that high-profile defendants are not denied due process and to reaffirm standards that protect the fairness of criminal trials nationwide.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:20250728111721067_24-1073ReplyInSupportOfPetitionForWritOfCertiorari.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Psychiatrist, internist, and addiction medicine specialist Muhamad Aly Rifai discusses his article, "Physician patriots: the forgotten founders who lit the torch of liberty." Muhamad calls for a remembrance of the five physician-patriots—Dr. Benjamin Rush, Dr. Josiah Bartlett, Dr. Lyman Hall, Dr. Matthew Thornton, and Dr. Oliver Wolcott—who signed the Declaration of Independence, risking everything for the principles of equality and unalienable rights. He contrasts their revered role with the current plight of physicians who face persecution, silencing, and legal battles within a politicized health care system, citing violations of First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment rights. Muhamad emphasizes Dr. Benjamin Rush's profound influence beyond medicine, in shaping the nation's moral and educational fabric. The conversation serves as a rallying cry for contemporary physicians to reclaim their heritage as defenders of liberty, to organize, speak out against injustice, and fight for the ability to practice medicine ethically and without political interference, much like their predecessors did. Muhamad asserts that this new revolution is just beginning, with doctors ready to defend life, liberty, and patient dignity on new battlefields like clinics, courtrooms, and the internet. Our presenting sponsor is Microsoft Dragon Copilot. Microsoft Dragon Copilot, your AI assistant for clinical workflow, is transforming how clinicians work. Now you can streamline and customize documentation, surface information right at the point of care, and automate tasks with just a click. Part of Microsoft Cloud for Healthcare, Dragon Copilot offers an extensible AI workspace and a single, integrated platform to help unlock new levels of efficiency. Plus, it's backed by a proven track record and decades of clinical expertise—and it's built on a foundation of trust. It's time to ease your administrative burdens and stay focused on what matters most with Dragon Copilot, your AI assistant for clinical workflow. VISIT SPONSOR → https://aka.ms/kevinmd SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST → https://www.kevinmd.com/podcast RECOMMENDED BY KEVINMD → https://www.kevinmd.com/recommended

In response to the Court's request during the November 22, 2024, hearing, defendant Sean Combs has submitted a letter addressing the permissible scope of his communications under the Court's order and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23.1. Combs' legal team outlines the types of interactions he is allowed to engage in, ensuring compliance with the Court's directives while upholding his First and Sixth Amendment rights. The letter emphasizes the importance of balancing the need to prevent potential jury tampering or undue influence with Combs' constitutional rights to free speech and a fair trial.The submission seeks to clarify the boundaries of acceptable communications, proposing guidelines that would allow Combs to maintain necessary personal and professional interactions without violating legal restrictions. By providing this detailed briefing, Combs' attorneys aim to assist the Court in establishing clear parameters that protect the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.(commercial at 11:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.85.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf

Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf

Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf

Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf

Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf

Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf

Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team has raised concerns over a recent search of his jail cell at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, alleging that federal authorities seized materials protected by attorney-client privilege. According to his attorney, Marc Agnifilo, the confiscated items include handwritten notes detailing defense strategies and witness information for Combs' upcoming trial. Agnifilo contends that this action violates Combs' Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, as the materials were intended solely for legal preparation.The defense argues that the seizure of these privileged documents could compromise Combs' ability to mount an effective defense. They have filed a motion requesting the return of the materials and are seeking assurances that prosecutors will not use the information in the ongoing case. Combs is currently awaiting trial on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering, with proceedings scheduled to begin in May 2025.Let's dive in!(commercial at 8:52)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:United States v. COMBS, 1:24-cr-00542 – CourtListener.comDiddy's Lawyers Say Jail Cell Sweep Violated His RightsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to the Court's request during the November 22, 2024, hearing, defendant Sean Combs has submitted a letter addressing the permissible scope of his communications under the Court's order and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23.1. Combs' legal team outlines the types of interactions he is allowed to engage in, ensuring compliance with the Court's directives while upholding his First and Sixth Amendment rights. The letter emphasizes the importance of balancing the need to prevent potential jury tampering or undue influence with Combs' constitutional rights to free speech and a fair trial.The submission seeks to clarify the boundaries of acceptable communications, proposing guidelines that would allow Combs to maintain necessary personal and professional interactions without violating legal restrictions. By providing this detailed briefing, Combs' attorneys aim to assist the Court in establishing clear parameters that protect the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.(commercial at 11:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.85.0.pdf

Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team has raised concerns over a recent search of his jail cell at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, alleging that federal authorities seized materials protected by attorney-client privilege. According to his attorney, Marc Agnifilo, the confiscated items include handwritten notes detailing defense strategies and witness information for Combs' upcoming trial. Agnifilo contends that this action violates Combs' Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, as the materials were intended solely for legal preparation.The defense argues that the seizure of these privileged documents could compromise Combs' ability to mount an effective defense. They have filed a motion requesting the return of the materials and are seeking assurances that prosecutors will not use the information in the ongoing case. Combs is currently awaiting trial on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering, with proceedings scheduled to begin in May 2025.Let's dive in!(commercial at 8:52)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:United States v. COMBS, 1:24-cr-00542 – CourtListener.comDiddy's Lawyers Say Jail Cell Sweep Violated His Rights

Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team has raised concerns over a recent search of his jail cell at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, alleging that federal authorities seized materials protected by attorney-client privilege. According to his attorney, Marc Agnifilo, the confiscated items include handwritten notes detailing defense strategies and witness information for Combs' upcoming trial. Agnifilo contends that this action violates Combs' Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, as the materials were intended solely for legal preparation.The defense argues that the seizure of these privileged documents could compromise Combs' ability to mount an effective defense. They have filed a motion requesting the return of the materials and are seeking assurances that prosecutors will not use the information in the ongoing case. Combs is currently awaiting trial on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering, with proceedings scheduled to begin in May 2025.Let's dive in!(commercial at 8:52)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:United States v. COMBS, 1:24-cr-00542 – CourtListener.comDiddy's Lawyers Say Jail Cell Sweep Violated His RightsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to the Court's request during the November 22, 2024, hearing, defendant Sean Combs has submitted a letter addressing the permissible scope of his communications under the Court's order and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23.1. Combs' legal team outlines the types of interactions he is allowed to engage in, ensuring compliance with the Court's directives while upholding his First and Sixth Amendment rights. The letter emphasizes the importance of balancing the need to prevent potential jury tampering or undue influence with Combs' constitutional rights to free speech and a fair trial.The submission seeks to clarify the boundaries of acceptable communications, proposing guidelines that would allow Combs to maintain necessary personal and professional interactions without violating legal restrictions. By providing this detailed briefing, Combs' attorneys aim to assist the Court in establishing clear parameters that protect the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.United States District Judge Arun Subramanian has denied Sean Combs's renewed motion for bail following a November 22, 2024, hearing. Combs originally filed the motion on November 8, 2024, with both parties providing supplemental letters on November 25 and 26, 2024, to support their arguments. The court evaluated the presented evidence and legal arguments during the proceedings and determined that the conditions of bail sought by Combs were not appropriate under the circumstances.The decision to deny bail highlights the court's assessment that Combs's release might pose legal or procedural risks that outweigh any arguments for his freedom pending further proceedings. Details of the ruling emphasize the seriousness of the case against him, with Judge Subramanian concluding that Combs must remain in custody as the legal process continues.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.92.0_1.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.85.0.pdf

In response to the Court's request during the November 22, 2024, hearing, defendant Sean Combs has submitted a letter addressing the permissible scope of his communications under the Court's order and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23.1. Combs' legal team outlines the types of interactions he is allowed to engage in, ensuring compliance with the Court's directives while upholding his First and Sixth Amendment rights. The letter emphasizes the importance of balancing the need to prevent potential jury tampering or undue influence with Combs' constitutional rights to free speech and a fair trial.The submission seeks to clarify the boundaries of acceptable communications, proposing guidelines that would allow Combs to maintain necessary personal and professional interactions without violating legal restrictions. By providing this detailed briefing, Combs' attorneys aim to assist the Court in establishing clear parameters that protect the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.United States District Judge Arun Subramanian has denied Sean Combs's renewed motion for bail following a November 22, 2024, hearing. Combs originally filed the motion on November 8, 2024, with both parties providing supplemental letters on November 25 and 26, 2024, to support their arguments. The court evaluated the presented evidence and legal arguments during the proceedings and determined that the conditions of bail sought by Combs were not appropriate under the circumstances.The decision to deny bail highlights the court's assessment that Combs's release might pose legal or procedural risks that outweigh any arguments for his freedom pending further proceedings. Details of the ruling emphasize the seriousness of the case against him, with Judge Subramanian concluding that Combs must remain in custody as the legal process continues.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.92.0_1.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.85.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to the Court's request during the November 22, 2024, hearing, defendant Sean Combs has submitted a letter addressing the permissible scope of his communications under the Court's order and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23.1. Combs' legal team outlines the types of interactions he is allowed to engage in, ensuring compliance with the Court's directives while upholding his First and Sixth Amendment rights. The letter emphasizes the importance of balancing the need to prevent potential jury tampering or undue influence with Combs' constitutional rights to free speech and a fair trial.The submission seeks to clarify the boundaries of acceptable communications, proposing guidelines that would allow Combs to maintain necessary personal and professional interactions without violating legal restrictions. By providing this detailed briefing, Combs' attorneys aim to assist the Court in establishing clear parameters that protect the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.United States District Judge Arun Subramanian has denied Sean Combs's renewed motion for bail following a November 22, 2024, hearing. Combs originally filed the motion on November 8, 2024, with both parties providing supplemental letters on November 25 and 26, 2024, to support their arguments. The court evaluated the presented evidence and legal arguments during the proceedings and determined that the conditions of bail sought by Combs were not appropriate under the circumstances.The decision to deny bail highlights the court's assessment that Combs's release might pose legal or procedural risks that outweigh any arguments for his freedom pending further proceedings. Details of the ruling emphasize the seriousness of the case against him, with Judge Subramanian concluding that Combs must remain in custody as the legal process continues.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.92.0_1.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.85.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This Day in Legal History:  Miranda v. ArizonaOn June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona, fundamentally reshaping American criminal procedure. The case centered on Ernesto Miranda, who had confessed to kidnapping and rape during a police interrogation without being informed of his constitutional rights. In a narrow 5–4 ruling, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel require law enforcement officers to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation begins.The decision mandated that suspects be told they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in court, and that they have the right to an attorney—either retained or appointed. These now-standard warnings, known as "Miranda rights," became a required part of police procedure across the United States.Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the majority, emphasized that custodial interrogation is inherently coercive and that procedural safeguards were necessary to preserve the individual's privilege against self-incrimination. The dissenters, led by Justice Harlan, argued the decision imposed an impractical burden on law enforcement and that traditional voluntariness tests were sufficient.Miranda sparked immediate controversy, with critics warning it would hamper police efforts and allow guilty individuals to go free. Nonetheless, it has endured as a cornerstone of American constitutional law, embodying the principle that the government must respect individual rights even in the pursuit of justice. Over the years, the ruling has been refined but not overturned, and Miranda warnings are now deeply embedded in both law enforcement training and popular culture.Tesla has filed a trade secret lawsuit in California federal court against former engineer Jay Li and his startup, Proception, alleging that Li stole confidential information to accelerate the development of robotic hands. According to the complaint, Li worked on Tesla's Optimus humanoid robot project from 2022 to 2024 and allegedly downloaded sensitive files related to robotic hand movements before departing the company. Tesla claims Li used this proprietary data to give Proception an unfair edge, enabling the startup to make rapid technological gains that had taken Tesla years and significant investment to achieve.The suit points out that Proception was founded just six days after Li left Tesla and began showcasing its robotic hands five months later—devices Tesla says bear a “striking similarity” to its own designs. Tesla is seeking monetary damages and a court order to prevent further use of its alleged trade secrets. Legal representation for Tesla includes attorneys from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, while counsel for Proception and Li has not yet been disclosed.Tesla lawsuit says former engineer stole secrets for robotics startup | ReutersA federal district court and a federal appeals court issued conflicting rulings over President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles amid protests over aggressive immigration enforcement.U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled earlier in the day that Trump's order to deploy the Guard was unlawful. He found that the protests did not meet the legal threshold of a “rebellion,” which would be necessary for the president to override state control of the Guard under the Insurrection Act or related powers. Breyer concluded the deployment inflamed tensions and stripped California of the ability to use its own Guard for other state needs. His 36-page opinion ordered that control of the National Guard be returned to California Governor Gavin Newsom.However, about two and a half hours later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay, temporarily pausing Breyer's ruling and allowing Trump to retain command of the Guard for now. The three-judge panel—two appointed by Trump and one by President Biden—stressed that their order was not a final decision and set a hearing for the following Tuesday to evaluate the full merits of the lower court's decision.Meanwhile, a battalion of 700 U.S. Marines was scheduled to arrive to support the Guard, further escalating the federal presence. Critics, including L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and Senator Alex Padilla—who was forcibly removed from a press event—argued that the military response was excessive and politically motivated. Supporters of the deployment, including Trump and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, defended it as necessary to restore order. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed public opinion split, with 48% supporting military use to quell violent protests and 41% opposed.Appeals court allows Trump to keep National Guard in L.A. with Marines on the way | ReutersIn a pattern that surprises few, the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court has granted President Donald Trump a series of victories through its emergency—or "shadow"—docket, continuing a trend of fast-tracking his policy goals without full hearings. Since returning to office in January, Trump's administration has filed 19 emergency applications to the Court, with decisions in 13 cases so far. Of those, nine rulings went fully in Trump's favor, one partially, and only two against him. These rapid interventions have enabled Trump to enforce controversial policies—including ending humanitarian legal status for migrants, banning transgender military service, and initiating sweeping federal layoffs—despite lower court injunctions.District court challenges to these actions often cite constitutional overreach or procedural shortcuts, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly overruled or paused these lower court decisions with minimal explanation. The emergency docket, once used sparingly, has become a regular tool for the Trump administration, matching the total number of applications filed during Biden's entire presidency in under five months. Critics argue that the Court's increasing reliance on this docket lacks transparency, with rulings frequently unsigned and unexplained. Liberal justices have voiced strong objections, warning that rushed decisions with limited briefing risk significant legal error.The Court's 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump appointees, has given the president a judicial green light to implement divisive policies while litigation plays out. Some legal scholars argue these outcomes reflect strategic case selection rather than simple ideological bias. Still, in light of the Court's current composition and its repeated willingness to empower executive action, the results are hardly shocking.Trump finds victories at the Supreme Court in rush of emergency cases | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Tomaso Albinoni.This week's closing theme is Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7 by Tomaso Albinoni, a composer whose elegant, expressive works have often been overshadowed by his more famous contemporaries. Born on June 14, 1671, in Venice, Albinoni was one of the early Baroque era's leading figures in instrumental music and opera. Though he trained for a career in commerce, he chose instead to live independently as a composer, unusual for his time. He wrote extensively for the violin and oboe, and was among the first to treat the oboe as a serious solo instrument in concert music.Albinoni's style is marked by a graceful clarity and balanced formal structure, qualities well represented in this week's featured piece. The Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7 is a compact, three-movement work likely composed for a theatrical performance or ceremonial function. It opens with a dramatic Grave, setting a solemn tone that gives way to a lively Allegro and a brief yet expressive final movement.The G minor tonality gives the piece an emotional intensity, without tipping into melodrama—typical of Albinoni's refined dramatic sensibility. While his best-known composition today may be the Adagio in G minor—ironically, a piece reconstructed long after his death—Albinoni's authentic works, like this sinfonia, display a deft hand at combining lyricism with architectural clarity.His music enjoyed wide dissemination in his lifetime and was admired by J.S. Bach, who used Albinoni's bass lines as models for his own compositions. As we close out this week, Albinoni's Sinfonia in G minor offers a reminder of the beauty in restraint and the enduring resonance of Baroque form.Without further ado, Tomaso Albinoni's Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian, the Government opposed Sean "Diddy" Combs's request to bar witnesses from speaking with their attorneys during breaks in cross-examination. Prosecutors argued that the defense provided no legal precedent supporting such a prohibition, especially regarding third-party witnesses with independent counsel. The Government noted that the defense's reliance on Perry v. Leeke was misplaced, as that Supreme Court decision focused specifically on a testifying defendant's communication with their attorney during a brief recess—not third-party witnesses.The letter emphasized that the Supreme Court, in Perry, actually underscored the constitutional limits of such communication bans, particularly that overnight restrictions would violate the Sixth Amendment. The Government also cited United States v. Triumph Capital Group, a Second Circuit case, to highlight that brief, mid-day limitations on defendant-attorney discussions may be permissible, but broader restrictions—especially those impacting non-party witnesses—pose serious constitutional concerns. Ultimately, the Government asked the court to reject the defense's request and preserve witnesses' rights to consult with counsel during trial breaks.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.333.0.pdf

In a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian, the Government opposed Sean "Diddy" Combs's request to bar witnesses from speaking with their attorneys during breaks in cross-examination. Prosecutors argued that the defense provided no legal precedent supporting such a prohibition, especially regarding third-party witnesses with independent counsel. The Government noted that the defense's reliance on Perry v. Leeke was misplaced, as that Supreme Court decision focused specifically on a testifying defendant's communication with their attorney during a brief recess—not third-party witnesses.The letter emphasized that the Supreme Court, in Perry, actually underscored the constitutional limits of such communication bans, particularly that overnight restrictions would violate the Sixth Amendment. The Government also cited United States v. Triumph Capital Group, a Second Circuit case, to highlight that brief, mid-day limitations on defendant-attorney discussions may be permissible, but broader restrictions—especially those impacting non-party witnesses—pose serious constitutional concerns. Ultimately, the Government asked the court to reject the defense's request and preserve witnesses' rights to consult with counsel during trial breaks.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.333.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In response to the Court's request during the November 22, 2024, hearing, defendant Sean Combs has submitted a letter addressing the permissible scope of his communications under the Court's order and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23.1. Combs' legal team outlines the types of interactions he is allowed to engage in, ensuring compliance with the Court's directives while upholding his First and Sixth Amendment rights. The letter emphasizes the importance of balancing the need to prevent potential jury tampering or undue influence with Combs' constitutional rights to free speech and a fair trial.The submission seeks to clarify the boundaries of acceptable communications, proposing guidelines that would allow Combs to maintain necessary personal and professional interactions without violating legal restrictions. By providing this detailed briefing, Combs' attorneys aim to assist the Court in establishing clear parameters that protect the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.(commercial at 11:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.85.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a motion filed on April 4, 2025, the U.S. government asked the court to implement protective measures for three key victim-witnesses expected to testify in the criminal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. The government argued that Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4 should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms to safeguard their privacy, dignity, and mental well-being. Unlike Victim-1—confirmed to be Cassie Ventura—who has agreed to testify using her full name, the other three requested anonymity due to concerns about harassment, stigma, and professional fallout. Prosecutors further requested that the defense be barred from revealing these individuals' personal details in open court and that any court exhibits containing their names be sealed, with redacted versions available to the public.The motion cited precedent from similar federal cases, including those involving sex trafficking and abuse, where anonymity was granted to protect victims from retraumatization and undue exposure. The government emphasized that these requests were narrowly tailored to balance the victims' privacy rights with the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The motion was brought under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771), which ensures victims are treated with fairness and respect, and it stressed that denying these protections could discourage victim cooperation or inhibit truthful testimony. If granted, the court's decision would mark a significant procedural step in shaping how key testimony will be handled in Diddy's high-profile federal trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdf

Today, Hunter spoke with Heather Rogers and Caitlin Becker of the Santa Cruz County Public Defenders. In 2020, the Sixth Amendment Center put together a report detailing the severe issues with how Santa Cruz County provided Public Defense. At the time, a law firm was working a flat rate fee contract to provide public defender services in the county. As is expected, that system was deeply flawed and couldn't meet the demands of the Sixth Amendment. Fast forward five years, Heather, Caitlin, and the team at the Santa Cruz County Public Defender has transformed the office into a comprehensive holistic defender program. How did that happen? What are the benefits of this model? All those questions and more on today's episode!   Guest Heather Rogers, The Public Defender, Santa Cruz County, California Caitlin Becker, Director of Holistic Defense, Santa Cruz County, California   Resources:   Read the 6AC Report Here https://6ac.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/6AC_ca_santacruzcountyreport_2020.pdf Contact Santa Cruz County Public Defenders Here https://www.santacruzdefenders.us/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/heather-rogers-3525b4242/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtvUi9TWRyNIOvEwgHN87KA https://www.facebook.com/CruzDefenders# https://www.instagram.com/cruzdefender/ https://x.com/cruzdefender     Contact Hunter Parnell:                                 Publicdefenseless@gmail.com  Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter                                                                 @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com  Subscribe to the Patron www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast  Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN Trying to find a specific part of an episode? Use this link to search transcripts of every episode of the show! https://app.reduct.video/o/eca54fbf9f/p/d543070e6a/share/c34e85194394723d4131/home     Guest Heather Rogers, The Public Defender, Santa Cruz County, California Caitlin Becker, Director of Holistic Defense, Santa Cruz County, California   Resources:   Read the 6AC Report Here https://6ac.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/6AC_ca_santacruzcountyreport_2020.pdf Contact Santa Cruz County Public Defenders Here https://www.santacruzdefenders.us/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/heather-rogers-3525b4242/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtvUi9TWRyNIOvEwgHN87KA https://www.facebook.com/CruzDefenders# https://www.instagram.com/cruzdefender/ https://x.com/cruzdefender     Contact Hunter Parnell:                                 Publicdefenseless@gmail.com  Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter                                                                 @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com  Subscribe to the Patron www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast  Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN Trying to find a specific part of an episode? Use this link to search transcripts of every episode of the show! https://app.reduct.video/o/eca54fbf9f/p/d543070e6a/share/c34e85194394723d4131/home  

In a motion filed on April 4, 2025, the U.S. government asked the court to implement protective measures for three key victim-witnesses expected to testify in the criminal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. The government argued that Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4 should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms to safeguard their privacy, dignity, and mental well-being. Unlike Victim-1—confirmed to be Cassie Ventura—who has agreed to testify using her full name, the other three requested anonymity due to concerns about harassment, stigma, and professional fallout. Prosecutors further requested that the defense be barred from revealing these individuals' personal details in open court and that any court exhibits containing their names be sealed, with redacted versions available to the public.The motion cited precedent from similar federal cases, including those involving sex trafficking and abuse, where anonymity was granted to protect victims from retraumatization and undue exposure. The government emphasized that these requests were narrowly tailored to balance the victims' privacy rights with the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The motion was brought under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771), which ensures victims are treated with fairness and respect, and it stressed that denying these protections could discourage victim cooperation or inhibit truthful testimony. If granted, the court's decision would mark a significant procedural step in shaping how key testimony will be handled in Diddy's high-profile federal trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a motion filed on April 4, 2025, the U.S. government asked the court to implement protective measures for three key victim-witnesses expected to testify in the criminal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. The government argued that Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4 should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms to safeguard their privacy, dignity, and mental well-being. Unlike Victim-1—confirmed to be Cassie Ventura—who has agreed to testify using her full name, the other three requested anonymity due to concerns about harassment, stigma, and professional fallout. Prosecutors further requested that the defense be barred from revealing these individuals' personal details in open court and that any court exhibits containing their names be sealed, with redacted versions available to the public.The motion cited precedent from similar federal cases, including those involving sex trafficking and abuse, where anonymity was granted to protect victims from retraumatization and undue exposure. The government emphasized that these requests were narrowly tailored to balance the victims' privacy rights with the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The motion was brought under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771), which ensures victims are treated with fairness and respect, and it stressed that denying these protections could discourage victim cooperation or inhibit truthful testimony. If granted, the court's decision would mark a significant procedural step in shaping how key testimony will be handled in Diddy's high-profile federal trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a motion filed on April 4, 2025, the U.S. government asked the court to implement protective measures for three key victim-witnesses expected to testify in the criminal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. The government argued that Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4 should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms to safeguard their privacy, dignity, and mental well-being. Unlike Victim-1—confirmed to be Cassie Ventura—who has agreed to testify using her full name, the other three requested anonymity due to concerns about harassment, stigma, and professional fallout. Prosecutors further requested that the defense be barred from revealing these individuals' personal details in open court and that any court exhibits containing their names be sealed, with redacted versions available to the public.The motion cited precedent from similar federal cases, including those involving sex trafficking and abuse, where anonymity was granted to protect victims from retraumatization and undue exposure. The government emphasized that these requests were narrowly tailored to balance the victims' privacy rights with the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The motion was brought under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771), which ensures victims are treated with fairness and respect, and it stressed that denying these protections could discourage victim cooperation or inhibit truthful testimony. If granted, the court's decision would mark a significant procedural step in shaping how key testimony will be handled in Diddy's high-profile federal trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdf

In a motion filed on April 4, 2025, the U.S. government asked the court to implement protective measures for three key victim-witnesses expected to testify in the criminal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. The government argued that Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4 should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms to safeguard their privacy, dignity, and mental well-being. Unlike Victim-1—confirmed to be Cassie Ventura—who has agreed to testify using her full name, the other three requested anonymity due to concerns about harassment, stigma, and professional fallout. Prosecutors further requested that the defense be barred from revealing these individuals' personal details in open court and that any court exhibits containing their names be sealed, with redacted versions available to the public.The motion cited precedent from similar federal cases, including those involving sex trafficking and abuse, where anonymity was granted to protect victims from retraumatization and undue exposure. The government emphasized that these requests were narrowly tailored to balance the victims' privacy rights with the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The motion was brought under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771), which ensures victims are treated with fairness and respect, and it stressed that denying these protections could discourage victim cooperation or inhibit truthful testimony. If granted, the court's decision would mark a significant procedural step in shaping how key testimony will be handled in Diddy's high-profile federal trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdf

Prosecutors in Idaho aren't pulling any punches—Bryan Kohberger's family won't be getting VIP seats at his murder trial. In a sharp court filing, Deputy Latah County Prosecutor Ashley Jennings made it clear: if the defendant's relatives are potentially going to testify, they'll need to sit outside the courtroom until that moment comes. No exceptions. Jennings told the judge that while the state may call members of the Kohberger family to testify, their potential witness status means they can't sit in on other people's testimony beforehand. This is standard trial procedure—witnesses are usually excluded until after they've taken the stand, so their own words aren't influenced by what others say. It's courtroom 101. But Kohberger's defense doesn't see it that way. His attorneys submitted a request asking that his family be given the same priority seating as the victims' families. They argued that excluding his relatives would violate his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The state wasn't having it. Jennings responded that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant a public trial—not the right to pick the audience. And when it comes to courtroom rights, the Idaho Constitution specifically gives the families of homicide victims the ability to be present at trial. Kohberger's family? They don't get that same legal status. Jennings pointed out that the law just doesn't give the accused's family the same courtroom privileges as the victims' next of kin. It's not personal—it's statutory. To complicate matters further, there's some history here. Back in December 2022, Bryan Kohberger and his father were pulled over twice while driving across Indiana during their trip home to Pennsylvania, not long after the murders. That kind of detail might come up in court—potentially putting his father on the witness list, and by extension, on the bench outside the courtroom. Meanwhile, Kohberger's sister, Amanda Kohberger, has already been seen making court appearances of her own, including being spotted exiting a Pennsylvania courthouse early in the investigation. Whether she ends up on the witness list remains to be seen, but the prosecution isn't ruling anything out. In another filing twist, the defense requested the judge ban anyone in the courtroom from wearing clothing that features the victims' faces. They didn't argue against the victims' families attending, but they took aim at what they wear—specifically calling out what they said were prejudicial displays, possibly directed at the Goncalves family. Kohberger, now 30, was a Ph.D. student in criminology at Washington State University when prosecutors say he drove across state lines to Moscow, Idaho. There, according to investigators, he entered an off-campus home around 4 a.m. and stabbed four University of Idaho students to death: Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. Two of the victims were allegedly asleep or otherwise incapacitated during the initial attack, making it unlikely they had any chance to react. Investigators found a Ka-Bar knife sheath under Madison Mogen's body. DNA allegedly matching Kohberger's was recovered from the snap of the sheath. Prosecutors also say his phone data and surveillance footage put him near the crime scene. They claim he was even captured on his own selfie camera around 10:31 a.m.—just six hours after the murders took place. If true, that timeline could be a linchpin in the prosecution's case. Kohberger has pleaded not guilty to four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary. His trial is scheduled to begin on August 11 in Boise, after a judge granted a change of venue. If convicted, he faces the possibility of the death penalty. #BryanKohberger #IdahoMurders #TrueCrimePodcast #CourtroomDrama Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Prosecutors in Idaho aren't pulling any punches—Bryan Kohberger's family won't be getting VIP seats at his murder trial. In a sharp court filing, Deputy Latah County Prosecutor Ashley Jennings made it clear: if the defendant's relatives are potentially going to testify, they'll need to sit outside the courtroom until that moment comes. No exceptions. Jennings told the judge that while the state may call members of the Kohberger family to testify, their potential witness status means they can't sit in on other people's testimony beforehand. This is standard trial procedure—witnesses are usually excluded until after they've taken the stand, so their own words aren't influenced by what others say. It's courtroom 101. But Kohberger's defense doesn't see it that way. His attorneys submitted a request asking that his family be given the same priority seating as the victims' families. They argued that excluding his relatives would violate his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The state wasn't having it. Jennings responded that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant a public trial—not the right to pick the audience. And when it comes to courtroom rights, the Idaho Constitution specifically gives the families of homicide victims the ability to be present at trial. Kohberger's family? They don't get that same legal status. Jennings pointed out that the law just doesn't give the accused's family the same courtroom privileges as the victims' next of kin. It's not personal—it's statutory. To complicate matters further, there's some history here. Back in December 2022, Bryan Kohberger and his father were pulled over twice while driving across Indiana during their trip home to Pennsylvania, not long after the murders. That kind of detail might come up in court—potentially putting his father on the witness list, and by extension, on the bench outside the courtroom. Meanwhile, Kohberger's sister, Amanda Kohberger, has already been seen making court appearances of her own, including being spotted exiting a Pennsylvania courthouse early in the investigation. Whether she ends up on the witness list remains to be seen, but the prosecution isn't ruling anything out. In another filing twist, the defense requested the judge ban anyone in the courtroom from wearing clothing that features the victims' faces. They didn't argue against the victims' families attending, but they took aim at what they wear—specifically calling out what they said were prejudicial displays, possibly directed at the Goncalves family. Kohberger, now 30, was a Ph.D. student in criminology at Washington State University when prosecutors say he drove across state lines to Moscow, Idaho. There, according to investigators, he entered an off-campus home around 4 a.m. and stabbed four University of Idaho students to death: Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. Two of the victims were allegedly asleep or otherwise incapacitated during the initial attack, making it unlikely they had any chance to react. Investigators found a Ka-Bar knife sheath under Madison Mogen's body. DNA allegedly matching Kohberger's was recovered from the snap of the sheath. Prosecutors also say his phone data and surveillance footage put him near the crime scene. They claim he was even captured on his own selfie camera around 10:31 a.m.—just six hours after the murders took place. If true, that timeline could be a linchpin in the prosecution's case. Kohberger has pleaded not guilty to four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary. His trial is scheduled to begin on August 11 in Boise, after a judge granted a change of venue. If convicted, he faces the possibility of the death penalty. #BryanKohberger #IdahoMurders #TrueCrimePodcast #CourtroomDrama Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

Prosecutors in Idaho aren't pulling any punches—Bryan Kohberger's family won't be getting VIP seats at his murder trial. In a sharp court filing, Deputy Latah County Prosecutor Ashley Jennings made it clear: if the defendant's relatives are potentially going to testify, they'll need to sit outside the courtroom until that moment comes. No exceptions. Jennings told the judge that while the state may call members of the Kohberger family to testify, their potential witness status means they can't sit in on other people's testimony beforehand. This is standard trial procedure—witnesses are usually excluded until after they've taken the stand, so their own words aren't influenced by what others say. It's courtroom 101. But Kohberger's defense doesn't see it that way. His attorneys submitted a request asking that his family be given the same priority seating as the victims' families. They argued that excluding his relatives would violate his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The state wasn't having it. Jennings responded that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant a public trial—not the right to pick the audience. And when it comes to courtroom rights, the Idaho Constitution specifically gives the families of homicide victims the ability to be present at trial. Kohberger's family? They don't get that same legal status. Jennings pointed out that the law just doesn't give the accused's family the same courtroom privileges as the victims' next of kin. It's not personal—it's statutory. To complicate matters further, there's some history here. Back in December 2022, Bryan Kohberger and his father were pulled over twice while driving across Indiana during their trip home to Pennsylvania, not long after the murders. That kind of detail might come up in court—potentially putting his father on the witness list, and by extension, on the bench outside the courtroom. Meanwhile, Kohberger's sister, Amanda Kohberger, has already been seen making court appearances of her own, including being spotted exiting a Pennsylvania courthouse early in the investigation. Whether she ends up on the witness list remains to be seen, but the prosecution isn't ruling anything out. In another filing twist, the defense requested the judge ban anyone in the courtroom from wearing clothing that features the victims' faces. They didn't argue against the victims' families attending, but they took aim at what they wear—specifically calling out what they said were prejudicial displays, possibly directed at the Goncalves family. Kohberger, now 30, was a Ph.D. student in criminology at Washington State University when prosecutors say he drove across state lines to Moscow, Idaho. There, according to investigators, he entered an off-campus home around 4 a.m. and stabbed four University of Idaho students to death: Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. Two of the victims were allegedly asleep or otherwise incapacitated during the initial attack, making it unlikely they had any chance to react. Investigators found a Ka-Bar knife sheath under Madison Mogen's body. DNA allegedly matching Kohberger's was recovered from the snap of the sheath. Prosecutors also say his phone data and surveillance footage put him near the crime scene. They claim he was even captured on his own selfie camera around 10:31 a.m.—just six hours after the murders took place. If true, that timeline could be a linchpin in the prosecution's case. Kohberger has pleaded not guilty to four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary. His trial is scheduled to begin on August 11 in Boise, after a judge granted a change of venue. If convicted, he faces the possibility of the death penalty. #BryanKohberger #IdahoMurders #TrueCrimePodcast #CourtroomDrama Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com

In this episode, I sit down with law student Troy for a really interesting chat about how criminal prosecution works, particularly when a victim isn't willing to testify. We look at what rights victims have in the legal system and how the state can still move forward with a case even if the victim isn't cooperating. We also take a look at laws like Marcy's Law in Ohio and how they impact things. Our conversation covers how these legal rules come into play in high-pressure situations and sheds light on important topics like evidence and confrontation rights. Plus, we discuss the unique challenges prosecutors face. Whether you're studying law or just curious about how criminal defense operates, this episode gives you a fascinating glimpse into the stuff you might not learn in law school but will definitely encounter in the field.Key Moments04:19 Prosecutors Shifting to Victims' Input06:42 "The Burning Bed" Synopsis11:23 Courtroom Debate: Prosecutor vs. Victim Rights14:15 "Matlock Moment in Court Dramas"16:56 Confrontation and Defendant's Rights19:25 Proving Guilt Without Victim Testimony22:29 Jury Doubt and Confrontation Clause27:15 "Mastering Rules Before Creativity"Here's what you'll discoverVictim's Role: Understand the implications of Marcy's Law and how victim input is dynamically shaping courtroom decisions - but not always as a deciding factor.Confrontation Conundrum: Gain clarity on the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and its critical role in ensuring defendants can question their accusers in court, which is fundamental to fair trials.Evidential Challenges: Learn about how the absence of victim testimony creates hurdles for the prosecution and how hearsay exceptions can or cannot overcome these obstacles.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 criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

Stephen Jones is one of the most well-known trial attorneys currently practicing. With six decades of experience working some of the country's most high-profile Civil Rights cases, he would become a household name after accepting the position of representing Timothy McVeigh in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing. In this week's episode, Stephen was kind enough to join me for what I think is best described as a Craft-Conversation around the art of practicing law. So while we talk extensively about his time spent representing McVeigh, if you're looking for your ‘true-crime' fix, this isn't it. We discuss the importance of the Sixth Amendment as a buffer against vengeance, managing the emotional-toll that complex cases take on even the best attorneys, and the often unspoken balancing act between desire for swift justice and need for procedural patience. You don't have to be a lawyer to appreciate the wisdom shared in this episode. But for those who are in the legal profession, I think this is a rare opportunity to listen to, and hopefully learn from, someone who embodies what it means to practice the law in its purest form: absent of ego or prejudice. Enjoy the show. ________________SHOWNOTESBOOK: Other's Unknown by Stephen JonesOKLAHOMA HISTORICAL SOCIETY: Voices of Oklahoma Audio Interviews