POPULARITY
26 episodes with Sixth Amendment
26 episodes with Sixth Amendment
22 episodes with Sixth Amendment
15 episodes with Sixth Amendment
10 episodes with Sixth Amendment
8 episodes with Sixth Amendment
6 episodes with Sixth Amendment
8 episodes with Sixth Amendment
8 episodes with Sixth Amendment
19 episodes with Sixth Amendment
11 episodes with Sixth Amendment
6 episodes with Sixth Amendment
4 episodes with Sixth Amendment
2 episodes with Sixth Amendment
2 episodes with Sixth Amendment
2 episodes with Sixth Amendment
4 episodes with Sixth Amendment
14 episodes with Sixth Amendment
This lecture provides an overview of crucial constitutional rights within the realm of criminal procedure, extending from the moment an individual faces charges through potential post-conviction challenges. It details Sixth Amendment trial guarantees, including the rights to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, confrontation of witnesses, and compulsory process. The lecture then addresses the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy, explaining when it attaches and relevant doctrines like the same-elements test and dual sovereignty. Furthermore, it covers the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection considerations, particularly as they relate to sentencing and prosecution, before discussing the right to counsel at trial and on appeal. Finally, the lecture explores the avenues and limitations of post-conviction remedies, such as habeas corpus.SummaryThis lecture series on Criminal Procedure delves into the essential rights and protections afforded to defendants under the U.S. Constitution. It covers the Sixth Amendment's trial rights, the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy protections, and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection guarantees. The discussion also highlights the importance of the right to counsel, post-conviction remedies, and emerging issues in criminal law, providing a comprehensive overview of the principles that govern the criminal justice system.TakeawaysThe Sixth Amendment guarantees a fair trial through various rights.Double jeopardy prevents multiple prosecutions for the same offense.Due process includes both procedural and substantive protections.The right to counsel is fundamental for a fair trial.Post-conviction remedies allow for challenging convictions.Emerging technologies pose new challenges to criminal procedure.The Equal Protection Clause ensures non-discriminatory enforcement of laws.The right to an impartial jury is crucial for justice.Procedural default can block federal review of claims.New evidence can lead to claims of actual innocence in court.Sound Bites"The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial.""Due process ensures fair procedures in adjudication.""Access to counsel is essential for a fair trial."Criminal Procedure, Trial Rights, Double Jeopardy, Due Process, Equal Protection, Right to Counsel, Post-Conviction Remedies, Legal Standards, Criminal Justice Reform
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
This lecture outlines criminal procedure, focusing on the stages from initial arrest through the pretrial process. It explains the constitutional standards for seizing an individual, differentiating between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and discusses Terry stops and arrest warrants. The text then details pretrial steps, including initial appearances, bail, grand jury proceedings, prosecutorial discretion, plea bargaining, and pretrial motions. Finally, it examines key constitutional protections like the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (including Miranda rights) and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at crucial stages, highlighting their interactions and exceptions.This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of criminal procedure, focusing on the critical pretrial phase and the interactions between law enforcement and individuals. It covers essential topics such as the definitions of seizures and arrests, the importance of constitutional amendments, the process of initial appearances and bail decisions, charging procedures, plea bargaining, pretrial motions, the right to a speedy trial, and the implications of Miranda rights and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The discussion aims to equip listeners with a solid understanding of these foundational legal concepts, essential for both exams and practical application in the field.TakeawaysUnderstanding the core principles of criminal procedure is essential.The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.Reasonable suspicion is required for brief investigatory stops.Probable cause is necessary for full custodial arrests.Exigent circumstances allow for warrantless arrests in emergencies.The initial appearance before a judge must happen promptly after arrest.Bail decisions balance the need for public safety and the defendant's rights.Plea bargaining is a common outcome in the criminal justice system.Pretrial motions can challenge the prosecution's case before trial.The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.Sound Bites"This is your essential guide to criminal procedure.""Reasonable suspicion lets them stop and ask questions briefly.""The key is the urgency, the impracticability of waiting.""The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial."criminal procedure, law enforcement, constitutional amendments, arrests, pretrial phase, Miranda rights, speedy trial, evidence suppression, plea bargaining, legal rights
This lecture covers lawful arrests, pretrial procedures, and confession/interrogation law, building on Fourth Amendment search and seizure. Key topics include constitutional standards for stops, frisks (reasonable suspicion), and arrests (probable cause); pretrial steps from initial appearance to plea negotiations; and Fifth/Sixth Amendment safeguards concerning Miranda warnings, waiver, invocation, and right to counsel at critical stages. A seizure occurs when a reasonable person wouldn't feel free to leave, distinguishing temporary stops (reasonable suspicion, limited pat-down) from custodial arrests (probable cause, full procedures). The Terry stop allows brief stops and pat-downs based on articulable suspicion of criminal activity and a reasonable belief of being armed and dangerous, limited to weapon discovery. Arrests generally require a warrant based on probable cause from a neutral magistrate, with exceptions for exigent circumstances (fleeing suspect, public safety). Warrantless felony arrests in public are permitted with objective probable cause, respecting the individual's dignity and avoiding excessive force. The pretrial process begins with an initial appearance (charges, counsel, release). Bail is considered under the Eighth Amendment (no excessive bail), balancing offense seriousness, criminal history, and community risk, potentially involving release on recognizance, bonds, or preventive detention. Federal felony cases often require a grand jury indictment (probable cause), while other jurisdictions use prosecutorial information and preliminary hearings as a screen against unfounded prosecutions. Prosecutors have broad charging discretion and utilize plea bargaining (guilty plea for reduced charge/sentence) which raises concerns about coercion and unequal power. Pretrial motions, especially to suppress illegally obtained evidence (Fourth Amendment challenges), are crucial. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy trial. The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled self-incrimination during custodial interrogation (Miranda warnings: right to silence, use of statements, right to counsel, appointed counsel if indigent), requiring knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waivers based on totality of circumstances. Invoking the right to counsel or silence requires ceasing interrogation. Exceptions to Miranda include public safety and non-custodial questioning (voluntariness still applies). The Sixth Amendment guarantees counsel at critical stages after formal charges (indictment, arraignment, etc.), such as plea discussions, lineups, and hearings, requiring knowing and intelligent waivers. Massiah prohibits deliberate elicitation of incriminating statements from an indicted defendant without counsel. Elstad allows subsequent admissible statements after defective initial Miranda warnings if later warnings are proper and waiver is valid. Edwards' "bright line" rule requires ceasing interrogation upon invoking Miranda counsel until counsel is present or the suspect initiates further communication. The lecture concludes by summarizing these themes, leading to discussions on trial, sentencing, and post-conviction in the next session.
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 this episode of Consider the Constitution, host Dr. Katie Crawford-Lackey welcomes back Kendra Johnson, assistant Public Defender in Fairfax, Virginia, to explore the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Johnson explains how these amendments form the backbone of criminal procedure in America and protect citizens from government overreach.The discussion begins with an overview of each amendment: the Fourth Amendment protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment covering rights such as protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy, and the Sixth Amendment ensuring the right to a speedy trial, impartial jury, and legal counsel. Johnson shares insights into the historical context of these amendments, explaining how the Framers developed these protections in response to abuses they had witnessed under British rule.The conversation highlights landmark Supreme Court cases that have shaped these rights over time, including Katz v. United States, which established the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard; Miranda v. Arizona, which created the famous "Miranda warnings"; and Gideon v. Wainwright, which guaranteed the right to an attorney even for those who cannot afford one.The episode concludes with a discussion of emerging challenges to these constitutional protections in the digital age, including questions about surveillance technology, online trials, and artificial intelligence in the criminal justice system. Johnson emphasizes that these amendments are vital not just for those accused of crimes but for all citizens, as they establish boundaries on government power that protect everyone's liberty regardless of who holds political office.
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
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-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/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-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss President Trump's Executive Orders that target major law firms (such as WilmerHale and Jenner & Block). The orders target the firms for retaliation based largely on their past support of various left-wing legal causes. Do those Orders violate the firms' (and their clients') Free Speech Clause or Petition Clause rights? Might they also violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (in civil cases) and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (in criminal cases)? Recorded on March 31, 2025.
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
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
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
This Day in Legal History: Gideon v. WainwrightOn March 18, 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, fundamentally reshaping the American legal system. The case began when Clarence Earl Gideon, a Florida man accused of burglary, was denied a court-appointed attorney because state law only provided counsel for capital cases. Forced to represent himself, Gideon was convicted and sentenced to prison. From his jail cell, he handwrote a petition to the Supreme Court, arguing that his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. The Court unanimously agreed, ruling that states must provide legal counsel to defendants who cannot afford an attorney. This decision extended the right to legal representation to all criminal defendants, regardless of financial status, reinforcing the principle of a fair trial. The ruling overturned Betts v. Brady (1942), which had allowed states discretion in providing counsel. As a result, public defender systems were expanded nationwide, ensuring that indigent defendants received proper legal representation. Gideon v. Wainwright remains a cornerstone of American criminal law, highlighting the importance of due process and equal justice. Today, the case serves as a reminder of how a single individual's persistence can shape constitutional rights for millions.Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will take senior status, creating a vacancy for President Donald Trump to fill. Ikuta, appointed by George W. Bush, has served on the court for over a decade and is known for her conservative rulings. Her decision to step back adds to Trump's opportunities to shape the judiciary, as he previously appointed 54 appellate judges in his first term. The Ninth Circuit, historically liberal, has seen a shift in balance, with 16 Democratic-appointed and 13 Republican-appointed judges. Ikuta authored key opinions supporting Trump-era immigration and family planning policies. Before her judicial career, she worked as a journalist and later pursued law, clerking for prominent judges. Her transition to senior status will take effect upon the confirmation of her successor.Ninth Circuit's Ikuta to Step Back, Gives Trump Vacancy on CourtA U.S. judge has ordered the Trump administration to clarify whether it violated a court order by deporting hundreds of Venezuelans, potentially setting up a constitutional conflict. The administration defended its actions, arguing that courts lack authority over the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely invoked wartime law. Judge James Boasberg had temporarily blocked the deportations, but flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members still proceeded. El Salvador's president shared footage of deportees arriving, seemingly defying the court's directive. White House officials denied wrongdoing, while Trump's border czar suggested they would continue the deportations regardless of judicial rulings. Legal experts countered that the government must follow court orders, regardless of where deportations occur. The ACLU and civil rights groups raised concerns over due process and the administration's broad use of executive power. Trump has increasingly tested legal limits since taking office, often facing judicial intervention. The outcome of this case could further define the balance of power between the presidency and the courts.US Judge Seeks Answers on Deportation of Venezuelans Despite Court OrderU.S. authorities deported Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Rhode Island doctor, to Lebanon after finding images and videos on her phone that they claimed were sympathetic to Hezbollah. She had also attended the funeral of Hezbollah's former leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and stated her support for him from a religious perspective. The U.S. government classifies Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and officials said they could not determine her true intentions in the country. A federal judge had issued an order requiring 48 hours' notice before her removal, but she was deported the same day. The Justice Department argued that proper notification procedures were followed, defending Customs and Border Protection against claims of violating the court order. Alawieh's legal team withdrew from the case, citing new diligence concerns. The court later sealed documents related to the government's explanation. The situation raises legal questions about immigration enforcement and judicial authority.Doctor deported to Lebanon had photos 'sympathetic' to Hezbollah on phone, US says | 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
Join Katie and Liz on this week's episode of True Crime New England where they tackle another harrowing exoneration case. In May of 1991, a man named Kenneth McLean was shot and killed in Roxbury, Massachusetts, supposedly after a drug deal went wrong. A teenage witness, who admitted he didn't see the face of the shooter, only a notable ponytail, later identified Robert Foxworth as the killer. He was subsequently tried alongside two other men, who he did not even know, who were said to have been present at the shooting. Unfortunately, due to some withheld evidence and a violation of Foxworth's Sixth Amendment right, he was sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of first-degree murder. What followed was nearly 30 years of legal battles, in which Robert Foxworth fought hard for his freedom, claiming innocence the entire time.
Evidence law ensures fair, efficient, and reliable trials by determining what information is admissible in court. The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) guide federal courts and influence state rules, promoting uniformity and fairness [1]. Attorneys need to understand how courts assess evidence to present persuasive arguments, using both procedural rules and judicial discretion. Courts balance probative evidence with fairness, excluding prejudicial, misleading, or redundant evidence, focusing on material facts. Evidence law interacts with constitutional protections like the Sixth Amendment.Relevance is the foundation for admissibility.Rule 401 defines logical relevance: evidence that makes a fact more or less probable.Rule 403 allows exclusion if probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers like unfair prejudice or confusing the issues.Judges use discretion in applying Rule 403, balancing probative value against unfair prejudice.Examples of relevant evidence: a defendant's weapon matching the crime weapon, a witness seeing the defendant flee, or financial records showing a large deposit after a robbery.Examples of evidence excluded under Rule 403: gruesome crime scene photos or prior bad acts of a defendant.Witness examination is a critical form of evidence subject to specific rules. A competent witness must perceive the event, recall it accurately, communicate effectively, and understand their duty to testify truthfully. Special cases include children, mentally incapacitated witnesses, and non-English speakers.Witnesses undergo direct examination, cross-examination, and redirect/recross.Direct examination, done by the party calling the witness, uses open-ended questions to elicit relevant testimony without leading the witness.Cross-examination, done by opposing counsel, challenges credibility and reveals biases using leading questions.Redirect examination clarifies cross-examination points, while recross-examination addresses new issues from redirect.Common objections in witness examination include hearsay, relevance, leading questions (on direct), speculation, argumentative questions, and improper impeachment. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter. Witnesses must have personal knowledge and cannot speculate. Cumulative evidence and improper lay opinions can also be objected to.Key takeaways: Relevance is essential, but Rule 403 can exclude prejudicial evidence. Judges have discretion in admissibility. Witness testimony must meet competency standards and examination rules. Objections maintain fairness and legal soundness.
The Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to theConstitution of The United States, it was ratified on December 15, 1791.The Bill of Rights spells out Americans' rights in relationto their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to theindividual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for dueprocess of law, and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Governmentto the people or the States. And it specifies that “the enumeration in theConstitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparageothers retained by the people.” The First Amendment provides several rights protections: toexpress ideas through speech and the press, to assemble or gather with a groupto protest or for other reasons, and to ask the government to fix problems. Italso protects the right to religious beliefs and practices. It prevents thegovernment from creating or favoring a religion. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and beararms. The Third Amendment prevents government from forcinghomeowners to allow soldiers to use their homes. Before the Revolutionary War,laws gave British soldiers the right to take over private homes. The Fourth Amendment bars the government from unreasonablesearch and seizure of an individual or their private property. The Fifth Amendment provides several protections for peopleaccused of crimes. It states that serious criminal charges must be started by agrand jury. A person cannot be triedtwice for the same offense or have property taken away without justcompensation. People have the right against self-incrimination and cannot beimprisoned without due process of law. The Sixth Amendment provides additional protections topeople accused of crimes, such as, the right to a speedy and public trial, incriminal cases, trial by an impartial jury, and to be informed of criminalcharges. Witnesses must face the accused, and the accused is allowed his or herown witnesses and to be represented by a lawyer. The Seventh Amendment extends the right to a jury trial inFederal civil cases. The Eighth Amendment bars excessive bail and fines and a crueland unusual punishment. The Ninth Amendment states that listing specific rights inthe Constitution does not mean that people do not have other right, that havenot been spelled out. The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government onlyhas those powers delegated in the Constitution. If it isn't listed, it belongsto the states or to the people.
This briefing document provides a comprehensive review of criminal law and procedure, covering substantive law, constitutional protections, and trial procedures. Key areas include: Mental States: The document details four levels of culpability: purpose (intent), knowledge, recklessness, and criminal negligence, each with specific evidentiary requirements. Constitutional Analysis: It covers Fourth Amendment issues such as search and seizure, warrant requirements and exceptions, and Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections like Miranda rights and the right to counsel. Exam Strategies: The briefing offers tips for multiple-choice questions and essay writing, including the use of IRAC for essays and the process of elimination for multiple choice. Substantive Law: It reviews crimes against persons, like homicide, and crimes against property, such as larceny and burglary, along with inchoate offenses. Defenses to Crimes: The document discusses capacity defenses like insanity and infancy, and justifications like self-defense, necessity and duress. Criminal Procedure: It explains the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment protections, including the exclusionary rule, Miranda warnings, and the right to counsel. It also covers pretrial and trial procedures, such as grand juries, bail, plea bargains, discovery, and sentencing. Post-Conviction Relief: It discusses criminal appeals, standards of review, and habeas corpus petitions, including time limits and procedural requirements. The briefing uses hypotheticals and model answers to illustrate concepts and suggests strategies for bar exam success, emphasizing issue spotting and applying legal principles.
Lecture 3 of Criminal Law & Procedure focuses on constitutional safeguards in criminal cases, specifically the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as well as pretrial and trial procedures.The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, regulates confessions, and prohibits double jeopardy. Key aspects include:Miranda warnings must be given to suspects in custody before interrogation, informing them of their right to remain silent, right to an attorney, and that anything said can be used against them. These warnings apply only to custodial interrogations, where a reasonable person would not feel free to leave.Voluntary confessions are admissible, but those obtained through coercion or psychological manipulation are not.The privilege against self-incrimination protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves. This right does not extend to physical evidence.Double jeopardy prohibits multiple prosecutions or punishments for the same offense. However, there are exceptions, such as separate sovereignties, mistrials, and civil proceedings.The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel, a speedy trial, jury trials, and confrontation of witnesses.The right to counsel applies at all critical stages of prosecution, including arraignments, plea negotiations, trial, and sentencing6. This right was extended to indigent defendants in state courts by Gideon vs Wainwright.The right to a speedy trial prevents indefinite delays and is balanced against factors that could justify delays.Defendants have the right to an impartial jury, and racial discrimination in jury selection is prohibited by Batson vs Kentucky. Jury verdicts in criminal cases must be unanimous, per Ramos vs Louisiana.The Confrontation Clause ensures that defendants can cross-examine witnesses testifying against them.Pretrial and trial procedures covered include:Grand Juries determine probable cause for bringing formal charges in federal cases.Bail is set based on factors such as flight risk and danger to the public. The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail.Plea bargains resolve most criminal cases. These agreements must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.Discovery requires the prosecution to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense.The burden of proof at trial is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Sentencing is determined by judges based on guidelines.Post-conviction relief may be sought through appeals and habeas corpus petitions.
The lecture covers defenses to crimes and an introduction to criminal procedure, focusing on the Fourth Amendment. Defenses to Crimes: Capacity Defenses include insanity, infancy, and intoxication. Insanity involves not understanding actions or right from wrong, using tests like the M'Naghten Rule, Irresistible Impulse Test, Durham Rule, and Model Penal Code Test. Infancy recognizes that minors lack criminal intent, with different age classifications. Intoxication is generally not a defense, except for involuntary intoxication or for negating specific intent crimes. Justification/Excuse Defenses include self-defense, defense of others, duress, necessity, and entrapment. Self-defense involves using proportional force against imminent harm, sometimes with a duty to retreat. Defense of others is similar to self-defense, sometimes using the "alter ego rule" or "reasonable belief" standard. Duress involves committing a crime under immediate threat of harm, but is not a defense to murder. Necessity involves committing a crime to prevent greater harm when there is no other reasonable alternative. * Entrapment is when law enforcement induces a crime that a person would not otherwise commit. Criminal Procedure: The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Most searches require a warrant based on probable cause. Exceptions to the warrant requirement include search incident to arrest, exigent circumstances, consent searches, the automobile exception, plain view doctrine, and border & administrative searches. The Exclusionary Rule makes illegally obtained evidence inadmissible in court. The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine extends this to evidence derived from an illegal search, with some exceptions. The lecture serves as an introduction to defenses and the Fourth Amendment. The following lecture will discuss the Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections.
Summary of Criminal Procedure – Day 2 Introduction Day 2 covers criminal defenses and an introduction to criminal procedure, focusing on legal justifications and constitutional protections under the Fourth Amendment. Key Topics: Defenses to Crimes: Insanity, infancy, intoxication, self-defense, duress, necessity, and entrapment. Fourth Amendment: Search & seizure rules, warrant requirements, and exceptions. Exclusionary Rule: Preventing use of illegally obtained evidence in court. I. Defenses to Crimes Criminal defenses fall into two categories: capacity defenses and justification/excuse defenses. A. Capacity Defenses Insanity: Defendant lacked mental capacity to understand wrongdoing. Tests: M'Naghten Rule, Irresistible Impulse Test, Durham Rule, MPC Standard. Infancy: Juveniles may not be held criminally responsible (common law: under age 7 presumed incapable). Intoxication: Voluntary intoxication: Not a defense unless it negates specific intent crimes. Involuntary intoxication: Can be a defense if it causes loss of control or awareness. B. Justification & Excuse Defenses Self-Defense: Use of force must be proportional and necessary. Deadly force allowed if defendant faces imminent threat of death or serious harm. Defense of Others & Property: Same rules as self-defense, but no deadly force to protect property. Duress: Defendant coerced into committing a crime under threat of death or serious harm. Not a defense for homicide. Necessity: Defendant committed a crime to prevent a greater harm (e.g., breaking into a cabin during a blizzard). Entrapment: Law enforcement induced crime that defendant was not predisposed to commit. II. Introduction to Criminal Procedure The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement. A. Probable Cause & Warrants Probable cause: Reasonable belief that a crime has been committed. Warrant requirements: Issued by a neutral judge, based on sworn affidavit, specifying place and items to be searched. Arrests require probable cause, but warrants are not always needed if arrest occurs in public. B. Warrant Exceptions Some searches do not require a warrant due to public safety concerns or exigent circumstances: Search Incident to Arrest – Limited search of arrestee and immediate surroundings. Exigent Circumstances – Immediate threat to safety or evidence destruction. Consent Searches – Voluntary consent waives Fourth Amendment rights. Automobile Exception – Cars have reduced privacy, allowing searches with probable cause. Plain View Doctrine – Officers can seize evidence in plain sight if lawfully present. Stop and Frisk (Terry Stop) – Officers may briefly detain and pat down suspects if there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. C. The Exclusionary Rule & Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in court (Mapp v. Ohio (1961)). Exceptions: Good Faith Exception: Police relied on a warrant later found invalid. Inevitable Discovery: Evidence would have been found legally. Independent Source: Evidence came from separate, legal investigation. Conclusion Day 2 covered criminal defenses and the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure protections. These legal principles help determine when a defendant is legally excused and when law enforcement actions violate constitutional rights. Next time we will continue with Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections and trial procedures.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental legal principle in many legal systems, including the United States, designed to protect the rights and interests of individuals accused of a crime. Here is a full summary of what the right to a speedy trial means:Legal Right: The right to a speedy trial is a constitutional or statutory right granted to individuals facing criminal charges. In the United States, it is protected by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.Timely Adjudication: It guarantees that a defendant has the right to have their case adjudicated in a timely and expeditious manner. This means that the legal process should move forward promptly from the time of arrest to trial.Reasonable Timeframe: While the exact definition of a "speedy" trial can vary from one jurisdiction to another, it generally implies that the accused should not have to endure unnecessary delays in the criminal justice process.Purpose: The primary purpose of this right is to prevent injustices that may arise from prolonged pretrial detention or the delay in bringing a case to trial. It helps ensure that a person is not held in jail for an extended period without facing formal charges and trial.Balancing Act: Courts must strike a balance between the defendant's right to a speedy trial and the state's interest in conducting a thorough and fair trial. This may involve considering factors like the complexity of the case, the availability of witnesses, and the reasons for any delays.Dismissal as a Remedy: If the right to a speedy trial is violated, it can lead to the dismissal of the charges against the defendant. This serves as a deterrent against prosecutorial and judicial misconduct that might unnecessarily delay a trial.Factors Considered: Courts typically consider several factors in determining whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial has been violated. These factors may include the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of their right, and any prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the delay.Waiver: In some cases, a defendant may choose to waive their right to a speedy trial if they believe it's in their best interest to delay the proceedings for strategic reasons, such as giving their legal team more time to prepare.International Context: The right to a speedy trial is recognized not only in the United States but also in international human rights law, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These documents emphasize the importance of a fair and timely trial.Importance: Ensuring a speedy trial is crucial for safeguarding the rights of the accused, preventing unnecessary incarceration, and maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.(commercial at 7:57)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Kohberger Idaho murder trial not expected until at least 2024 | Idaho Statesman
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 the case United States v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:24-cr-00542-AS), the defense submitted a reply memorandum supporting their motion for a hearing, suppression of evidence, and other relief. They contended that certain evidence was obtained in violation of Combs' constitutional rights, specifically citing a recent incident where federal agents allegedly conducted a warrantless search of his jail cell and seized handwritten notes intended for his legal defense. The defense argued that this action breached attorney-client privilege and infringed upon Combs' Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, necessitating the suppression of the seized materials.Additionally, the defense raised concerns about potential government misconduct, including the alleged leaking of a 2016 video involving Combs and his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, to the media. They asserted that such actions were intended to prejudice public opinion and undermine Combs' right to a fair trial. The memorandum requested a comprehensive hearing to examine these issues, determine the admissibility of the contested evidence, and address any violations of Combs' constitutional protections.(commercial at 7:53)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.120.0_1.pdf
In the case United States v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:24-cr-00542-AS), the defense submitted a reply memorandum supporting their motion for a hearing, suppression of evidence, and other relief. They contended that certain evidence was obtained in violation of Combs' constitutional rights, specifically citing a recent incident where federal agents allegedly conducted a warrantless search of his jail cell and seized handwritten notes intended for his legal defense. The defense argued that this action breached attorney-client privilege and infringed upon Combs' Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, necessitating the suppression of the seized materials.Additionally, the defense raised concerns about potential government misconduct, including the alleged leaking of a 2016 video involving Combs and his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, to the media. They asserted that such actions were intended to prejudice public opinion and undermine Combs' right to a fair trial. The memorandum requested a comprehensive hearing to examine these issues, determine the admissibility of the contested evidence, and address any violations of Combs' constitutional protections.(commercial at 7:53)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.120.0_1.pdf
In the case United States v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:24-cr-00542-AS), the defense submitted a reply memorandum supporting their motion for a hearing, suppression of evidence, and other relief. They contended that certain evidence was obtained in violation of Combs' constitutional rights, specifically citing a recent incident where federal agents allegedly conducted a warrantless search of his jail cell and seized handwritten notes intended for his legal defense. The defense argued that this action breached attorney-client privilege and infringed upon Combs' Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, necessitating the suppression of the seized materials.Additionally, the defense raised concerns about potential government misconduct, including the alleged leaking of a 2016 video involving Combs and his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, to the media. They asserted that such actions were intended to prejudice public opinion and undermine Combs' right to a fair trial. The memorandum requested a comprehensive hearing to examine these issues, determine the admissibility of the contested evidence, and address any violations of Combs' constitutional protections.(commercial at 7:53)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.120.0_1.pdf
In the case United States v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:24-cr-00542-AS), the defense submitted a reply memorandum supporting their motion for a hearing, suppression of evidence, and other relief. They contended that certain evidence was obtained in violation of Combs' constitutional rights, specifically citing a recent incident where federal agents allegedly conducted a warrantless search of his jail cell and seized handwritten notes intended for his legal defense. The defense argued that this action breached attorney-client privilege and infringed upon Combs' Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, necessitating the suppression of the seized materials.Additionally, the defense raised concerns about potential government misconduct, including the alleged leaking of a 2016 video involving Combs and his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, to the media. They asserted that such actions were intended to prejudice public opinion and undermine Combs' right to a fair trial. The memorandum requested a comprehensive hearing to examine these issues, determine the admissibility of the contested evidence, and address any violations of Combs' constitutional protections.(commercial at 7:53)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.120.0_1.pdf
In the case United States v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:24-cr-00542-AS), the defense submitted a reply memorandum supporting their motion for a hearing, suppression of evidence, and other relief. They contended that certain evidence was obtained in violation of Combs' constitutional rights, specifically citing a recent incident where federal agents allegedly conducted a warrantless search of his jail cell and seized handwritten notes intended for his legal defense. The defense argued that this action breached attorney-client privilege and infringed upon Combs' Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, necessitating the suppression of the seized materials.Additionally, the defense raised concerns about potential government misconduct, including the alleged leaking of a 2016 video involving Combs and his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, to the media. They asserted that such actions were intended to prejudice public opinion and undermine Combs' right to a fair trial. The memorandum requested a comprehensive hearing to examine these issues, determine the admissibility of the contested evidence, and address any violations of Combs' constitutional protections.(commercial at 7:53)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.120.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the case United States v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:24-cr-00542-AS), the defense submitted a reply memorandum supporting their motion for a hearing, suppression of evidence, and other relief. They contended that certain evidence was obtained in violation of Combs' constitutional rights, specifically citing a recent incident where federal agents allegedly conducted a warrantless search of his jail cell and seized handwritten notes intended for his legal defense. The defense argued that this action breached attorney-client privilege and infringed upon Combs' Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, necessitating the suppression of the seized materials.Additionally, the defense raised concerns about potential government misconduct, including the alleged leaking of a 2016 video involving Combs and his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, to the media. They asserted that such actions were intended to prejudice public opinion and undermine Combs' right to a fair trial. The memorandum requested a comprehensive hearing to examine these issues, determine the admissibility of the contested evidence, and address any violations of Combs' constitutional protections.(commercial at 7:53)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.120.0_1.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.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.(commercial at 11:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.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.(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.
Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team has filed a new motion accusing federal prosecutors of spying on the music mogul during his detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn. Combs, who is facing charges of sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution, has been in custody since his September arrest. “The evidence shows the government is using Mr. Combs' detention to spy on him and invade his confidential communications with his counsel,” the defense alleged in court filings obtained by PEOPLE. The motion highlights a recent jail sweep during which a federal investigator allegedly photographed Combs' handwritten notes containing privileged information and shared them with prosecutors. The defense contends this action is an unconstitutional violation of Combs' Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights. “This disturbing conduct is a blatant violation of Mr. Combs' rights,” the filing reads. “Prosecutors say the search was motivated by security concerns at MDC, but that is a false pretext.” Combs' lawyers argue these actions compromise his ability to prepare for his trial, scheduled for May 2025. “Mr. Combs cannot possibly receive a fair trial if he is not permitted to confer privately and confidentially with his counsel and others working at their direction, and to take and keep notes of his trial preparation,” the defense added. Combs' legal team further claims that the government and prison staff are engaging in “unfair and unconstitutional tactics” by closely monitoring all of his communications, including those with his attorneys. They argue that such restrictions are “unique to his case” and “not required of any other inmate” on his unit. To address these concerns, Diddy's lawyers have requested access to a laptop for trial preparation. They criticized proposed restrictions on its use as having “no justification.” In November, the defense also accused the government of fueling “online conspiracy theories” through out-of-court statements from potential witnesses and their representatives, arguing that this undermines Combs' ability to receive a fair trial. Despite ruling that evidence obtained from the jail sweep could not be used at a November bail hearing, Judge Arun Subramanian denied Combs bail for the third time. The judge cited a “serious risk of witness tampering” as the basis for his decision. As the trial date looms, Combs remains behind bars, with his lawyers continuing to push for better conditions to ensure his ability to mount an effective defense. The legal team maintains that the alleged actions of prosecutors and prison officials are obstructing justice. Diddy's trial is set to begin in May 2025, with his defense calling for accountability and adherence to constitutional rights throughout the legal process. #DiddyTrial #LegalRights #FederalCase #SeanCombs #MusicMogul 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
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team has filed a new motion accusing federal prosecutors of spying on the music mogul during his detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn. Combs, who is facing charges of sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution, has been in custody since his September arrest. “The evidence shows the government is using Mr. Combs' detention to spy on him and invade his confidential communications with his counsel,” the defense alleged in court filings obtained by PEOPLE. The motion highlights a recent jail sweep during which a federal investigator allegedly photographed Combs' handwritten notes containing privileged information and shared them with prosecutors. The defense contends this action is an unconstitutional violation of Combs' Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights. “This disturbing conduct is a blatant violation of Mr. Combs' rights,” the filing reads. “Prosecutors say the search was motivated by security concerns at MDC, but that is a false pretext.” Combs' lawyers argue these actions compromise his ability to prepare for his trial, scheduled for May 2025. “Mr. Combs cannot possibly receive a fair trial if he is not permitted to confer privately and confidentially with his counsel and others working at their direction, and to take and keep notes of his trial preparation,” the defense added. Combs' legal team further claims that the government and prison staff are engaging in “unfair and unconstitutional tactics” by closely monitoring all of his communications, including those with his attorneys. They argue that such restrictions are “unique to his case” and “not required of any other inmate” on his unit. To address these concerns, Diddy's lawyers have requested access to a laptop for trial preparation. They criticized proposed restrictions on its use as having “no justification.” In November, the defense also accused the government of fueling “online conspiracy theories” through out-of-court statements from potential witnesses and their representatives, arguing that this undermines Combs' ability to receive a fair trial. Despite ruling that evidence obtained from the jail sweep could not be used at a November bail hearing, Judge Arun Subramanian denied Combs bail for the third time. The judge cited a “serious risk of witness tampering” as the basis for his decision. As the trial date looms, Combs remains behind bars, with his lawyers continuing to push for better conditions to ensure his ability to mount an effective defense. The legal team maintains that the alleged actions of prosecutors and prison officials are obstructing justice. Diddy's trial is set to begin in May 2025, with his defense calling for accountability and adherence to constitutional rights throughout the legal process. #DiddyTrial #LegalRights #FederalCase #SeanCombs #MusicMogul 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
Diddy's Lawyers Accuse Prosecutors of Spying on Jail Communications Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team has filed a new motion accusing federal prosecutors of spying on the music mogul during his detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn. Combs, who is facing charges of sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution, has been in custody since his September arrest. “The evidence shows the government is using Mr. Combs' detention to spy on him and invade his confidential communications with his counsel,” the defense alleged in court filings obtained by PEOPLE. The motion highlights a recent jail sweep during which a federal investigator allegedly photographed Combs' handwritten notes containing privileged information and shared them with prosecutors. The defense contends this action is an unconstitutional violation of Combs' Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights. “This disturbing conduct is a blatant violation of Mr. Combs' rights,” the filing reads. “Prosecutors say the search was motivated by security concerns at MDC, but that is a false pretext.” Combs' lawyers argue these actions compromise his ability to prepare for his trial, scheduled for May 2025. “Mr. Combs cannot possibly receive a fair trial if he is not permitted to confer privately and confidentially with his counsel and others working at their direction, and to take and keep notes of his trial preparation,” the defense added. Combs' legal team further claims that the government and prison staff are engaging in “unfair and unconstitutional tactics” by closely monitoring all of his communications, including those with his attorneys. They argue that such restrictions are “unique to his case” and “not required of any other inmate” on his unit. To address these concerns, Diddy's lawyers have requested access to a laptop for trial preparation. They criticized proposed restrictions on its use as having “no justification.” In November, the defense also accused the government of fueling “online conspiracy theories” through out-of-court statements from potential witnesses and their representatives, arguing that this undermines Combs' ability to receive a fair trial. Despite ruling that evidence obtained from the jail sweep could not be used at a November bail hearing, Judge Arun Subramanian denied Combs bail for the third time. The judge cited a “serious risk of witness tampering” as the basis for his decision. As the trial date looms, Combs remains behind bars, with his lawyers continuing to push for better conditions to ensure his ability to mount an effective defense. The legal team maintains that the alleged actions of prosecutors and prison officials are obstructing justice. Diddy's trial is set to begin in May 2025, with his defense calling for accountability and adherence to constitutional rights throughout the legal process. #DiddyTrial #LegalRights #FederalCase #SeanCombs #MusicMogul 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 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 13:52)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.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.(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.
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.
A federal appeals court overturned the conviction and seven-year prison sentence of Russell Laffitte, the former CEO of Palmetto State Bank, who had been convicted of multiple counts of bank fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy. The decision, made by a three-judge panel from the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, found significant constitutional violations during Laffitte's trial that led to the ruling. The judges focused on Judge Richard Gergel's handling of a juror identified as Juror Number 88. The jury had been deliberating for nearly eight hours when Juror 88 wrote a note stating she was experiencing anxiety and struggled with reactions from fellow jurors. However, she told Judge Gergel that she could continue her duties. Despite this, the judge dismissed her, along with another juror who had a medical issue, and replaced them with alternates. Laffitte and his legal team were not present during this critical exchange. The appellate panel, consisting of Judges G. Steven Agee, Stephanie Thacker, and Toby J. Heytens, ruled unanimously that Judge Gergel violated Laffitte's Fifth Amendment right to be present and his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. The panel expressed concern that the reconstituted jury quickly returned a guilty verdict less than an hour after the alternates were seated. “Our concerns are heightened in view of Juror No. 88's statement that others disagreed with her ‘decision,' and that, after nearly eight hours of deliberations, the reconstituted jury returned a guilty verdict in less than an hour later,” the judges wrote in their opinion. This mismanagement of the jury raises significant questions about the integrity of the original trial. Billy Wilkins, Laffitte's attorney, argued that his client was denied the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. “Russell Laffitte didn't argue he was entitled to a perfect trial. He did successfully argue he was not provided the full protection of the rights and guarantees of our Constitution to which he like everyone else is entitled,” Wilkins stated. Despite the appellate court's ruling, prosecutors are resolute in their decision to retry the case. U.S. Attorney for South Carolina Adair Ford Boroughs emphasized that the decision does not change the strength of their evidence. “The ruling has no impact on the charges against Laffitte going forward. We respect the court's decision and stand ready to prove Laffitte's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt a second time,” Boroughs said. Laffitte, who began serving his prison sentence in September, will likely be released on bond while awaiting his retrial. This comes as a relief to his defense, which has maintained his innocence throughout. Laffitte was charged with helping Alex Murdaugh, the disgraced attorney, steal millions from clients of his law firm. Laffitte's alleged role involved managing settlement funds meant for Murdaugh's clients, some of whom were vulnerable individuals, and funneling money to Murdaugh to cover mounting debts. Murdaugh, who is serving life in prison for the murders of his wife and son, admitted to financial misconduct but continues to deny any involvement in the murders. His crimes have led to a complex web of legal proceedings for those associated with him, including Laffitte. The upcoming retrial promises to be closely watched, as it could reshape the narrative surrounding Laffitte's involvement. While the defense argues he was a victim of Murdaugh's deception, prosecutors are adamant that Laffitte knowingly enabled Murdaugh's fraudulent activities. The appeals court's decision serves as a stark reminder of the importance of constitutional protections, even in high-profile cases. As the saga continues, all eyes will be on the retrial, where both sides will have another opportunity to make their case. 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
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
A federal appeals court overturned the conviction and seven-year prison sentence of Russell Laffitte, the former CEO of Palmetto State Bank, who had been convicted of multiple counts of bank fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy. The decision, made by a three-judge panel from the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, found significant constitutional violations during Laffitte's trial that led to the ruling. The judges focused on Judge Richard Gergel's handling of a juror identified as Juror Number 88. The jury had been deliberating for nearly eight hours when Juror 88 wrote a note stating she was experiencing anxiety and struggled with reactions from fellow jurors. However, she told Judge Gergel that she could continue her duties. Despite this, the judge dismissed her, along with another juror who had a medical issue, and replaced them with alternates. Laffitte and his legal team were not present during this critical exchange. The appellate panel, consisting of Judges G. Steven Agee, Stephanie Thacker, and Toby J. Heytens, ruled unanimously that Judge Gergel violated Laffitte's Fifth Amendment right to be present and his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. The panel expressed concern that the reconstituted jury quickly returned a guilty verdict less than an hour after the alternates were seated. “Our concerns are heightened in view of Juror No. 88's statement that others disagreed with her ‘decision,' and that, after nearly eight hours of deliberations, the reconstituted jury returned a guilty verdict in less than an hour later,” the judges wrote in their opinion. This mismanagement of the jury raises significant questions about the integrity of the original trial. Billy Wilkins, Laffitte's attorney, argued that his client was denied the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. “Russell Laffitte didn't argue he was entitled to a perfect trial. He did successfully argue he was not provided the full protection of the rights and guarantees of our Constitution to which he like everyone else is entitled,” Wilkins stated. Despite the appellate court's ruling, prosecutors are resolute in their decision to retry the case. U.S. Attorney for South Carolina Adair Ford Boroughs emphasized that the decision does not change the strength of their evidence. “The ruling has no impact on the charges against Laffitte going forward. We respect the court's decision and stand ready to prove Laffitte's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt a second time,” Boroughs said. Laffitte, who began serving his prison sentence in September, will likely be released on bond while awaiting his retrial. This comes as a relief to his defense, which has maintained his innocence throughout. Laffitte was charged with helping Alex Murdaugh, the disgraced attorney, steal millions from clients of his law firm. Laffitte's alleged role involved managing settlement funds meant for Murdaugh's clients, some of whom were vulnerable individuals, and funneling money to Murdaugh to cover mounting debts. Murdaugh, who is serving life in prison for the murders of his wife and son, admitted to financial misconduct but continues to deny any involvement in the murders. His crimes have led to a complex web of legal proceedings for those associated with him, including Laffitte. The upcoming retrial promises to be closely watched, as it could reshape the narrative surrounding Laffitte's involvement. While the defense argues he was a victim of Murdaugh's deception, prosecutors are adamant that Laffitte knowingly enabled Murdaugh's fraudulent activities. The appeals court's decision serves as a stark reminder of the importance of constitutional protections, even in high-profile cases. As the saga continues, all eyes will be on the retrial, where both sides will have another opportunity to make their case. 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
Sarah Boone's legal team is fighting for a new trial after a jury convicted her of second-degree murder in the death of her boyfriend, Jorge Torres Jr. Boone's attorney, James Owens, filed a motion arguing that Boone's constitutional rights were violated and accusing the prosecution of misconduct. Torres' tragic death occurred in February 2020. Authorities discovered him zipped up in a suitcase at the couple's apartment following a night of drinking. During her trial, Boone testified that she acted in self-defense and suffered from battered spouse syndrome. The prosecution, however, countered with evidence showing Boone not only left Torres to suffocate but also beat the suitcase with a baseball bat. The case took four years to reach trial, partly due to Boone's changing defense team. A total of eight different attorneys represented her before Judge Michael Kraynick ultimately decided that Boone had forfeited her right to an attorney because of her behavior, forcing her to represent herself. Owens' motion claims this ruling violated Boone's Sixth Amendment right to legal representation. “Judge Kraynick failed to warn Ms. Boone that repeated ‘misbehavior' would lead to her losing her right to an attorney,” Owens wrote. He also emphasized that Boone's actions did not meet the standard for misconduct that justifies stripping someone of their right to counsel. Owens pointed to another key issue: the judge's refusal to grant a continuance. Owens had entered his notice of appearance only 45 days before the trial began, which he argued left insufficient time to prepare. “Despite his best attempts to prepare for trial, it was impossible to adequately prepare for unforeseen issues,” Owens stated, mentioning that crucial evidence, such as texts from Boone's phone and prior interactions with law enforcement, could not be fully reviewed. Despite Owens' attempts to delay proceedings, Judge Kraynick held firm, stating that Boone had only “herself to blame” for the defense team's difficulties and that Owens knew the deadlines before taking the case. Owens further alleged that the prosecution committed misconduct, accusing the State of failing to disclose a change in their rebuttal expert's opinion. He also criticized prosecutor William Jay for delivering what he called a “second closing argument” instead of a proper rebuttal. Additionally, Owens contended that Judge Kraynick should have declared a mistrial when Torres' family had an emotional outburst during closing arguments. The judge denied the mistrial request, and Owens argued that the jury should have received a curative instruction to disregard the incident. Boone now faces a minimum sentence of 22.5 years in prison, with her sentencing hearing set for Dec. 2. Her attorney's motion raises critical questions about the fairness of the trial and whether Boone's right to a robust defense was compromised. #SarahBoone #MurderTrial #NewTrial #SixthAmendment #ProsecutorialMisconduct #DomesticAbuseDefense #JusticeForJorgeTorres 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
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
Sarah Boone's legal team is fighting for a new trial after a jury convicted her of second-degree murder in the death of her boyfriend, Jorge Torres Jr. Boone's attorney, James Owens, filed a motion arguing that Boone's constitutional rights were violated and accusing the prosecution of misconduct. Torres' tragic death occurred in February 2020. Authorities discovered him zipped up in a suitcase at the couple's apartment following a night of drinking. During her trial, Boone testified that she acted in self-defense and suffered from battered spouse syndrome. The prosecution, however, countered with evidence showing Boone not only left Torres to suffocate but also beat the suitcase with a baseball bat. The case took four years to reach trial, partly due to Boone's changing defense team. A total of eight different attorneys represented her before Judge Michael Kraynick ultimately decided that Boone had forfeited her right to an attorney because of her behavior, forcing her to represent herself. Owens' motion claims this ruling violated Boone's Sixth Amendment right to legal representation. “Judge Kraynick failed to warn Ms. Boone that repeated ‘misbehavior' would lead to her losing her right to an attorney,” Owens wrote. He also emphasized that Boone's actions did not meet the standard for misconduct that justifies stripping someone of their right to counsel. Owens pointed to another key issue: the judge's refusal to grant a continuance. Owens had entered his notice of appearance only 45 days before the trial began, which he argued left insufficient time to prepare. “Despite his best attempts to prepare for trial, it was impossible to adequately prepare for unforeseen issues,” Owens stated, mentioning that crucial evidence, such as texts from Boone's phone and prior interactions with law enforcement, could not be fully reviewed. Despite Owens' attempts to delay proceedings, Judge Kraynick held firm, stating that Boone had only “herself to blame” for the defense team's difficulties and that Owens knew the deadlines before taking the case. Owens further alleged that the prosecution committed misconduct, accusing the State of failing to disclose a change in their rebuttal expert's opinion. He also criticized prosecutor William Jay for delivering what he called a “second closing argument” instead of a proper rebuttal. Additionally, Owens contended that Judge Kraynick should have declared a mistrial when Torres' family had an emotional outburst during closing arguments. The judge denied the mistrial request, and Owens argued that the jury should have received a curative instruction to disregard the incident. Boone now faces a minimum sentence of 22.5 years in prison, with her sentencing hearing set for Dec. 2. Her attorney's motion raises critical questions about the fairness of the trial and whether Boone's right to a robust defense was compromised. #SarahBoone #MurderTrial #NewTrial #SixthAmendment #ProsecutorialMisconduct #DomesticAbuseDefense #JusticeForJorgeTorres 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
The Sixth Amendment. Most of us take it for granted that if we're ever in court and we can't afford a lawyer, the court will provide one for us. And in fact, the right to an attorney is written into the Constitution's sixth amendment. But for most of U.S. history, it was more of a nice-to-have — something you got if you could, but that many people went without. Today, though, public defenders represent up to 80% of people charged with crimes. So what changed? Today on Throughline's We the People: How public defenders became the backbone of our criminal legal system, and what might need to change for them to truly serve everyone. (Originally ran as The Right to an Attorney).Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
