Podcasts about Sixth Amendment

Charlie Kirk Trial: Media Coverage, Public Trials, and Constitutional RightsFrom the Salem witch trials to those classic moments in To Kill a Mockingbird, and right on through to modern high-profile cases like the O.J. Simpson and Lindbergh trials, we've always loved a good courtroom drama. But as our technology has evolved, so have the questions: Should cameras or reporters have a place in the courtroom? And what rights are really at stake here?The Kirk Case Up CloseLately, a lot of us have been focused on the Charlie Kirk murder trial. I take a look at how the defense tried to keep cameras out, arguing that it would be prejudicial to their client. But the judge ultimately ruled against them—the cameras are staying, and the public gets to watch 02:18. That leads to the bigger question: What does the law really say about this?Media vs. Defendant: Whose Right Is It?Here's the real crux: The Sixth Amendment does guarantee a right to a speedy and public trial, but the Supreme Court has made it clear—that's the defendant's right, not the media's 02:47. So, while the public can attend, courts retain the power to keep cameras out. In fact, federal courts still ban cameras completely 02:59. Sometimes you'll get a sketch artist or special permission for audio, but that's it 03:16.The Legal LandmarksI walked through a couple of important cases. Back in Estes v. Texas (1965), the Supreme Court worried about cameras subtly influencing the courtroom process 04:00. Later, in Chandler v. Florida (1981), the Court refused to install an automatic ban on cameras, but said they could be excluded if there was a specific, articulable prejudice 04:55. In other words, you've got to explain exactly how it would hurt your case—not just say it might.Why Open Trials MatterWhat's the point of all this? I strongly believe public trials are a vital check against government abuse. As I said in the episode, “Our system loves sunshine” 06:40. When the public keeps an eye on the process, it's a lot tougher for things to go wrong in secret. That's not to say the system is perfect—but it's a lot better with the spotlight on it 06:56.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 2026 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At LawMentioned 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

Are We Watching Justice or Turning Violence into Entertainment?The Luigi Mangione case has become more than a courtroom story. It has become a national flashpoint overdue process, media hype, political violence, online mobs, and whether America still understands the difference between justice and entertainment.Is Justice Still Blind or Has the Crowd Taken Over the Courtroom?In this episode of Go Right with Peter Boykin, the Constitutionalist for Liberty, we break down the legal questions surrounding the Mangione case, including the judge's ruling on evidence, the importance of constitutional protections, and why due process must apply even when the accusation is serious. We also look at the disturbing rise of online fan culture around accused killers, the way media spectacle can distort public judgment, and why victims must never be erased by political narratives or internet fame.This is not just a courtroom story. This affects the rule of law, the First Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, public safety, religious liberty, civic order, North Carolina communities, and the future of our Constitutional Republic.Should America defend due process while also rejecting the glorification of violence?Watch, listen, share, and join the conversation.Read the full article:https://gorightnews.com/are-we-watching-justice-or-turning-violence-into-entertainment/Watch on Rumble:https://rumble.com/v7a34ye-are-we-watching-justice-or-turning-violence-into-entertainment.htmlWatch on YouTube:https://youtu.be/WCAjK0Bh6oIWatch on BitChute:https://www.bitchute.com/video/vYG44gDc398Z/Listen on Spreaker:https://www.spreaker.com/episode/are-we-watching-justice-or-turning-violence-into-entertainment--72072396Visit Go Right News:https://GoRightNews.comMore from Peter Boykin:https://PeterBoykin.comMusic and patriotic tracks:https://GoRightMusic.comSupport independent constitutional commentary:Cash App: $GoRightNews#GoRight, #GoRightNews, #PeterBoykin, #LuigiMangione, #JusticeSystem, #DueProcess, #FirstAmendment, #SixthAmendment, #RuleOfLaw, #PoliticalViolence, #MediaSpectacle, #CourtroomDrama, #StopPoliticalViolence, #ConstitutionalistForLiberty, #ConstitutionalRepublic, #AmericaFirst, #FreeSpeech, #LawAndOrder, #ReligiousLiberty, #IndependentMedia, #JusticeIsNotEntertainment, #Rumble, #YouTube, #Podcast, #PoliticalCommentaryBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/go-right-with-peter-boykin-the-constitutionalist-for-liberty--3096608/support.

The 2001 and 2002 trials in the yogurt shop murders case are a case study in how criminal prosecution can produce convictions without physical evidence. Robert Springsteen and Michael Scott were convicted of capital murder based solely on confessions that both men maintained were coerced. No DNA, fingerprints, or forensic evidence of any kind connected either man to the crime scene. The prosecution's strategy relied on graphic crime scene imagery to overwhelm jurors alongside the confessions.Critical constitutional violations compounded the problem. Each man's confession was used against the other without cross-examination rights, violating the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. The confessions contradicted each other on key details. Seven jurors later stated publicly they would not have convicted with the DNA evidence that emerged afterward. Springsteen, who was 17 at the time of the crime, received a death sentence later commuted under Roper v. Simmons. Scott, who had documented learning disabilities, received life.Part 3 of this series provides an in-depth examination of false confession psychology, interrogation methodology, and the structural mechanisms by which the criminal justice system produced death penalty convictions in the absence of corroborating evidence. A critical installment for understanding how wrongful convictions are built.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#YogurtShopMurders #TrueCrimeToday #FalseConfession #DeathRow #WrongfulConviction #SixthAmendment #CriminalJustice #InterrogationReform #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime

Richard Allen's appellate defense team filed a reply brief and motion for oral arguments before the Indiana Court of Appeals, characterizing the State's case as “superficial inference stacking” built on “tunnel vision into the wrong man.” Attorneys Stacy Uliana and Mark Leeman wrote that “the State's case was a paper tiger, and the trial court systematically barred Allen from lighting a match.”The defense's reply responds to the State's brief filed in March, which argued Allen's conviction should stand and characterized each alleged error as “harmless.” The defense counters that the cumulative effect of the exclusions denied Allen his Sixth Amendment right to present a complete defense.Key procedural issues include the admissibility of Allen's confessions, made during conditions the defense describes as producing psychosis. In one statement, Allen described shooting the victims, who were never shot. The defense was allowed to show video of Allen in solitary confinement but was required to mute the audio. The State's expert characterized the confessions as logical while jurors could not hear what the defense describes as confused ramblings.The defense also challenges the exclusion of alternative suspect evidence, including an individual whose interview was allegedly recorded over and whose weapon was never collected. Kegan Kline's catfish account — the last to contact one of the victims — was ruled a separate investigation.The motion for oral arguments is procedurally significant. The three-judge panel will decide whether to hear the case in person.Robin Dreeke and Tony Brueski take listener questions on the legal standards governing this appeal, the implications of the defense's “paper tiger” characterization, and the appellate court's range of options.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#DelphiMurders #RichardAllen #TrueCrimeToday #Appeal #ReplyBrief #OralArguments #IndianaCourt #ConstitutionalLaw #ListenerQA #LegalAnalysis

The investigative record in the Delphi case contains gaps that Richard Allen's defense team argues are not accidental. According to the reply brief filed with the Indiana Court of Appeals, investigators allegedly recorded over an interview with an alternative suspect. That individual's weapon was never collected. His phone was never searched. And the trial court ruled that presenting him as an alternative suspect was “speculative” — a characterization Allen's attorneys challenge by asking how something can be speculative when it was never actually investigated.The brief identifies three categories of constitutional error. First, the search warrant: Allen's attorneys allege law enforcement omitted and altered witness descriptions in the probable cause affidavit to make Allen match the “Bridge Guy” profile captured on Libby German's phone. Second, the confessions: Allen made statements during what his attorneys describe as solitary confinement that produced psychosis and grave disability. The jury was shown video of Allen in confinement but the audio was muted — they could not hear what the defense describes as confused, disjointed screaming while a prosecution psychologist testified the confessions were logical and organized. Third, the excluded evidence: Kegan Kline's catfish account, reportedly the last to contact Libby before she was killed, was ruled a separate investigation.The defense has requested oral arguments before the three-judge appellate panel. The State's position characterizes each alleged error as “harmless.” Allen's attorneys counter that the cumulative effect denied him his Sixth Amendment right to present a complete defense.Robin Dreeke and I address your questions on the investigative gaps, the evidentiary exclusions, and what oral arguments could mean for this conviction.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#RichardAllen #DelphiMurders #Appeal #ConstitutionalRights #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #AbbyAndLibby #IndianaCourt #ListenerQA #ExcludedEvidence

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

Welcome back to Lawyer Talk, where we break down legal topics so you don't have to go to law school! In this episode, Steve Palmer and Troy dive deep into the ins and outs of the "speedy trial" right—the constitutional and statutory protections, why the clock isn't as simple as it sounds, and what it all means for people caught up in the criminal justice system.What Is a Speedy Trial… REALLY?The Sixth Amendment gives you the right to a "speedy and public trial." Sounds simple, right? But as Steve points out at 01:05, the Constitution doesn't define just how "speedy" that trial has to be.States fill in those details: For instance, Ohio law (like many other states) sets specific timelines—270 days for felony cases, but only 30, 45, or 90 for some misdemeanors (02:10). There's even a "3-for-1" provision if you're stuck in jail, meaning each day counts as three (02:30).But—key point—starting the clock isn't just a matter of being arrested. “Tolling events” (things like filing motions, asking for more discovery, or even court holidays) can pause that clock (03:36, 04:13). It's a lot more complicated than just a stopwatch!Why the Clock Stops (and What Makes the Clock Tick)Motions filed by your defense? Time often stops while those are pending (04:13). Filing a demand for evidence (discovery), a motion to suppress, or a request to delay for expert testimony—these actions are all "tolling" events.Discovery delays? Sometimes the government dragging its feet can be used as leverage—like asking for a lower bond (07:29), but it might not count against their speedy trial clock.Judge too busy? If your day in court lands on a day the judge is occupied, courts have mechanisms to push the case without violating speedy trial rights (15:19). But there are limits!Case dismissed and refiled? Some waived rights in the first case may not carry over—a crucial, confusing detail that can make or break your defense (13:54).Strategy: Why Sometimes You Don't Want It FastAs Steve explains, it's not always in your best interest to rush through a case (08:09). Sometimes more time helps your defense—whether to complete DUI counseling, gather more evidence, or negotiate a better plea (08:47).Other times, speed is key: If it looks like the government can't get its key witness to court or screwed up your paperwork, insisting on your speedy trial right can mean winning on a technicality (12:03).The real lesson? Strategy matters. Always ask your lawyer to explain why they're waiving (or not waiving) your speedy trial right. If you don't get a straight answer, keep asking (09:36).Real-World ScenariosComplicated cases with mountains of evidence or dozens of witnesses? You might need to slow the process down for the sake of a strong defense (12:36).Minor misdemeanors charged right before a court holiday? The system's own schedule could win your case if you play your cards right (11:38).Discovery "hide and seek" by the government? Sometimes you can use their delay to argue a due process or speedy trial violation (17:00).Key TakeawaysSpeedy trial rights are a shield and, sometimes, a sword (17:08). They can be strategically used by both sides.The clock is NOT a simple stopwatch–it's more like a series of checklists, pauses, and conditions (17:24).Communication with your lawyer is everything. Good strategy depends on knowing what's going on with your case every step of the way (14:39).Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other 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 2026 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At LawMentioned 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

Episode 288-Elections Have Consequences-Sometimes Good Ones  Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 18 Gun Lawyer Transcript – Episode 288 SUMMARY KEYWORDS Gun laws, ATF, DOJ, President Trump, Second Amendment, interstate firearm transport, FOPA, administrative code, private sales, bump stocks, youth handgun safety, NFA items, Miranda rights, Fish and Game, hunting violations. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 2, Louis Nappen Evan Nappen 00:18 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:20 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And also with us today is Louis Nappen. So, we have a very special show, and it’s going to be very interesting in terms of things that you need to know to protect yourself. And some very, very exciting news here out of the ATF, the DOJ, and of course, this is due to President Trump. President Trump, as you may recall, ordered a full review of gun laws. Things that could be done to improve and change the laws, and this includes what are known as final rules and proposed rules. The rules are the Administrative Code. Evan Nappen 01:10 Under federal law, you have statutes that are passed by Congress and signed into law, and then you have what is the federal code. The code is done by administration. Those are the various agencies that propose rules that can and do, in fact, have the force of law, and they are used to interpret the law. These agency rules are very important in how courts and prosecutors will be guided, and the rules are extremely, can be extremely, helpful for individuals that face legal issues in being able to defend themselves. Now, of course, the Biden administration abused these, this rulemaking authority to create anti-Second Amendment gun rights oppression. Rules that he couldn’t get passed legislatively. Well, President Trump, through the DOJ and ATF, has put an amazing package together of 34 new and proposed rules, and I want to talk about a number of them and highlight ones that are particularly important. Evan Nappen 02:43 So, President Trump, remember, signed that Executive Order. It was EO 14206, protecting Second Amendment rights. (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/12/2025-02636/protecting-second-amendment-rights) Now, this review went on for a year, and now we see the fruits of this very Page – 2 – of 18 intensive review. One of the key things that is going to be of major effect to just uncountable numbers of gun owners is the easing of interstate firearm transport. There will be no more “gun free zone” nightmares. That is something he set out to do. I’ve looked at many, many sources, and many different articles, primary sources, and I just want to say that I found a great, great article here called “DOJ and ATF Release Landmark 34-Rule Package Bolstering 2A Rights” by GunStuff TV Reporter. (https://gunstuff.tv/doj-and-atf-release-landmark-34-rule-package-bolstering-2a-rights-easier-interstate-transport-ffl-sales-and-nfa-processes/) Evan Nappen 03:48 I found that this article did an excellent job. I just want to point out that, as this article states, the actual rule itself hasn’t been published, but information has gotten out. Get a load of what the new FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act), the new firearm interstate transport protections that are going to come. It’s going to absolutely make it explicit that FOPA, meaning the Firearm Owners Protection Act, protections for unloaded, locked firearms in vehicles, even with states with draconian assault weapon bans. Hint, hint. Like New Jersey, the DPRNJ, Democratic People’s Republic of New Jersey and other states. A new safe passage presumption for hunters, sport shooters, and travelers with valid permits from their home state. So, this is now laying groundwork here for administrative recognition of carry permits. A continuing step forward, honestly, for gaining full national reciprocity. This is a great step in that direction. Evan Nappen 05:10 Also, streamlining documentation requirements. No more notary-stamped affidavits just to prove you’re not a criminal. Again, with recognition of these documents laying more groundwork for national reciprocity. Enforcing, expanding and clarifying the FOPA for interstate transport. Let me tell you, folks. It’s something that we deal with all the time in the practice. We have folks coming through New Jersey who are getting arrested, getting charged, and we have to fight and assert Title 18-926a. With these Administrative Code changes, just on that alone, it’ll be of tremendous help. There are many other things in this bill. Let me give you some highlights. Not bill, in this Administrative Code. Here are some great highlights. They were going to remove the pistol stabilizing brace, full rescission of that so-called factoring criteria rule, where they turned millions of brace pistols into unregistered SBRs. Even though courts have already put injunctions on it, this rule will make it crystal clear as a Federal Code regulation. Teddy Nappen 06:28 Now the ATF won’t be trying to break down your door for them. Evan Nappen 06:31 Right! And then the “engaged in business” definition, this was a really evil thing that Biden and company did, where they expanded what “engaged in business” meant. So that if you just happen to sell a gun in a lawful private sale, they would claim that you are a dealer. They were trying to just destroy any private sales. Now, of course, in New Jersey, private sales are prohibited by state law, but in real America, they are not. This federal attempt to turn every private seller into a dealer is being removed and taken away so that the statutory standard returns to the standard from the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act deal. There’s also going to be, in machine guns, removal of bump stock Page – 3 – of 18 language to comply with Cargill, the Supreme Court case of Garland v. Cargill. They’re going to remove that language, get rid of it. So that it’s crystal clear about bump stocks, but New Jersey has their state ban. But still again, it’s great news. Evan Nappen 07:49 Federally, they’re ending the ridiculous Youth Handgun Safety Act notices. You don’t have to, you won’t have to have those signs everywhere and giving out pamphlets. That’s always the first thing everybody throws away, right? Just think of how many trees are going to saved by getting rid of that. So, that’s part of it. They’re modernizing paperwork, folks. It’s really amazing. They’re going to do a comprehensive overhaul of the 4473. That’s the paper that you sign federally. And they’re going to make it so that when you have a NICS check, it’s valid for even a longer period of time. They’re going to incorporate electronic forms in the way you can do NFA now electronically, and that’ll be way faster auto population. You’ll be able to go online, auto populate, have it filed, even before you go to a dealer. Evan Nappen 08:49 And even more interesting is that this is going to lay the groundwork for mail-order guns. That’s right, folks. Mail-order guns. How can that be? Well, I’ll tell you. Right now, you can, if you didn’t live in the DPRNJ, of course, you can buy a silencer, and it can be shipped directly to your door. Even when you buy, for example, from Silencer Central (https://www.silencercentral.com/), they have it all set. They have a network of dealers through the states where suppressors are legal. The paperwork is processed electronically, and the silencer gets delivered direct to your door through this network. With the changes happening here, you’ll be able to go online, find a gun that you like from who knows, one of the major distributors or companies that will be out there, online order what you want, and do your 4473 through an auto-fill interface. Making it even easier. The same way they do it now for suppressors. And that firearm will then be shipped to your door. You don’t even have to leave your home. So, that’s where this is going. Evan Nappen 10:08 It’ll expand it and make it so it takes another good slice out of interstate handgun prohibition. You’ll be able to purchase on a countrywide basis, even though there’s a local dealer network that gets incorporated. It will follow, I’m sure, the silencer model that you see operating right now. Allowing for electronic record keeping, getting rid of the infinite record retention. Remember now, they tried to make it so that every 4473, all the records, the A and D have to be kept forever. Nope. That’s going to be limited either to 20 or 30 years instead, and then they get destroyed. Setting up Easy Check, even better for FFLs, and easing same state sales so that you can get over this non over the counter sales issue that requires, again, physical presence, going to the store. All that. This system is going to revolutionize and modernize our ability on purchase of firearms. Evan Nappen 11:25 Of course, the interstate transport is major. Then, if you’re doing anything with NFA, because maybe you have dual residency or you live in a free state, as opposed to, let’s say New Jersey, and you have NFA items, well, some very interesting things here on the NFA side for the National Firearms Act. Right now, the way the law was, if you want to transport, let’s say, your full auto interstate from one gun legal state to another, you have to get permission in advance. They’re getting rid of that. As long as you’re Page – 4 – of 18 not going for more than a year, you won’t have to get advance approval for moving your NFA items. When you register to buy items through NFA, they’re going to allow joint spousal registration. So, you can just jointly own, let’s say a suppressor or full auto, or whatever you’re doing without the need to have a trust. Evan Nappen 12:28 They’re getting rid of, no more CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer) notification. So, that is an important start. Way back, we had where whenever you wanted to buy anything NFA, and it’s the old days of paper, of course, with NFA, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer wherever you lived, had to approve your NFA acquisition. Whether it was a suppressor, full auto, DD, SBR, whatever it was, they had to do the CLEO sign off. And if the Chief Law Enforcement Officer just decided, hey, I don’t think anyone should have one of these, and I’m not signing it, even though there’s no reason against you personally, there was nothing you could do about it. Nothing. You were dead in the water and couldn’t make your NFA acquisition. Lo and behold, NFA trusts became the loophole. If you set up an NFA trust, they were not subjected to the CLEO notification. So that’s why most folks went with that, because you avoided it entirely. Hence, ATF ended up with 10,000 trusts that was specifically getting rid of this rule. It led to the loophole. Let’s say we’ll call it that. The loophole creating the freedom, because then ATF said, guess what? We’re not going to require the Chief Law Enforcement Officer to have to approve it anymore. Instead, we just give them notice. They just get notice. Well, now they’re not even going to get notice. They’re out of the picture. There’s no reason for it. What? The federal government can’t handle it themselves? Of course, they can. No more CLEO notification. It’ll speed things up. On the interstate transport issue, just so you know, normal travel stops are going to be specifically acknowledged for what we call in New Jersey, reasonable, reasonable deviation, and I’m sure even more expansive than that. Yeah, Teddy? Teddy Nappen 14:50 Well, one of the things that, the big freak out that people seem to be having is with like, even The Trace. They were so freaking out of the proposal. (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/04/atf-gun-rule-changes-cekada/) They put out a whole article today, sorry, April 30, talking about like the they’re removing the modern gun reforms. They always like to play off like that every time. The thing they were pointing at the most is the attack on removing the predominantly earn a profit. The requirement for firearm sellers who predominantly earn a profit to get a license, which that was just a catch all weasel clause that they were going to heavily abuse if it had stayed. So, I just thought. Evan Nappen 15:35 That’s true. Teddy Nappen 15:35 I just thought and. Evan Nappen 15:37 They did, in fact. That’s what led to that individual when they made, I don’t remember his name right off, but he ended up shot and killed. He was a decent, law-abiding guy, where they tried to claim he was Page – 5 – of 18 acting as a private deal under this definition, and he was essentially, you know, killed over that law itself. Teddy Nappen 16:02 So, they’re aim is to close that. Evan Nappen 16:04 Yeah. This is closely get rid of. Teddy Nappen 16:07 The justification they always give is to close the gun show loophole, which is still a hoax. That’s a hoax. It’s already been disproven. I think it goes back to Obama, who said, like, I think it was the Arizona Gun Show for that to get to Illinois, which, that’s total crap. But, again, they never get tired of trotting out the whole false facts. Evan Nappen 16:32 Nope, they don’t. And this is great because it was the gun rights suppressors that are funded by, you know, our billionaire Leftist groups that pushed all this. That infiltrated through the Biden administration. That got federal funding, even to those organizations who, through their think tanks, created all these new ways of oppression. Trump is surgical, not just surgically removing everything that they put in, but expanding into wins for us across the board. It’s very exciting, and it’s great to see. It’s going to help so many people, even many, many of those that have cases pending now. Evan Nappen 17:27 Hey, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a range in Lakewood, New Jersey. They have a phenomenal range there. It’s where Teddy and I and Lou, we all shoot there. We all got our certifications there. They have a great pro shop, a great range, and great training. You need to check out WeShoot in Lakewood. You can go to their website, which is, of course, weshootusa.com. They have just wonderful folks. We love it there. I want to mention that on May 21 they’ll be having the Diversity Shoot at WeShoot. That’s with our friend Tony Simon. He’s back at WeShoot. And this is just a great night, an unforgettable night. It’ll be Thursday, May 21 ,and it’s only $20. Seriously, just 20 bucks. And there is free pizza. I think you can probably get your 20 bucks in pizza and drinks alone. So, go there. You’ll be able to talk with Tony. Have a real conversations about your rights and all the good stuff that we all care about. You’ll have hands-on experience, and you’ll get to try some really cool gear. Check out the great handguns and rifles. You’ll be able to shoot and get some training and learning. There’s range time, targets, you name it. It’s all covered, even rental. Everything’s covered. It’s great. They have prizes. This is an awesome event. Put it on your calendar, folks, for me, May 21st at WeShoot. Just check it out right online at weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 19:38 Let me also mention my book. I will shamelessly promote my book at all times. Go to EvanNappen.com and order your copy today. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all in a question and answer format that makes it easy for you to deal with the insane matrix of gun laws that exist in the DPRNJ. Speaking of Page – 6 – of 18 which, we have here today, my brother and ace attorney of the firm, Louis, who is going to be talking to us today about the very important. Wait, wait. Before we what? What, Teddy? Teddy Nappen 20:27 I just wanted to point out something. Again, I wanted it for the article regarding the whole ATF changes. I love how The Trace try to paint this as they’re adding new rules. Part of the package would make it easier for dealers to travel across state lines and stop for hotels, gas stations or food, even in stricter gun laws states. Evan Nappen 20:53 Oh my G-d! Teddy Nappen 20:55 I know. Yeah. Evan Nappen 20:57 It’s almost like freedom or something weird like that. Teddy Nappen 21:02 And almost like there isn’t the federal protection where you’re going from one place to another place, right? Evan Nappen 21:06 Oh, my goodness, The Trace. The Trace should make their logo like somebody just clutching pearls. They’re just pearl clutching all the time. Oh, please spare me. So, normally, you know, at the end of our show, we do the GOFU. But today, with Brother Lou here, we have a very important GOFU, and we’re going to expand and learn about this very serious GOFU that affects our sportsmen, our hunters, and firsthand, I want you to get a more in depth understanding. As you know, GOFUs are Gun Owner Fuck Ups, where gun owners make mistakes. This is a mistake that we’ve seen, and I don’t want you to make. Lou. Louis Nappen 21:57 I’d like to say hello to my brother. You said, I’m your brother. You’re also my brother. Evan Nappen 22:03 No way! When did that happen? Louis Nappen 22:05 Okay. So, what this one is, actually, you could call it a GOFAG GOFU because it’s Fish And Game. It’s a Gun Owner Fish And Game GOFU. Anyway, moving on. This is about. Evan Nappen 22:21 Yes. Please, quickly. Page – 7 – of 18 Louis Nappen 22:22 Ha, ha, ha. This is this about. Teddy Nappen 22:25 We’re talking about cigarettes. Evan Nappen 22:27 Okay, that’s right, and bundles of twigs. Louis Nappen 22:32 The situation here that I actually brought to Evan’s attention, because I currently have there was a big fishing game. When I say Fish and Game, you might know it as fish and wildlife or conservation officers. There was a whole slew that we got hit with to represent on, a whole bunch this year is a nice crop. I have three in particular that I’d like to discuss, and I saw the same pattern of GOFU in three different cases. So, three different hunters did these exact same, not the exact same thing, but they screwed up the same way. And I don’t want other hunters doing this. I want them to learn from others mistakes here. So, first off, in Fish and Game, it’s not about the fines. The fines, if you get charged, some people just mail it in. You know, it’s $50 because of some minor offense. They think that’s all. That it’s like an ordinance, but it’s not. These are civil matters that cannot be expunged, and that’s important. Why is that important? Because if you get a second Fish and Game violation conviction within five years, you lose your hunting privileges in New Jersey. This is New Jersey, how New Jersey operates. Not sure about, and I don’t want to talk about other states, because I’m not an attorney in other states, other than Vermont. But they cannot be expunged. And because of that, if you get another one, there is a chance after that, within five years, you can permanently lose your hunting privileges in New Jersey. That is a serious consequence of not doing something that we should all be doing, which I’m going to get to in a second. Evan Nappen 24:18 And there’s even more consequences. Louis Nappen 24:20 Yes. Evan Nappen 24:21 And that has to do with what? Your Second Amendment rights themselves. Why don’t you tell us? Louis Nappen 24:27 Well, I’d like to, if this is what you’re getting at, the Fish and Game violations when you have that, even the accusation to a point, they can be used in permit hearings, if you apply, because those are summary hearings. Evan Nappen 24:43 That’s right! Page – 8 – of 18 Louis Nappen 24:44 And so, they can say you’re not safe with a firearm. We’re not going to let you have a firearm. Evan Nappen 24:49 Exactly! Louis Nappen 24:50 Or if you get a weapon forfeiture, say you get a restraining order. Even if the restraining order is dismissed, they can then raise anything, anything. It’s summary in nature. It’s a kangaroo court. They can say, look at these Fish and Game violations you have. You don’t get firearms because it’s the same qualifications they’re looking at. Evan Nappen 24:52 More than that. We need the listeners to know that Fish and Game charges can lead to criminal charges as well. We’ve seen that happen. Louis Nappen 25:18 Yes! Evan Nappen 25:18 Keep going. I just wanted to have that. Louis Nappen 25:20 So, keep that in mind. Now, if a fish a Conservation Officer walks up to you. I can use these terms interchangeably. It’s how we talk about them. Sometimes derogatively, they’re called Fish Cops. I’ve heard that, too. But nonetheless, if you’re stopped by one of these, you think they’ll either come out of the tree, or what have you, you do have to show your hunting qualifications, that you are hunting properly. That you have the hunting license. So, you hand them that. It’s very much like being stopped in your car, and you need to show license, registration, and insurance. But that’s basically where that should stop, on your end, of cooperation. Similarly, in a car, of course, you know you should, at least in New Jersey with DUIs, you should also do the blow because you don’t want to have an automatic refusal. So, there’s only a few things under the law where you have to really do something, and this is one of those in that sense. Louis Nappen 26:20 But once you hand them your license and they say these look in order, or something like that, you ask, or you want to, you explain you want to go back to hunting. Am I free to leave? Is the term. And this is true out in the street. If you get stopped by a police officer, am I free to leave? Because that kicks in in your head, or it should. They don’t want me to leave. They’re looking for something else. They want more from me. These often. Evan Nappen 26:50 And if you’re not free to leave, you’re in custody. Page – 9 – of 18 Louis Nappen 26:53 You’re in custody at that point because you’re not free to leave. So, the bottom line is that should click in your head. That your Fourth and Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights kick in. Evan Nappen 27:06 That’s right. When you look at the those rights in the Constitution, they don’t say, you know, the right against self-incrimination, unless it’s a fish cop talking to you. No. There is no exemption for that. Louis Nappen 27:22 Exactly. They are law enforcement officers. I have to tell you, Evan, that all three officers in these different cases, there’s more than three because many, some of them had more than one there. They are very friendly. They would be very friendly, you know. But they are not hall monitors and crossing guards. That’s not what they are. They are there to enforce the law, and they will get you to talk by being friendly and chatty. You don’t want to fall for that. If they say you are not free to leave, they’re pushing for more than that. The bottom line is that at some point it’s less of an investigate. It’s not just merely investigatory. It’s actually an interrogation designed to elicit self-incrimination out of you. And that is when your Miranda rights should kick in. When they are questioning you, to get you to admit to anything that could be used against you. Louis Nappen 28:27 Now, let’s think about that in terms of what they are. You’ve heard it on every TV show, but what are your rights? Think about what they’re telling you in your Miranda rights. Now, they’re supposed to do that. But they can get more out of you, because they can claim at some in some aspects, that it’s investigatory and it was just a friendly conversation. Some judges buy that. Remember, this is Municipal Court judges. They don’t do a lot of Fish and Game cases, and they don’t think of it in these terms. They will tell you that you have a right to remain silent. Well, if you’re being told that you have a right to remain silent, remain silent! You have that right regardless of whether they read you these Miranda rights. Teddy Nappen 29:06 Out of curiosity, though, when you’re dealing with a Fish and Game officer, is there any other disclosures that you have to make? Or is it just the same standard, like a normal cop? Louis Nappen 29:18 Okay. The same as are you free to leave. It goes with that. They will ask sometimes to please hand over your firearm so they can safely put it to the side. If they take your firearm, you know you’re not free to leave because they have your firearm. You can’t hunt at that point. Evan Nappen 29:33 Also, keep in mind, if you’re lawfully carrying, you still have the Duty to Disclose. Louis Nappen 29:40 Good point. Page – 10 – of 18 Evan Nappen 29:41 Because you’re being detained. Louis Nappen 29:44 Yeah. Although, in New Jersey, typically. Louis Nappen 29:45 You need to immediately say I am carrying. As soon as you are stopped or detained, you have that obligation to tell the officer if you’re carrying, too. Louis Nappen 30:00 So, think about this, though, the next part of that famous paragraph. Anything you say, can and will be used against you in a court of law. Does it say, anything you say will be exculpatory so we won’t convict you? Evan Nappen 30:16 No. They’re not. Louis Nappen 30:17 They’re not saying that. They’re saying it can and it will. I don’t know of anybody who’s ever talked themselves out of a ticket or out of a citation. At best, it’s neutral. But almost always it’s you’re talking. You don’t even know what you’re saying. You’re saying things that may be used because you don’t know what they’re investigating. And that will be used against you. So, keep that in mind. You don’t want to talk. The next one is you have the right to an attorney. Well, as soon as you. Evan Nappen 30:45 Wait. Let me just. I need to say one other thing on that. You have a right to say nothing except, arguably, pedigree information. You know, who you are. You know, identify yourself. Louis Nappen 30:57 Yeah, you do have to identify yourself. Evan Nappen 30:58 But, short of that, you don’t have to say anything else. You need to keep in mind that police and law enforcement have a license to lie. They’re allowed to lie. You’re not allowed to lie. They are. So, anything they say, you cannot take to the bank because they have a license to lie. And I know of an actual Fish and Game case, not handled by us, where they accused a person of shooting a deer during bow season. Yet, when he checked it in, you know, it had an arrow, but they felt that it was shot. The person who checked it in wasn’t so smart, and the officers went and took a metal detector. They claimed that the metal detector picked up traces of metal, you know, lead or the bullet, even though it would not even have done that, and they convinced the person by gaming them in this way. And that’s perfectly fine. So, you can’t believe it. Page – 11 – of 18 Louis Nappen 32:00 Yeah. You have the right to an attorney. So, one of the things you could say, in addition to, you know, may I leave? Then, of course, what some people do is stick around. No. If they say, you have a right to leave, leave! Go back to doing something. Go to your car. Get the heck out of there. Evan Nappen 32:15 Right! This is like right out of with Clint Eastwood when Tuco, the guy goes in, you know, he starts talking, and Tuco shoots him from the tub. He goes, he goes, if you’re gonna shoot, shoot, don’t talk. Well, the same idea. If you’re gonna leave, leave. Louis Nappen 32:16 Right, right. Like Ron White’s joke. I had the right to remain silent, but I didn’t have the ability. Evan Nappen 32:45 Yeah! Ha, ha. Teddy Nappen 32:48 Uncle Lou, I just had a question regarding the actual bit of when you’re in the court, what is the setting? Is it more like a hearing when you’re dealing with Fish and Game violations? Louis Nappen 32:59 I’m gonna get to that in a little bit. Let me just finish with the Miranda here. So, you have the right to an attorney. So, what you can say is, am I free to leave? If they say, no, you say that I want an attorney. Questioning should stop as soon as you say, I want my attorney. If you can’t afford an attorney, one will be provided to you. That’s a joke, because you’re going to get a public defender who handles, if lucky, one Fish and Game matter a year. They are just going to want to settle something, maybe mitigate down to one or two, you know, whatever it is. You get what you pay for. And if you get a free attorney, you’re getting what you pay for. And then they ask you, do you understand these rights I’ve read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me? So, they’re telling you all of this. And then I’ll tell you, show you one person and one of these three cases, they were read their rights. They make you sign a form that you understand these rights. And then they went and spoke and showed them everything that they did. Why? Teddy Nappen 33:56 Because it’s the training. It comes back to law and order. Anything you show it’s the training of like, Oh, if I’m not a bad person, I’m not gonna lie. Louis Nappen 34:05 No, no. Of course, you’re going to be honest and put yourself honestly into a plea of guilt or finding of guilt. Okay. They don’t show you in the procedurals on TV. Every time they bring the defendant in, he talks. It’s ridiculous, but that’s beside the point. So, or it is the point. They are law enforcement officers, if I’m going to cut to the chase, and you do the minimum amount of interaction with them. If they approach you, then you have to do these things. But bear in mind your rights. Don’t give them away. Page – 12 – of 18 You’re going to do yourself a favor by not giving them away, not speaking, and you’re going to do your attorney a favor by not speaking. You won’t even get charged, most likely, if you don’t speak. Evan Nappen 34:57 Think of all the great men and women who sacrificed for those rights, and you’re just going to waive them? You’re just going to give them up? We have these rights, and we treasure our Second Amendment rights. Treasure all the rights. We have a right against self-incrimination, and you have a right to counsel. You want to take advantage of those rights. Louis Nappen 35:17 That’s right. Now, when you go to court, Teddy was just sort of indicating, I just want you to know one thing. In most municipal courts, you know, it’s the prosecutor who kind of runs the show and who you deal with. But that prosecutor, over the last 20 years that I’ve been an attorney, it’s become more and more and more. What I’m about to tell you. The prosecutor will only, pretty much in New Jersey, I’ve only seen one prosecutor try to stand up to it and got shot down because he had to speak to the upper echelon of Fish and Game personnel. You know, if it’s just a town cop, the prosecutor will sometimes override the town cop and say, look, you really want to push this? They’ll try to convince them to give something different or better and so that they can negotiate. Fish and Game runs the show, even though it’s a front that the prosecutor runs the show. When it comes to what they are allowed to negotiate, they will not. I haven’t seen it at all, much at all. It’s been at least 5 or 10 years since I’ve been able to do, for instance, get an ordinance instead of a fish and game violation. Evan Nappen 36:28 And there’s a reason for that. The money on a Fish and Game violation goes to Fish and Game. So, they’re there with their hand out, and they don’t want that money going anywhere else. They need the records that show convictions to keep notches, to keep promoting their budget and funding. Look what a great job we’re doing enforcing all these minuscule and often contradictory regulations. Louis Nappen 36:59 Yeah, so it’s about the notches on the belt. Teddy Nappen 37:01 For me, personally, I always just from all the stories and horror stories that I was told. I remember, Dad, you’re famous, the famous one. What was it? It’s a moose, get over it. It had to do with the Fish and Game. Evan Nappen 37:13 Yeah. After winning at trial, the Fish and Game officer was crying, literally crying. How do you live with yourself? To me, because I won. Well, I don’t know. How do you live with yourself, enforcing this kind of insanity. Page – 13 – of 18 Teddy Nappen 37:28 It’s the level of the, it’s the guy from The Untouchables. Let’s do some good. It’s that mentality of Fish and Game. It’s still, and there’s such abuse, like, Uncle, have you experienced? What’s your experience? Evan Nappen 37:43 Unfortunately, we see these. Teddy Nappen 37:44 What is your experience, Uncle Lou? Louis Nappen 37:48 First off, I just want to say I don’t even recommend hunting in New Jersey. That’s how bad it is. Because when are you not within 450 feet of a building? I mean, it could be any building. Evan Nappen 38:09 They particularly look for the ones that you can’t see. Louis Nappen 38:13 A word to the wise. I’ve had that case. Evan Nappen 38:15 Walk into that trap. Louis Nappen 38:17 I had a guy who shot for ducks, and there was a bit of a berm, so to say. And he didn’t know that over that berm was a house. He couldn’t see it. There is none. He didn’t. It was not in his line of sight. When he shot, it was fine. It was gonna go in the dirt if he missed the bird. It doesn’t matter. He was within 450 feet, as the crow flies. So, let me just. Now I just want to quickly kind of give with these. Some of these are ongoing cases. Of course, I will not reveal names or anything, but just to show you how this played out in action regarding three individuals within the last year. Louis Nappen 38:55 One person was hunting with his father, and they’re at their truck now. They’re not even still hunting. They were away from their hunting blinds or the places where they were hunting, and a State Police officer comes up and asked, were you hunting recently from this field? Yes, I was. Did you shoot? Yes, I did. That’s like, that’s questionable. Is it investigatory, or they tried to get you to self incriminate on something? It’s hard to tell the difference, isn’t it? And then she calls, I think it was a female officer, Fish and Game. They show up in more than one, and they mirandize these people. At that point, they’re not letting you go. They are telling you your Miranda rights. So, what should you do? You shut up. You don’t tell them anything. Evan Nappen 39:53 No, no no. You shut the f up. Page – 14 – of 18 Louis Nappen 39:53 Yeah, I know. Okay. You don’t. I’m trying it and you’re trying you. Because at that point, they obviously want to get you to admit to doing some things that they already sort of got you to tell a little bit to the first cop. But now these Fish and Game officers, they did what they should. I can’t blame them. They did what they should. Mirandize these people. They didn’t. Listen to everything I just read to you. You have a right to remain silent. They’re signing off on a sheet that states every one of these rights. Evan Nappen 40:20 If you are ever read Miranda, it’s like last gas for 500 miles. Don’t ignore it. Follow what it said. Yeah. Invoke immediately. There is no exception to violating Miranda. That’s it. You’re done. You only talk to your attorney after that, and you do what your attorney says. You make no statements. Louis Nappen 40:52 That’s right. Evan Nappen 40:52 I mean, come on. Louis Nappen 40:53 And if at that point they’re going to send you a citation, they’re going to send it to you because they already have your information from your hunting licenses. So, what happens after that? They proceed to show them where they were hunting, what direction they were pointing when they hunted, all the both, where both blinds were that they were in, what kind of rounds they were using, all the all of this. Teddy Nappen 41:15 This is starting to remind me of Alice’s Restaurant, when the guy litters and they take out all this stuff and equipment. Louis Nappen 41:22 Well, they did measurements and everything else, because you showed them where you stood when you shot. If you don’t show them where you stood when you shot, where you shot, and all that, how they gonna know if they weren’t there? Evan Nappen 41:38 Right! Louis Nappen 41:38 I have nothing to show you. Because, don’t forget, communication is part of that silence. It’s not just talking. If you’re walking them to a place or doing some motion or something, showing them how you held your gun in what direction, up high or low. This is all communication that you don’t have to provide. So there’s that. Page – 15 – of 18 Evan Nappen 41:59 Always abide by the Fifth Amendment. Louis Nappen 42:00 So, there’s one example. He proceeded to show them that. Okay, example number two. These are all actual cases that I’m currently involved in. Number two, a person hunting for deer. He’s up in his stand. It’s not a firearm. It’s crossbow related. Doesn’t matter, I guess. But he comes down, and the officer shows up, He hands him his licensing and everything, all in order, perfectly in order. But that Fish and Game Cop was not there to truly investigate whether or not he’s hunting. But if he could find that he wasn’t, that would be fine. He was there about a totally different kind of situation, about raccoon trapping. He started chatting with the guy. And the person chatted, thinking it’s a friendly conversation, and found out everything about it, about anything about raccoon trapping. Well, you know this and that. There were some traps around there. Have you seen him? And the guy just talked and tried to kind of obfuscate about some things, I think. But nothing. It’s understandable about like that other people are using this property. Teddy Nappen 43:13 I imagine he had like a raccoon skin hat. Evan Nappen 43:18 He didn’t have his 1920s rah, rah, football raccoon coat on either. Louis Nappen 43:28 Yes. So, long story short, they are talking to him for an hour. Evan Nappen 43:35 An hour. Oh, my G-d. Louis Nappen 43:36 And at some point he had to get home, and he said that early on. So, in other words, he was kind of indicating he didn’t want to be sitting there chatting, but he’s being friendly. The bottom line is, he gets charged, and he does, in all everything that’s been said, more or less, it’s a confession, and they used everything against him. Teddy Nappen 43:39 Quick question, do Fish and Game use body cam as well? Louis Nappen 44:00 Yes! Oh yeah. It’s all on body cam. It’s all on body cam almost always. It’s very rare that stop. This is what’s frustrating for me right now. The stop for the first one I mentioned when the State Police, who would normally wear body cam, they’re not yet providing it. I don’t think they have that for that quick, the shorter first interrogation. But all the Fish and Game officers, as they’re getting Mirandized and everything, that is all on video of them continuing and then everywhere he showed them of shooting from where, etc. So, that’s the second one regarding it had nothing to do with him having proper Page – 16 – of 18 licensing, and it was all just a way to get him to self incriminate doing an interrogation. He didn’t realize he was being interrogated. He thought it was a friendly conversation. At what point does your Miranda kick in? Is it just investigatory, or is it that you should have been told up front? Because people forget about that they have these rights not to have to speak. He should have just said, Am I free to leave? Or go back into his hunting stand? Louis Nappen 45:00 Okay, the last one here, but you can see how each person ignored their Miranda rights here, and that’s what got him cited. The last one is. Evan Nappen 45:11 That’s the GOFU! Louis Nappen 45:12 Fish and Game. Evan Nappen 45:12 Pretty simple, yeah. Louis Nappen 45:13 Yeah, right. A Conservation Officer, Fish and Game, comes right near the edge of a field. He comes up in his vehicle and approaches. This is a woman Hunter, which is kind of nice to see that happening more and more. The Conservation Officer immediately starts questioning. Immediately starts questioning. Hi, how are you? Friendly. Were you just shooting? Yes, I was. How were you standing when you shot? What direction did you shoot in? And all this. She proceeds to show him exactly what she did. I don’t know how much more detail I want to get into. Evan Nappen 45:57 No, but because of her statements, she gets charged. Louis Nappen 45:59 All she should have said is, here’s my hunting license. Here’s my license, and just handed it to him. Evan Nappen 46:06 Here’s my license. Louis Nappen 46:08 Like you do when you get pulled over. You just hand them the licenses. Or please take it off my back. Sometimes the hunting license is stuck on. You know, they’re in the plastic thing, whatever it is. Here they are. And if they start questioning you about anything. Evan Nappen 46:10 Just say, look, am I free to go? Page – 17 – of 18 Louis Nappen 46:23 Am I free to leave? I got nothing to talk about. Evan Nappen 46:27 Yeah. Say,well, I’m here to hunt, not to talk. Louis Nappen 46:31 And many of these people had even other excuses that they could have even said to make it seem more friendly. Even I’m leaving now, because my husband’s out there, and he expects me at the car. I’m leaving or anything. You don’t have to have an excuse, but often you have one. I got to go to the bathroom. Teddy Nappen 46:50 The best example to always, and I remember you always brought this up, Dad. Anytime, what was, what did Martha Stewart go to jail for? And I always say was it insider trading? No, it was lying to the police. If she did not talk, she would not have gone to jail. Evan Nappen 47:06 You cannot lie to the police. Right! Teddy Nappen 47:07 If she didn’t say anything, she would have been fine. Evan Nappen 47:10 Yep, yeah. Louis Nappen 47:11 I want to say one thing. This particular officer, in speaking of that, when he approached her after she shot, the very first thing that he said was, I saw you in my rear view, doing what you, shooting. But then he says to her, show me what you did. To get her to admit what he saw, allegedly. Evan Nappen 47:30 If he saw it, why does she need to show him? Louis Nappen 47:32 Exactly. Then you have it. Evan Nappen 47:35 Games, games, games. Teddy Nappen 47:36 I’m gonna say that’s a certain level of entrapment, like you’re telling them to do that. Page – 18 – of 18 Evan Nappen 47:41 Not necessarily entrapment. But that’s legal for cops to interrogate and to make. Maybe he didn’t see a damn thing. He could say anything. Louis Nappen 47:51 That’s right, that’s right. I think it happened on video. Evan Nappen 47:54 When they don’t have it on video, they could say, you know, we just had a witness come out who never did. I mean, it doesn’t matter. Louis Nappen 48:01 I honestly think he heard a shot, looked in his rear view and saw her shooting. But he didn’t see the shot. That’s my thought of, actually, what, what probably occurred. And that’s right. Evan Nappen 48:13 The bottom Line to all this, Lou? Individuals have to stand on their rights. Law enforcement is law enforcement. Fish and Game is law enforcement. Your rights apply there, as well as in a traffic stop and anywhere else. Stand on your rights. Lou, thanks so much for reviewing all that in detail. This is Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen and Louis Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 48:52 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E288_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

Reference Material: Day 7 Confrontation, Double Jeopardy, and Habeas CorpusCriminal Procedure Final Exam Prep — Mastering Justice and FairnessThis episode offers a comprehensive walkthrough of core criminal procedure concepts, essential for law students and exam takers alike. From the nuances of the Sixth Amendment's rights to speedy trial, impartial jury, and confrontation clause, to the complexities of double jeopardy and evidentiary rules—every doctrinal pillar is analyzed with clarity and practical insight.Most students overlook one crucial fact: in criminal procedure, the rules governing fairness often overshadow the pursuit of truth itself. This episode extracts the core doctrine from seven days of dense law—clarifying when procedural protections fail or succeed—and reveals why the system sometimes sacrifices facts to safeguard liberty.Step into the courtroom of constitutional criminal procedure as we unravel deeply interconnected protections: the speedy trial clock, the impartial jury mandate, the confrontation rights, and double jeopardy barriers. We break down Barker's four-factor test—showing how vague notions of “speedy” become a precise legal balancing act—and reveal the major trap students always miss: confusing statutory deadlines with constitutional standards. You'll discover how a constitutional violation rarely just results in a do-over; it often leads to outright dismissal with prejudice, emphasizing finality over accuracy.We explore the recent explosion of jury-selection rules, from voir dire challenges to systemic exclusions, culminating in Ramos v. Louisiana's victory for unanimity—an unmissable landmark. You'll learn how the Supreme Court shifted against non-unanimous verdicts and how the Batson challenge exposes the subtle dance of race- and gender-neutral jury strikes.Beyond the jury, we dissect the landmark Crawford doctrine—showing how testimonial hearsay, even highly reliable lab reports, can be excluded if cross-examination isn't possible. The episode reveals the high stakes of assigning “testimonial” labels and how the entire evidence landscape hinges on simple, but often misunderstood, definitions.Finally, we reveal how the double jeopardy protection, once thought absolute, hinges on exact timing—when jeopardy “attaches” and what makes two offenses the “same” under the strict Blockburger test—exposing the legal boundaries that stop endless prosecution. Always emphasized: the importance of understanding when the protections activate, and how exceptions like dual sovereignty or mistrials reshape the landscape.This episode isn't just a review; it's a blueprint for understanding the procedural fences that protect liberty and ensure a fair fight, even at the expense of factual certainty. Perfect for exam prep, inspired litigators, or anyone who needs to see how procedural rules serve a higher purpose: safeguarding individual rights against the immense power of the state.Are you ready to see the courtroom through a lawyer's most powerful doctrinal lens? Hit play and master the procedural pillars that uphold justice—because in the courtroom, the lines are never as clear as they seem.In this episode:Understand the constitutional standards for a speedy trial under Barker v. Wingo, including the four-factor balancing testClarify when and how the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial attaches, and the significance of Ramos v. Louisiana on jury unanimityLearn how the challenge process works during jury selection, especially Batson challenges and peremptory strikesGrasp the framework for analyzing testimonial statements under Crawford v. Washington and the importance of cross-examination for admissibilityDive deep into the double jeopardy protections, including when jeopardy attaches and the blockburger test for same offensesExplore the differences between harmless and structural errors on appeal, and the broader question of procedural fairness versus justice

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

Reference Material: Day 5 The Right to Counsel and Identifications Understanding the Sixth Amendment's Role in Criminal Procedure: From Basics to ComplexitiesThis episode offers a deep yet approachable exploration of the Sixth Amendment — its historical roots, when it attaches, and the limits that define its scope. As criminal law continues to evolve, understanding how rights are protected during various phases of prosecution is essential for any legal observer.Most wrongful convictions happen because of a single fragile piece of evidence: eyewitness identification. Despite decades of scientific research revealing just how unreliable human memory is, the law still relies on outdated tests and bright-line rules that rubber-stamp misidentifications. If you're serious about mastering criminal procedure—and protecting the innocent—you need to understand the critical distinction between the Sixth Amendment's exposure-triggered right to counsel and the due process analysis used when the law is suggestive or unreliable.In this episode, we break down how and when the Sixth Amendment attaches, the critical importance of the Wade-Gilbert rule, and the pervasive danger of suggestive police procedures like live lineups and photo arrays. You'll discover why the “Biggers Factors” often mislead courts, how scientific advances in memory research expose their flaws, and why confidence is the worst indicator of truth. We'll also explore cutting-edge reforms—like double-blind administration and sequential lineups—that are transforming police practices, even if they're not yet part of constitutional minimums.Most importantly, you'll learn a step-by-step framework to attack eyewitness evidence on exams and in court: separate the Sixth Amendment timeline from due process scrutiny, analyze suggestiveness and reliability independently, and understand the deep vulnerabilities posed by emerging technologies like deepfakes. With wrongful convictions on the rise, this episode is essential listening for anyone preparing to fight for justice in a scientific age.Whether you're a law student, a future attorney, or a judge-in-the-making—this is your guide to navigating the intersection of law, memory, and technology, and safeguarding the rights that protect the innocent.Get ready to see criminal procedure in a whole new light—because real justice depends on it.Main insights:The evolution from the pay-to-play system to the constitutional right to counsel, highlighted by Gideon v. Wainwright.The critical significance of attachment — the moment the Sixth Amendment right to counsel comes into effect, often misunderstood but vital for exam success.The offense-specific limitation, explained through the Blockburger test, demonstrating how defenses are confined to charged crimes.Practical implications of the waiver of the right to counsel, emphasizing the importance of a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver, especially post-2009 changes.Essential distinctions between pre-charge and post-charge procedures, with focus on the different applications of Fifth and Sixth Amendments.The Messiah Doctrine and its impact on undercover agents, jailhouse informants, and the deliberate elicitation of statements.The timeline for attachment and its critical role in analyzing police interrogations and lineup procedures, including problematic scenarios like warrantless arrests and informal interrogations.The offense-specific protection limits in lineups and identifications, sharp application of the Blockburger test, and the implications for uncharged but related crimes.Contrasts between the Wade-Gilbert rule, live lineups, and photo arrays, clarifying when counsel must be present and when identifications can be challenged as suggestive or unreliable.The Biggers Factors and their weaknesses in light of contemporary cognitive science, raising questions about reliability and reform strategies such as double-blind lineups, sequential procedures, and immediate conf

When Can Police Question You Without a Lawyer? – Moran v. Burbine ExplainedWelcome back to Lawyer Talk! In this deep-dive episode, host Steve Palmer and law student Troy unpack the realities of a suspect's right to counsel during police interrogations. Contrasting popular TV drama depictions with what really happens when the police want to question someone in custody.What Really Happens When the Police Want to Question You?If you—or someone you care about—gets arrested, you might imagine a lawyer dramatically bursting into the police interrogation room to rescue the day. But as Steve Palmer and Troy explain starting at 00:02, reality is much different. Lawyers are routinely denied access to individuals in custody before formal charges are filed, no matter how many times family members call or how urgently attorneys demand to be present.Moran v. Burbine: The Case That Changed EverythingMuch of the law on this issue stems from the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case Moran v. Burbine (01:06). Steve Palmer and Troy break down the facts: Burbine was picked up for a breaking and entering, but police suspected him of murder. His sister, unaware of the murder investigation, contacted the public defender's office, who then called the police to say “Don't question him, he's got a lawyer” (02:14). The police lied, saying they wouldn't interrogate Burbine until the next day. Instead, they immediately questioned him, obtained a waiver of Miranda rights, and got three separate confessions.Unbeknownst to Burbine, an attorney was trying to intervene on his behalf the entire time. According to Steve Palmer, this led to a key ruling: the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach until formal adversarial proceedings begin—typically at arraignment or when formal charges are filed (04:07). As long as police aren't violating Miranda requirements and the suspect hasn't affirmatively requested an attorney, questioning can proceed—with or without lawyer intervention (04:36).The Real Limits of Your RightsWhat about asking for “someone” or saying you “should probably talk to somebody” before answering questions? As Troy and Steve Palmer clarify, that's NOT enough (07:10). You must clearly state, “I want a lawyer.” Only then are police legally required to stop questioning (08:50).Even if police violate Miranda, the remedy is limited: your statements get suppressed and can't be used in the prosecution's case-in-chief. However, cops can use what you tell them to hunt for other evidence—and if you take the stand at trial and your story changes, those suppressed statements can sometimes be used to impeach you (06:03, 06:51).After Formal Charges: A Different BallgameOnce formal charges have been filed, and a lawyer enters an appearance, everything changes (10:23). Any further police attempts to talk to the suspect—about the crime in question—violate the Sixth Amendment and result in evidence suppression, regardless of a Miranda waiver.TakeawaysDon't trust TV: Lawyers can't simply storm into the interrogation room at the police station and stop questioning.Miranda Rights: You must say, “I want a lawyer.” Anything short of that leaves you vulnerable to continued questioning (08:50).Suppression is limited: Police can't use suppressed statements directly, but indirect, “derivative” evidence found as a result can often be used (06:07).After indictment/charges: Your right to counsel is firmly established, and any police interview must go through your attorney (10:23).Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other 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 2026 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At LawMentioned 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

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen this early on a crisp April morning in 2026, but here I am, coffee in hand, scrolling through the latest legal fireworks swirling around President Donald Trump. Just days ago, on April 1st, the Supreme Court chambers in Washington, D.C., echoed with oral arguments in Trump v. United States, a blockbuster case challenging Executive Order 14160. Rutgers Law School professors are calling it one of the most pivotal issues of the year, as it questions whether Trump's order redefining birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act holds water. Picture this: the justices grilling lawyers over who qualifies as a U.S. citizen by birth, with Trump's team arguing it bolsters national security while opponents cry foul on constitutional grounds. Rutgers Law highlights how this could reshape immigration law overnight, sending shockwaves through families across America.But that's not all keeping me up at night. Fast-forward to April 7th, and G37 Chambers' International Legal News roundup drops a bombshell from the White House. They're defending Trump amid Middle East tensions, stating outright that "the US President, Donald Trump was making the entire region safer." It's tied to broader foreign policy moves, like Syria's new Investment Arbitration Centre in Damascus, launched post-Assad to lure investors—moves Trump champions as stabilizing the chaos. Guernica 37's weekly updates from the International Criminal Court and European Court of Human Rights paint a picture of global legal chess, with Trump's administration pushing back hard.Shifting gears to the courts back home, the Southern District of New York is heating up with a wild twist on sanctions. The National Law Review reports that the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control issued then revoked a license for legal fees to defend former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores de Maduro. They're on the SDN List, facing narcotics and firearms charges after a dramatic U.S. Army rendition via Operation Southern Spear. Maduro's lawyers are firing back, claiming it guts their Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Fifth Amendment due process—echoes that make you wonder if similar sanction snags could ever loop in U.S. political heavyweights like Trump.Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's fall 2025 arguments in Fernandez v. United States and Rutherford v. United States linger like a storm cloud, potentially curbing judges' power on compassionate releases for prisoners. Rutgers Law notes this could trap countless inmates in "extraordinary and compelling" limbo, a reform battle Trump-era policies have fueled.As the sun rises here on April 15th, these threads weave a tapestry of power, borders, and justice that's anything but sleepy. From the Supreme Court's marble halls to Damascus streets, Trump's legal orbit keeps the world spinning.Thanks for tuning in, listeners. Come back next week for more, and this has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

I never thought I'd be glued to my screen at 6 AM on this crisp April 13th, 2026, watching the legal world swirl around President Donald Trump like a storm over Mar-a-Lago. But here we are, listeners, with the U.S. Supreme Court diving headfirst into his bold Executive Order 14160, challenging the very heart of birthright citizenship. According to Rutgers Law School's analysis of key issues to watch in 2026, this order seeks to redefine who qualifies for U.S. citizenship by birth, potentially clashing with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act. Oral arguments heated up just days ago on April 1st, as reported in coverage from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court proceedings, where lawyers like Peter J. Brann for the Senate President and David M. Kallin for the League of Women Voters of Maine squared off against Timothy C. Woodcock for the Republican National Committee. The stakes? A doctrinal earthquake that could reshape immigration law for generations.Just last week, on April 7th, G37 Chambers' International Legal News roundup from March 30 to April 3 highlighted the White House defending Trump, stating he was making the entire Middle East region safer amid foreign policy firestorms. But back home, the courts are buzzing. Picture this: the Supreme Court also just rejected Colorado's ban on conversion therapy in a March 31st update noted by Rutgers Law professors, a win for broader civil rights debates that echo Trump's administration priorities on limiting judicial overreach.Meanwhile, in a twist tying sanctions to legal battles, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, issued then revoked a license for paying defense attorneys in the Southern District of New York case against former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores de Maduro, per G37 Chambers. They're on the SDN List, facing narcotics and firearm charges after a dramatic U.S. Army Operation Southern Spear rendition. Their lawyers argue it violates Sixth Amendment rights to counsel and Fifth Amendment due process—echoes of constitutional fights Trump knows all too well from his own past tussles.And don't sleep on Trump v. CASA, Inc., where the Supreme Court in June ruled that universal injunctive relief likely exceeds federal courts' equitable authority, as detailed in Goodwin's emerging issues report for 2026. This curbs sweeping injunctions, handing a victory to executive actions like Trump's. With the D.C. Circuit eyeing CFPB overhauls under acting director Russell Vought, who wants to slash 88% of staff, these rulings signal a federal retrenchment aligning with Trump's deregulatory push.As the sun rises over Washington, D.C., these battles paint Trump as the epicenter of 2026's legal drama—citizenship clashes, sanction skirmishes, and court curbs on power. It's a high-wire act, listeners, blending policy wins with constitutional showdowns.Thanks for tuning in, and come back next week for more. This has been a Quiet Please production, and for more, check out Quiet Please Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.aiThis content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI

Tahiyrah Ali Free Chaz BunchI was 16 at the time of the arrest, held on half a million dollar bond, tried, convicted, sentenced and now struggling each day to understand what it is to live a life as a regular human being upon this Earth. There are many reasons that my case has not captured media attention, one being, I am not on “Death Row,” and do not meet the urgency criteria necessary to draw that spark of public attention. However, the sensationalism aspect has always been there, with the right reporting. Due to the fact that my case is only 16 years old, as if that is not long enough time for being in prison for a crime, I'm innocent of. One day is too long, but due to no significant injustice whereby the dramatic effect of our legal system's failure would invoke the participation of those working inside the system to assist in exonerating me I believe with your help I can receive the justice envisioned by the U.S. Constitution.On the day of my arrest, the threatening physical strength of the Mahoning County, Youngstown, Ohio detectives and police department resulted in the actual culprit, who admitted to every element of the crime, thus cutting a deal for partial immunity to implicate me as a co-conspirator and ultimately the principle perpetrator. Coupled with the prosecutorial misconduct of the state's attorney to manipulate witnesses and manufacture testimonies that procured a prejudice, bias, and partial trial that put me at a detrimental disadvantage. This is just a diminutive part perpetrated by the acting dignitaries surrounding my case, court proceedings and trial. During the course of my trial my constitutional rights were clearly violated with no one to fight for me and being illiterate didn't help. I was denied Due Process of the Law, Equal Protection of the Fifth Amendment and Effective Assistance of Counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, which ultimately resulted in the deprivation of my constitutional entitlement to a fair trial. I have been denied justice as it appears in the minds of the average citizen, and I believe that with media exposure and public awareness and support my case can again rise to the level of scrutiny. And that justice can prevail in the grand scheme of justice as is conceived in the minds of most American.https://freechazbunch.wordpress.com/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

In this deep dive into evidence law, we explore how courts differentiate between trustworthy and unreliable out-of-court statements through rules, doctrines, and constitutional safeguards. If you're preparing for a law exam or practicing law, understanding these intricacies is essential for navigating or challenging hearsay evidence effectively.Hearsay is the Achilles' heel of the trial lawyer — but what if your most critical evidence is just a ghost? This episode unlocks the secret pathways of evidence law, revealing how courts breathe life into out-of-court statements that seem beyond reach. If you've ever wondered how some ghostly hearsay makes it into court and others don't, you'll discover the meticulous rules and psychological tricks behind the exceptions that save vital evidence. From the eerie tomb of Rule 804 to the trusted ghosts of Rule 803, we dissect the precise legal architecture that transforms unreliable whispers into admissible proof.We break down the most tested hearsay categories with surgical clarity: tomb exceptions requiring absolute unavailability—think dying declarations and statements against interest—unlocked only when the declarant is truly gone or sealed away. You'll understand the PRISM diagnostic to navigate privilege, refusal, incapacity, subpoena failure, and memory gaps, avoiding common traps on exam day. Then, we shift gears into ghost exceptions, where availability doesn't matter—spontaneous, routine statements like excited utterances and medical reports can come in even when the declarant is right in front of you.But the real game-changer is the confrontation clause — the constitutional firewall that can block otherwise reliable hearsay if it's testimonial and the witness isn't cross-examined. We explore the primary purpose test that separates live testimony from information designed for future prosecution, highlighting why even the most reliable-sounding audio or written evidence can be barred in the courtroom. With historic cases like Crawford v. Washington and Shepard, you'll see how the Sixth Amendment reigns supreme over evidence rules when it comes to protecting your client's rights.For trial strategists and law students alike, we deliver a step-by-step protocol—an unbreakable five-part algorithm—to diagnose, analyze, and challenge hearsay in any scenario. Whether navigating complex paper trails, confessions, or police reports, you'll develop the mental discipline to spot the traps and leverage the law's lifelines. Our final frontier? The future of evidence: how to authenticate objects and digital evidence in a world of AI forgery and digital manipulation.If mastering the rules that turn ghosts into credible witnesses and understanding the constitutional limits that safeguard fairness sound vital, this is your definitive guide. Prepare to see evidence law with fresh eyes—more precise, more strategic, and absolutely essential for winning in high-stakes litigation.Main insights include:The fundamental distinction between Rule 804 (Tomb exceptions) requiring unavailable declarants and Rule 803 (Ghost exceptions) which do not care about availability.The five-pronged PRISM diagnostic (Privilege, Refusal, Incapacity, Subpoena, Memory) to establish genuine unavailability under Rule 804.The specific requirements for core hearsay exceptions such as dying declarations, former testimony, statements against interest, and business records.The crucial difference between exemptions, which are not hearsay by rule, and exceptions, which admit hearsay due to reliability.The significance of the primary purpose test under Crawford v. Washington that distinguishes testimonial from non-testimonial statements, impacting their admissibility in criminal cases.The critical five-step hearsay diagnostic protocol to navigate complex evidence questions on exams and in court.The constitutional prominence of the Confrontation Clause, which overrides even valid hearsay exceptions when testimonial statements a

This episode breaks down the fundamental ethical principles lawyers must navigate when their duty to clients conflicts with their obligation to the justice system. We explore core rules, real-world scenarios, and the evolving challenges posed by technology and complex cases.When does a lawyer's duty of loyalty to a client give way to the pursuit of truth in court? Surprisingly often — and understanding the rules that govern this tension could be your biggest advantage on exam day. This episode reveals the hidden principles and future challenges that define legal ethics at the highest level.Imagine sitting in court, knowing your client's testimony is false, and facing an impossible choice: stay silent or expose a lie that could destroy their case—and their freedom. The core dilemma isn't just about honesty; it's about safeguarding the integrity of justice itself. We unpack the critical trilemma identified by Professor Monroe Friedman, which forces lawyers into a seemingly impossible position—are they loyal to their client, the confidentiality of information, or the court's pursuit of truth? You'll learn how the rules of candor, confidentiality, and fairness interconnect and what happens when they clash.In this episode, you'll discover:The precise boundaries of Rule 3.3 (candor to the tribunal), including how “knowing” is interpreted and what mitigating circumstances exist when facts change after submission.The step-by-step process for dealing with client lies—from private remonstration, to seeking withdrawal, to mandatory disclosure—guided by pivotal cases like Nix v. Whiteside.How ex parte proceedings demand full disclosure of adverse facts and why that transforms the lawyer's role when an emergency hearing is at stake.The intricacies of client perjury: when a lawyer must confront an outright lie on the stand, and how constitutional protections like the Sixth Amendment interact with ethical duties.Why disclosing adverse legal authority (Rule 3.3(a)) is non-negotiable, even if it weakens your case, and how to strategically use it to bolster your credibility.The prohibitions on evidence tampering, witness inducements, and false testimony, including what constitutes improper payments, contingent fees, and the ethical pitfalls surrounding expert witnesses.The profound importance of disclosure in criminal prosecutions—how prosecutors' duties under Brady, Giglio, and Rule 3.8 ensure justice isn't sacrificed for conviction wins.Looking forward, this episode also challenges you to consider how emerging AI technologies threaten to blur the lines of what constitutes “knowledge” and “knowing.” As evidence generation becomes more automated and less verifiable, the rules governing truth and deception will be tested in unprecedented ways.Perfect for exam takers and practicing lawyers alike, this deep dive arms you with a clear, practical framework—mental checklists to handle ethical dilemmas when your professional duties pull in opposite directions. At the core, it's about defending the integrity of the legal process, even when it feels like the right thing to do is the hardest.Whether you're mastering the ethics rules or preparing for your toughest questions, this episode will elevate your understanding of the role of the lawyer as both zealous advocate and officer of the court—and why that balance is crucial for justice.

This Day in Legal History: Mississippi Ratifies 13th AmendmentOn March 16, 1995, Mississippi took an unusual step in American constitutional history by formally ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime, had already become part of the Constitution in 1865 after the required number of states approved it. Mississippi, however, had originally rejected the amendment during the Reconstruction era. For more than a century afterward, the state never revisited the issue, leaving it as one of the few states that had not formally ratified the amendment.Although Mississippi's approval in 1995 had no legal effect on the validity of the amendment, it carried symbolic weight. Lawmakers described the vote as an effort to acknowledge and correct a lingering historical omission. The action highlighted how the constitutional amendment process operates: once three-fourths of the states ratify an amendment, it becomes law for the entire nation, regardless of whether every state agrees. In other words, Mississippi had been bound by the Thirteenth Amendment for 130 years before its legislature finally endorsed it.The event also reflected a broader trend in which states reconsider and symbolically ratify long-standing constitutional amendments they once opposed. Such actions often serve educational or reconciliatory purposes rather than legal ones. Mississippi's vote functioned as a public acknowledgment of the amendment's moral and constitutional importance. The late ratification became a reminder that constitutional history does not always end when an amendment is adopted. Instead, the meaning and recognition of constitutional change can continue to evolve long after the law itself is settled.President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to strengthen enforcement of “Made in America” labeling, particularly for products sold online. The order instructs the FTC to prioritize cases against companies that falsely claim their goods are made in the United States. According to the administration, many online sellers market products as American-made even when significant parts or manufacturing occur overseas. The order emphasizes that consumers should be able to rely on clear and accurate country-of-origin claims when shopping.To address the issue, the FTC has been directed to consider new regulations requiring online retailers to verify that products advertised as “Made in the USA” actually meet legal standards. If sellers fail to confirm those claims, the order states the conduct could violate the Federal Trade Commission Act. Federal agencies responsible for country-of-origin labeling are also instructed to coordinate with the FTC to ensure consistent guidance for businesses. In addition, agencies involved in federal procurement must review origin claims for goods purchased through government contracts. Vendors that misrepresent product origins could be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice.The order comes amid growing litigation over allegedly misleading “Made in America” marketing. Several companies have faced lawsuits claiming their branding implies domestic production even when manufacturing occurs abroad. Examples include disputes involving a coffee company accused of implying its products were American-made and lawsuits challenging origin claims for household products like aluminum foil and kitchenware. These cases highlight the legal risks companies face when marketing goods as domestically produced without meeting regulatory standards.Trump Executive Order Targets ‘Made In America' Labeling - Law360U.S. prosecutors are defending a decision to block Venezuelan government funds from being used to pay for the legal defense of former Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro in his U.S. criminal case. Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, are facing federal charges in New York related to drug trafficking and have pleaded not guilty while awaiting trial in custody.Maduro's lawyer asked a federal judge to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the U.S. Treasury Department improperly revoked an earlier sanctions exemption that would have allowed the Venezuelan government to cover his legal fees. According to the defense, Venezuelan law and tradition require the state to pay for the president's legal expenses, and blocking those funds interferes with Maduro's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.Federal prosecutors responded that the exemption allowing government funds was granted by mistake and later corrected. They argued that Maduro should not benefit from Venezuelan state money because the United States has not recognized him as the legitimate leader of Venezuela for years. Prosecutors also emphasized that he and Flores remain free to use their personal funds to hire lawyers.The dispute highlights how U.S. sanctions and foreign policy can intersect with criminal proceedings in American courts. A federal judge in Manhattan is expected to address the legal funding issue during an upcoming court hearing.US prosecutors defend block on Venezuelan state funds for Maduro's defense | ReutersA federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked two grand jury subpoenas connected to a Justice Department investigation of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. The subpoenas sought records about a costly renovation of the Federal Reserve's headquarters and Powell's testimony to Congress about the project. Prosecutors had opened the investigation to examine whether Powell misled lawmakers regarding the renovation's rising price tag.U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg granted the Federal Reserve Board's request to quash the subpoenas, concluding that prosecutors issued them for an improper purpose. The judge determined there was strong evidence the investigation was intended to pressure or harass Powell rather than uncover a legitimate crime. In his ruling, Boasberg noted repeated public attacks on Powell by President Donald Trump and other officials over the Federal Reserve's interest-rate policies. The court found no meaningful evidence that Powell had committed fraud or lied to Congress. The judge also pointed out that construction projects often exceed budgets and that the Fed's inspector general had already reviewed the renovation without identifying wrongdoing.The U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia criticized the decision and announced plans to appeal, arguing that the ruling undermines the grand jury's ability to investigate potential crimes. Meanwhile, the decision has intensified political debate over the independence of the Federal Reserve. Some lawmakers argue the investigation threatens that independence, while others say the probe should continue. The dispute also complicates efforts to confirm a potential successor to Powell as Federal Reserve chair, whose term is set to expire soon.DC Judge Blocks Subpoenas Targeting Fed's Powell - Law360The Trump administration is opposing the federal judiciary's effort to gain independent control over its courthouse buildings, arguing that the judicial branch lacks the expertise to manage large real estate operations. The dispute centers on whether responsibility for courthouse construction, maintenance, and leasing should remain with the General Services Administration (GSA), which has long managed federal buildings for the government.In a letter to the judiciary, GSA Administrator Edward Forst criticized the proposal and warned that giving the courts full authority over their facilities could lead to increased spending and reduced oversight of taxpayer funds. He cited data showing that while the judiciary accounts for a significant share of rent paid to the GSA, courthouse facilities represent an even larger share of federal spending on major building repairs and alterations. Forst said the agency will review courthouse repair and maintenance requests to ensure funds are used appropriately.Judicial officials, however, argue that the current system has left courthouses in poor condition. The Judicial Conference recently asked Congress to allow the judiciary to take over management of certain courthouse properties, citing an estimated $8.3 billion backlog in needed repairs. Court officials say the proposal would begin with a limited transition involving only a small number of districts and major courthouse buildings.The disagreement comes amid broader tensions between the judiciary and the Trump administration. Court leaders have also raised concerns that recent government reorganization and staffing cuts at the GSA have slowed security improvements and building maintenance at courthouses nationwide.Trump administration calls judiciary ‘ill-equipped' to manage its courthouses | 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

Episode 281-Don’t be a Dingus about the Dingus Law Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 12 Gun Lawyer — Episode 281 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS New Jersey gun law, accidental discharge, Fifth Amendment rights, criminal charges, licensing revocation, public health safety, misdemeanor offense, felony conviction, reckless conduct, gun safety, legal advice, jury trial, Second Amendment rights, gun ownership, legal protections. SPEAKERS Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 2 Evan Nappen 00:16 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:17 And I’m Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen 00:19 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Say, Teddy, I see you sent me something interesting that you found online. Teddy Nappen 00:26 Well, I always like to check on the Reddit retards to see what they’re saying. Evan Nappen 00:32 Oh, my God. And yeah, you did find some stuff that is very much of concern here, because I don’t want to see any of our people have a problem or get into trouble. And it made it clear to me just how important this Accidental Discharge (AD), the Dingus Law, in New Jersey, is. It is having a tremendous effect, and folks have got to know about it. They’ve got to understand that this is genuine. Teddy Nappen 00:59 And also to be clear, not everyone on Reddit is retarded, but everyone who’s retarded is on Reddit just saying. Evan Nappen 01:06 Ah, okay. Well, I’m glad to know the rules here. But what I want to do is go through the commentary to a certain degree. It is extremely important that individuals don’t make this mistake, because this change is dramatic to New Jersey’s law. And then it instantly has put forward Fifth Amendment rights that must be utilized by gun owners in New Jersey in order to protect themselves. Because the ramifications here are not just criminal, not just potential exposure to a year and a half in State Prison for a mere accident, but also loss of your Second Amendment rights. And not just loss of your rights from becoming a Page – 2 – of 12 convicted felon. Even if criminal charges are not pursued, you’re still going to face potential licensing revocation, pulling you in under the disqualifier of public health, safety, and welfare, what I call the all-inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause that they will use to further disarm you. Evan Nappen 02:19 I’ve encountered case after case after case after case of this. I’ve been, you know, practicing New Jersey gun law now for 40 years. I’ve seen what accidental discharges cause to the individual. I’m not making this up. This is real, and it is a real concern. And they’ve just poured gasoline on the fire by passing this new law that essentially criminalizes this to a degree that it has never been criminalized before. So, our rights become even more critical, and I want to make sure that folks understand this law. So, I’m going to review it and talk about some of the misinformation and such that is out there. And how, again, the anti-Second Amendment, the gun rights oppressionists, how they have structured this law to get it through. To make it have a facial appearance, and yet its effect is hidden until it pounds you, the unsuspecting gun owner. I understand how this system works, and I’ve seen what they do. So, they pass these laws, and in effect, they’re sneaky as all hell. This is a sneaky law that is there to disenfranchise gun owners. Teddy Nappen 03:57 Also the fact that anyone who thinks, oh, this will never happen to me. Oh, I’m a very responsible gun owner. They hate you. That is why they’re laying these traps. And anyone who thinks that this can’t happen to you, tell yourself, oh, I’ve never been in a car accident before. Anyone has ever thought that until it happens. Evan Nappen 04:19 Man, I cannot tell you how many times in the practice of gun law in New Jersey, I’ve had the client say, man, I never thought I’d be calling you. I’ve heard that uncountable numbers of times. I never thought I’d be calling you. Yet here I am. And, frankly, I want the word out so people understand this, and I’m going to deal more with that very fact and the reality of that in some of the commentary that’s here, because it also deserves to be addressed. I’m going to do that. Evan Nappen 04:53 So, first, let’s take a look at the law so you can really understand what the traps are. They’re sneaky tricks. How they passed this, and they know what they’re doing. They know what they’re doing. And they fool the public and create the ability here for the oppressionists to go after the unsuspecting folks that are thinking they’re doing the right thing. So, New Jersey, as you may or may not know, has utterly criminalized accidental discharge, and it is now in law, signed by Murphy. (https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2024/A5000/4976_R2.PDF) Evan Nappen 05:36 The law begins by talking about “recklessly”, and saying, oh yeah, recklessly has the same meaning found in the criminal law. It’s what reckless has always meant, and we will review that in a minute. Then it goes on to define what a structure is. And it says. “‘Structure’ means any building, room, ship, vessel, car, vehicle, or airplane, and also means any place adapted for overnight accommodation of persons or for carrying business therein.” Okay, that’s about as broad as you can get. It’s almost everywhere, Page – 3 – of 12 right? Almost everywhere. So, why is that important? Because it’s that “structure” trick, that “structure” trap, that they weave into the law here. So that if you have an accidental discharge, even though they’re selling this law, look, a person commits a disorderly person’s offense. That’s the New Jersey level of misdemeanor. It’s just a DP. It’s not a felony, just a disorderly person’s offense. Evan Nappen 06:37 “. . . by recklessly discharging a firearm using live ammunition rounds unlawfully or without a lawful purpose . . .” And there you go. It’s so freaking reasonable. It’s so reasonable. No, it is outrageously unreasonable. And here’s why. Because when you actually are going to face this, here’s what’s going to hit you in the face, folks. Here’s what it’s going to be. Number one, oh yeah, it’s a disorderly person’s offense. So, hey, at least it’s not a felony. I’m not going to become a convicted felon, right? Well, if you go down a little bit in the law, it says. A person who commits a violation of this section shall be charged with a crime of one degree higher than what would ordinarily be charged if the violation occurs within 100 yards of an occupied structure. Wait a minute! That occupied structure was any building, room, ship, vessel, car, airplane, or any other place that’s adopted for overnight accommodation or for carrying on business. Oh, you mean, basically, everywhere! Evan Nappen 07:46 Oh, so, wait a minute. It’s one degree higher for just about everything. Unless you’re in the middle of the woods and have an AD with the trees, that’s about it, you know. Short of that, you’re just about guaranteed to be within a structure, the way they’ve written, “within 100 yards of a structure”. It’s one degree higher. Well, what’s one degree higher than a disorderly persons offense? Felony level, fourth degree crime. Felony level. A year and a half in State Prison, folks. Okay? What does that mean? It means that is a disqualifier for the entire United States if you become convicted of that AD charge. Even if you don’t get a day in jail, it’s a fourth degree felony. You’re officially a convicted felon and a prohibited person, disenfranchised of your gun rights for the entire United States. So, that’s what an AD now means in New Jersey. Felony conviction. It would be the rarest of exception if it wasn’t charged as at least a fourth degree felony in New Jersey. So get that through your head first, straight away. Evan Nappen 09:10 Now, what about this reckless, recklessly, reckless. Okay. So, here going into Reddit.com and looking at the discussion and what have you. Okay, that’s all good. One of the folks there said they don’t agree with me, but I’m not a lawyer, and no sense taking a risk. You don’t need to. But then they go and quote, “recklessly” discharge. You can emphasize reckless, and then pull the legal definition of reckless, which is fine. You may recall, we actually even in the show. We discussed it. We reviewed reckless. Let’s take another look so we can fully understand what reckless means in New Jersey and how it interweaves to this new law. So, recklessly, a person, now this is the definition in New Jersey law of just recklessly. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense, when he consciously disregards a substantial risk, a substantial and unjustifiable risk, that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation. Page – 4 – of 12 Evan Nappen 10:50 Okay. I know that’s confusing or sounds like a lot of legal mumbo jumbo. It’s not, and let me show you where the pressure points come in, where the gotchas are there for New Jersey citizens. In reality, in the reality of the practice of law here, conscious disregard. Again, what? There is a consciously disregard substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists. What’s the material element existing in the AD? That a gun will fire. Okay? Material element. You’re disregarding that a gun will fire. And why would a gun fire? Well, if the actor’s conduct and circumstance is known to him. Do you have a gun in your hand? Is that known to you? Yes, it is. Do you know that guns fire when the trigger is pulled? Yes, you do. Gross deviation from the standard of conduct. Well, everyone knows the basic rules of safety, right? Make sure your gun is unloaded. Make sure your gun is unloaded. Did you just grossly deviate from standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe? And that’s it. You betcha you did. You bet you that they can. Evan Nappen 12:11 And I’ll tell you what. You may say, no, no, it was an honest mistake, an accident. I didn’t realize, for whatever reason. A reasonable person. Who is a reasonable person? What is a reasonable person? How is reasonable person determined? And I’ll tell you how it’s determined. By 12 people who aren’t smart enough to avoid jury duty. That’s who’s going to determine your level of reasonableness when handling a gun. That you know goes bang. That you know can discharge, and there happened to somehow, while it was in your control, end up with a round that went bang. Do you want that in front of a jury in New Jersey? Do you think that’s fine? You can just say I didn’t consciously disregard it. Yeah, do you see where we’re going? Evan Nappen 13:05 And wait. Now it gets worse. Now it gets way worse. It gets way worse because of how they wrote this law itself. Let’s go back to the law itself. It says a person commits a disorderly person’s offense, which we already talked about, is automatically getting upgraded to felony, by recklessly discharging a firearm using live ammunition rounds unlawfully or without lawful purpose. You tell me what accidental discharge has a lawful purpose. Obviously, there’s no lawful purpose because it’s an accidental discharge. So, every accidental discharge becomes one without lawful purpose. And a jury is going to be thinking about this law and saying, well, reckless. He had a gun. It was loaded, and he didn’t have a lawful purpose because it went off without a reason. And boom, there you go. There you go. Evan Nappen 14:06 You instantly, now, on an accidental discharge, have Fifth Amendment protections, a right against self incrimination, and you need to stand on those rights. If you self-report, if you do that, you are incriminating yourself. You are giving up your Fifth Amendment rights when it comes to an AD. And I say, do not do that. You have a Constitutional right against doing that. If you choose to give up your Fifth Amendment right, what will happen? Your Fourth Amendment rights are going to be brought in because they’re going to want to search and seize, take your guns, and that is routinely what happens. Then you’re going to face the criminal charge, and then you’re going to face the licensing, disenfranchisement of your Second Amendment rights and the forfeiture of your firearms. This is the escalation that I’ve seen occur over and over and over again. And that’s without the enhancement that New Jersey has just dumped on Dingus, okay? Page – 5 – of 12 Teddy Nappen 15:22 It actually reminds me. You know what it reminds me of Dad? Evan Nappen 15:26 What? Teddy Nappen 15:26 When you deal with guns, you do so at your peril. Evan Nappen 15:30 100 percent, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 15:32 If they’re going to go into that courtroom. Evan Nappen 15:34 And that is actual case law in New Jersey. When dealing with guns, you do so at your peril. That is New Jersey court case law, folks. Case law, not just a slogan. It’s actually how they look at it. And so here I am. I’m trying to warn folks. To tell folks. It’s my calling in life. This is what I do. It’s what I believe in, from the bottom my heart. Fighting for our Second Amendment rights. Making the education of these traps out there so that you can protect yourself. And then there’s this kind of comment in Reddit that just makes me go, you know what? Unbelievable. Here. Keep in mind that Nappen sells books, event tickets, legal insurance and legal services. The guy has incentives to scream, the sky is falling, and he’s been doing so for decades. Parentheses, he’s more right than wrong, though. Well, thanks for that little he’s more right than wrong. Evan Nappen 16:39 Let me just tell you something, man. If you think that that’s my objective here, to freaking sell books. The books are a labor of love. I can make more money working at McDonald’s than selling books. And event tickets? Event tickets, are you kidding me? Ten bucks and you get it back when you attend it, if you’re even charged. Legal insurance? It’s not insurance. It’s a member program. I’m the Independent Program Attorney for them. That’s not my program. I’m just an attorney for them, because I want to defend people in that. My incentive to scream to the sky is not that the sky is falling, but that it has fallen. That New Jersey is out to screw gun owners left and right. I deal with it on a daily basis and seeing it. And my mission here is to educate the people I care about, you guys and gals. To be warned, to realize the traps, to realize what it’s like trying to live as a law-abiding gun owner in this God forsaken state that constantly tries to oppress us. That’s what it’s about. That’s what it’s about. Evan Nappen 17:56 It is kind of annoying to see that kind of a statement made, because a person is clueless, clueless. And even if you think about it, if I was really about that, if I was really about making the money, why would I warn anybody? Hey, the more accidental discharges, the more criminal charges, the more licensing revocations and forfeitures, that means more work for me. Why would I want to tell anyone about it? Page – 6 – of 12 Let’s just let the system keep crunching people, destroying people, and I’ll make even more money, right? But I don’t do that. Do I? No, I try to make it so you don’t have to become a client of Evan Nappen’s. Just the opposite, pal. Just the opposite. So, keep it in mind. I’m here trying to protect people. I’m here trying to educate people. I’m here fighting for our rights, one gun law victim at a time that I would rather never have seen become a victim of New Jersey gun laws. Teddy Nappen 19:10 What I look at Dad is, remember when Shaneen Allen? When all of that, everything had broken through with that? It was, what was it? 100 pending cases? Of the exact same charge that had to be changed because of the ruling of that case. Evan Nappen 19:27 By fighting there and changing it, we succeeded, Teddy. Right! Right at that moment even, of saving 100 pending cases. Hey, that would have been a ton more work for me, and I could have made a lot of money. Why would you do that? Why would you educate? Why would you go out there and try to make these changes? Why would you fight for rights? I mean, hell, it’s like saying I’m a cancer doctor and I want more cancer so I can make more money. Really? Seriously? Do you really think that’s what it’s about? Well, it isn’t, folks. Because you don’t dedicate your life to what you believe in for that. You’d know it! Come on. It’s crazy, crazy stuff. I’m here. I want you to protect yourself. Beware of the Dingus law, and I’m happy to say that since we’ve been talking about this, I’ve had less Dingus cases, substantially less. And that’s very interesting. I think the word’s out. I think people are learning this is how you have to be. It’s good. And those that have called and have followed the advice. We’ve been able to save them. We’ve been able to not have them become the supplier of their own rope to hang themselves with. So, this is critical and important. Teddy Nappen 20:46 It honestly reminds me of you. Do you remember that scene in Better Call Saul? Where it’s Kim? She’s the public defender, and I think she’s representing this guy. He’s about to get like, I think, maybe 10 years in prison, and she negotiates it down all the way to, essentially, like, it was three months community service and probation. Evan Nappen 21:08 Exactly. Teddy Nappen 21:09 She negotiates it down. She just turns something that would have been a 10 years jail sentence. He walks out with her, and the first thing out of his words, three months? Could you’ve done better? It’s the level of no appreciation for this shit that has gone down. Evan Nappen 21:29 Ungrateful clients. Yeah, we’ve, we’ve, heard of those. We’ve heard of such things as ungrateful clients. But the system is unbelievable when it comes to New Jersey’s oppression and the turning into criminals of law-abiding citizens. And if the actual lame stream media ever actually covered it, maybe they would finally quit doing it. But of course, they’re in cahoots with the same powers that be, because they hate Page – 7 – of 12 us just as much. So, this is why we’re here, doing Gun Lawyer, trying to educate. We want you to be protected. It’s the reason for the books to be out there. So that something’s out there explaining it, and you can hopefully protect yourself. It’s why we do it, and that’s really what it is. Evan Nappen 22:21 Look, folks, if I wanted to make money, I’d go be a personal injury attorney, right? Go do that kind of garbage. It’s not what I believe in. I do this because it’s what I believe in. That’s why we’re here, doing it. If we didn’t believe in it, there are plenty of ways to make a hell of a lot more money than by being a gun lawyer. But that’s not what it’s about. It’s about doing something for a cause, and feeling that your life has meaning because you’re doing that. Evan Nappen 22:48 And that is also why I want to mention our good friends at the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. Because they have a cause, and their cause is fighting for our rights. They are the largest gun rights group in New Jersey. They’re the NRA affiliate. You need to be a member of anjrpc.org. Make sure you join, make sure you get the newsletter, make sure you get the email alerts, and stay in the fight. Be part of the solution. Join anjrpc.org. Evan Nappen 23:19 And also our really great, great friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is an indoor range in Lakewood, New Jersey. It’s where Teddy and I both shoot. It’s where we get our training. It’s where we got our certifications. They have a great pro shop, great guns. A lot of good toys there. They got a lot of great sales, good stuff going on. They treat their members and the shooters and their customers so well. Just like family. Everybody loves WeShoot. I know you will, too. They’re conveniently located right in Lakewood, close to the Parkway. They are a resource for Central New Jersey. You know, our ranges are critical. It’s important. You need a place to shoot. You need a place to practice. You need a place to gain your skills and keep them sharp. WeShoot is ideal for that. You can go to weshootusa.com and check out their website. Beautiful photography. They have top of the line firearms, and they can get you equipped, set up right. Whether you’re new at this idea of gun ownership or whether you’re just a grizzled old gun owning veteran like myself. And I don’t mean veteran in a military sense. I’m not a military veteran, but I mean a veteran of owning guns for many, many years, many, many, many, many, many, many years. Since I was a kid. And, you know, not everybody has had that experience, but luckily, Teddy, you have. I think you’ve shot a gun since you could shoot a gun. I don’t know. Do you know when? When did I first have you shoot a gun? Do you remember? Teddy Nappen 24:54 Well, if I remember, I think it was probably eight years old. Evan Nappen 24:58 Well, that would be an actual firearm. Teddy Nappen 25:02 When? When you actually let me shoot a gun? Page – 8 – of 12 Evan Nappen 25:07 Yeah, the actual firearm. But prior to that, you had BB guns. Air guns. Teddy Nappen 25:10 Oh, BB guns. Yeah, oh yeah, from the little cap guns. I remember the little popper cap gun that you could get where it had the it, you know, you would have to reload it with the little red caps and pop it in. Evan Nappen 25:22 And I taught you basic gun safety, loading things from toys, right? Teddy Nappen 25:31 That’s how it went. I had my little cowboy, the carol spinner that you got me. That I could actually learn how to spin. Evan Nappen 25:42 Spinning was fun, huh? Teddy Nappen 25:43 And the training video you gave me as well from the western. Evan Nappen 25:46 You got good at it, too, buddy? Yeah, right up there. You could, you could do the Doc Holiday scene? You know, with Ringo doing the gun spinning. Yeah, that’s good. Teddy Nappen 25:57 Wow. Johnny Ringo, exactly. Evan Nappen 26:04 Hmm, do I like him? Reminds me of me. Now I know I hate him. Teddy Nappen 26:09 Well, someone walked across your grave. Evan Nappen 26:11 Great stuff. Great stuff. Love the movie Tombstone. Okay. And I can’t forget to plug my book. My book that I make so much money selling. New Jersey Gun Law. Make sure you buy lots and lots and lots of copies. Please go to EvanNappen.com and get that book. It may even save your ass, believe it or not. And that’s why I wrote it. It’s 120 topics, all question and answer. It explains this insanity called New Jersey gun law. Get your copy today at EvanNappen.com. Teddy, what do you have for us today in Press Checks? Teddy Nappen 27:02 Well, as we know, Press Checks are always free. And speaking on standing on one’s rights, which lack thereof in the U.K. You know, I always wonder. At some point, is the U.K. ever just going to hit rock Page – 9 – of 12 bottom? And apparently not. They still keep going lower. As coming here out of, you know, I always enjoy, you know, browsing Breitbart. The British government plans to scrap jury trials. (https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2026/03/11/british-govt-plan-to-scrap-jury-trials-clears-first-hurdle/) It’s like, you know, what? You know, King George was right on a few things. That’s the level of insanity. So it’s right out of the article from Breitbart. The left wing government plans to scrap jury trials by Kurt Zindulka. Evan Nappen 27:53 Okay, wait a minute. They got rid of the Second Amendment protection. They have no First Amendment protection. Now they’re dumping their right to a grand jury that they don’t have. They never. They don’t have that right. We have that right. You can see how important the Bill of Rights is, and why our Founding Fathers, fighting the British, were so foresighted to get the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Because look at what the UK does. Teddy Nappen 28:18 Yeah, and I love the idea of it’s cleared a major hurdle. Ah, yes, that’s how they view rights, a major hurdle. And it can write. Evan Nappen 28:28 A major hurdle. Worthy oppressors. Teddy Nappen 28:32 As the deeply controversial measure concocted by a Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary, David Lammy. Oh, a Lammy. A Lemmy or what are they? Sorry, what were the limies? It would upend a millennium, English legal tradition. It’s supposed to reduce the backlog of cases. Ah, that’s the problem. Need to reduce the backlog of cases. You know, those feeble rights. It eliminates juries for any case where a defendant is facing three years or less. Ah, that is where this is the insidious plan comes into play. Because it’s like, wait a second, three years. So, they are claiming, like, go into the records already 80 cases backlogged, upward of 200,000, by 2035. And their quote “to restore a swift and fair justice”, we are pulling every level available . . . Evan Nappen 29:31 Oh boy. You’ll be tried and hung very quickly. Teddy Nappen 29:34 You’ll have a fair trial and then be shot. Evan Nappen 29:40 Right! Round up the usual suspects Teddy Nappen 29:42 Exactly, exactly. Meanwhile, 3200 lawyers have written a letter calling the government to reverse course, arguing that the central pillar of this legislation that will reduce backlogs lacks actual evidence to actually reduce backlogs. So, the very thing that they are citing. But I love this. And by the way, this Page – 10 – of 12 isn’t a new thing. They’ve been pushing this all the way back in November of 20. I pulled this from The Guardian. The Guardian poll goes like the whole line of why they’re trying to justify it. We have to stop the criminals from gaming the system by choosing a trial by jury, to increase the chances of the proceedings collapse. That is there they’re worried about the criminals, the drug dealers and career criminals laughing at the docs, knowing that cases can take years to come to trial. And we got to do this. Oh, the poor cases of a court cases involving rape take over two years on average. So, it’s all about the rape cases, not the fact that you let mass migration in your country, where it goes from 12,000 rapes a year to 70,000 rapes a year. A mass majority committed by the illegals and immigrants that you have led into your country. But whatever. And that’s the crux of it, because, and that’s the insidious part, all of those cases will get a full trial. So, the immigrants and the illegals get the full trial when it comes to rape, but the hate speech laws, oh, two years just short. So, you get a politically appointed judge who already hates the idea of free speech now is going to crack down on. You know, I’ll give you the few highlights of that. U.K. free speech crackdown has seen 30 people a day arrested for petty offenses of retweets and cartoons that are deemed offensive. Evan Nappen 31:41 And then the cutoff is up to three years, right? So, you don’t get a jury trial, even though you could face three years in prison. You can be sentenced to three years with no jury trial. It’s outrageous. Teddy Nappen 31:54 Twelve thousand arrests a year under these hate speech laws. Evan Nappen 31:57 All right. So, let me tell you about in America and in New Jersey, how our right works and where the cut off is. So, particularly in New Jersey and in the U.S. for that matter, the cut off, my friends, is six months. So, if the penalty you face, if the potential incarceration, incarceration, that you face is six months or less, then you do not have a right to a jury trial. But if you face any penalty that is over six months where you could go to jail for six months and a day, then you have a right to a jury in America. So, this is why it’s structured in this way for New Jersey in the six months. Now, many states will have systems where, even though you have a right at six months, they will still have a misdemeanor lower court. New Hampshire is a good example, where you could face a year as a penalty. However, you can opt for it to be heard, and waive your jury right, in effect, for that max of the year. So, you can, by your own choice, decide to stay what’s called a bench trial. Evan Nappen 33:31 But essentially, the six month is the cut off. Anytime after that, you can, you have the right to demand the jury trial. That’s just how New Jersey functions. So, every disorderly persons offense in New Jersey is six months or less. Every matter heard in municipal court, in district court, the lower courts, they are six months or less. It’s also why you can be held in contempt, and the punishment is six months or less. You know, the right to that jury trial for contempt, even because the judge has that power up to six months. And by the way, if you were charged with 10 disorderly persons offenses, each carry up to six months in jail. In theory, you could be convicted of all 10 of those offenses and be given the maximum sentence of six months and have them all run consecutively. So, you could be forced to do 60 months Page – 11 – of 12 of jail with no jury trial, which would be the five years, theoretically, without having a right to a jury trial, even in America. Evan Nappen 34:49 But, of course, realistically, that isn’t what happens. There’s merger of all the different offenses. So, I’ve never heard of that happening. But in theory, in theory, that’s how. It’s a six month cut off on whatever offense it is here. Now the U.K. wants to make it three years. Think about that. You’re giving one judge, one political hack of a judge, imagine the power, to incarcerate for three years. Now, you know, if you face any charge that’s over a year, that’s a felony, and you lose your gun rights. Even in America, if the offense that you are end up found being found guilty of or pleading guilty to is a penalty that exceeds one year, which as federal law defines, believe it or not, as over two years. I know that’s confusing, but that’s the law. And so what happens is the. That’s for federal law purposes, okay? State law in New Jersey, anything that we talk about felony can still be over a year for state law, but talking federal law. But in the U.K. Now, if you look at it, three years is an option to have a bench trial with no right to a jury. That is crazy. That is absolute felony land, with no jury. There’s a reason our Founding Fathers put that in the Constitution, and it’s glaringly obvious why. Teddy Nappen 36:35 Well, it’s actually pretty funny as well, because I pulled the history of it. And there’s a reason the ropes, the Sixth Amendment and the Seventh Amendment to have the right to a jury, both for criminal and civil. The reason was the British crown, at the time, thanks to the Stamp Act, they were trying colonists through a special Admiralty court, quote, unquote. No jury. A single judge appointed by the Crown to decide cases. So, a foreign judge from across the pond who’s loyal to the King gets to decide the colonists’ fate when it came to that issue. It was a direct assault on fundamental rights, and that was why it was written and list, depriving us many cases of benefit of a trial by jury. That was in the Declaration of Independence. Evan Nappen 37:26 Well, and this is exactly why we also have the Fourth Amendment right. Because the British would have a general warrant, and they would just search under a “general warrant”. There’s a reason we have the Second Amendment. There’s what did with Gage, General Gage. What was it seizing the colonists’ arms. Okay? The reason for our Bill of Rights, for our rights, is what we experienced from the British, and they’re still at it now. Teddy Nappen 37:57 What’s funny is, it reminds me of that scene in “Turn”. The very opening scene is the colonists, the Tory there. And guess who comes running out? A British soldier for the whole amendment on storied soldiers right, quartering soldiers like, wow, really. Evan Nappen 38:20 There we go. Hey, that’s still an amendment that shows our right to privacy in a way, right? It demonstrates even their concerns and what we had to deal with. But hey, Teddy, let me tell you about this week’s GOFU. That’s the Gun Owner Fuck Up. Where you get to learn a valuable lesson that it was quite expensive for someone else to learn. These are all based on real cases. Real cases. This week’s Page – 12 – of 12 GOFU is real simple here, folks. Don’t leave your gun in a car and have somebody else use your car. It ends up being extremely problematic. Because, you know, we often will lock up our gun in a car, which is legal under the Carry Killer Bill. How you’re supposed to secure it. But what happens is, though, if it’s left there, and then somebody takes your car? Like your wife or your kids or someone, and now they’re driving around with a gun that isn’t theirs in the car. Evan Nappen 39:32 You have to be cognizant of where your gun is. Do not leave it locked in the car. Do not leave it. Because then these folks can inadvertently go to sensitive places. They can have other problems that lead to you having problems. And then you’re lucky if the problem is simply a licensing problem and not a criminal problem, as well. It can even be a criminal problem, arguably, for them, because they’re now, it could be argued, they’re in possession of your gun, and it just escalates. So, the GOFU is this. Know where your gun is. Don’t keep it in the car. Beware. If anyone uses your car, make sure your firearms are with you and not in the car when they take it. Evan Nappen 40:18 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 40:28 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E281_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

Send a textThis time Boozy sits down with the Certified Legal Layman, Alkali, for a discussion of how the United States simply decided that the Sixth Amendment didn't apply to the poors by dissecting the history leading up to the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright, which established the concept of a state-run public defender's office.Also, AI gets someone more jail time and a someone tells the ethics board they aren't the boss of them.Show materials and files: https://www.patreon.com/posts/152250898?pr=trueLegal Funhouse Theme by Status Ferret. Check out his stuff here!Support the showSupport Boozy and the show over on Patreon, Kofi, or maybe watch him at Twitch. You can read his writings and get updates about performances, releases, bonus material, and case materials at Lawyers & Liquor, his website. If you want to support Alkali, you can do that at his Twitch channel or on their Patreon!

Whether you're a lawyer, law student, or just fascinated by the drama of the courtroom, this episode will give you a fresh perspective on what it really means to seek the truth in our justice system.Steve Palmer talks about one of the cornerstones of our criminal justice system: the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.Drawing on everything from biblical proverbs to legendary legal scholars, he explores why the right to confront your accuser in court is so vital to seeking the truth. Steve Palmer breaks down not just the legal mechanics of cross-examination, but also the strategic thinking behind it—explaining why the adversarial system is designed to bring out both sides of the story, and how human nature often tilts both prosecutors and defense lawyers toward “winning” more than pure justice.You'll hear compelling anecdotes from the courtroom, real-life examples of how cross-examination can reshape a case, and practical advice for anyone interested in trial law.Whether you're a lawyer, law student, or just fascinated by the drama of the courtroom, this episode will give you a fresh perspective on what it really means to seek the truth in our justice system.Key Takeaways:Cross-Examination is Critical: As John Henry Wigmore coined, “cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of the truth.” It's not just about being tough; it's about bringing out facts the opposing side might leave out—intentionally or not.Prosecutors Aren't Always Objective: The system incentivizes prosecutors to present their side in the best light—which means some facts may never surface unless the defense presses for them. As discussed, it's not unusual for important evidence to be withheld, sometimes by the police, sometimes by prosecutors themselves.Fairness Demands Adversarial Balance: Our courtrooms are built on the idea that each side brings out their best case, and only by challenging one another do we get close to the truth. If you don't have the right to confront your accuser, you leave justice up to the whims of one party.Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other 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 2026 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At LawMentioned 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

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

This episode peels back the layers on when formal protections really start—and why the nuances matter.Welcome back to Lawyer Talk! In today's episode, host Steve Palmer is joined by law student Troy to tackle an important—and often misunderstood—question: when does your right to counsel actually begin?Inspired by a follow-up question from the show's production company, the conversation dives into the legal meaning of "adversarial proceedings" and why just being in a police interrogation room, as intense as it may feel, doesn't always mean your Sixth Amendment rights have fully kicked in.Steve Palmer breaks down the language and definitions that matter most in the courtroom, while Troy brings a fresh perspective from law school. Whether you're a legal scholar or just curious about your rights, this episode peels back the layers on when formal protections really start—and why the nuances matter.Here are three key takeaways from their conversation:"Adversarial" is a Term of Art: The right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment doesn't hinge on when things feel adversarial (like during a police interrogation), but rather on a technical, legal definition—the "instigation of formal adversarial proceedings."Trigger Point Matters: According to Steve Palmer, this right typically attaches at the preliminary hearing stage—not simply at the initial appearance or during police questioning.Words Matter in Law: Legal concepts often have specific definitions that may differ from everyday usage. Understanding these nuances is critical and makes all the difference in protecting your rights.Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other 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 2026 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At LawMentioned 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...

The South Carolina Supreme Court heard Alex Murdaugh's double murder appeal today. The justices asked sharp, pointed questions — and nearly all of them were aimed at the prosecution. The hearing covered both tracks of the appeal: Becky Hill's alleged jury tampering and whether the trial court committed reversible evidentiary errors. On both, the state was on its heels. Justice James opened by raising the egg juror affidavit Justice Toal excluded. Chief Justice Kittredge pointed out that Toal's written order never addressed the allegation that Hill instructed jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh's testimony. He called the corroboration between juror accounts and independent witnesses "striking." Hill has since been convicted of perjury, obstruction, and misconduct — a development that wasn't part of the record when Toal ruled. Justice Few challenged Waters: how do you characterize someone as "not completely credible" when her own guilty plea proves she's a perjurer? The defense argued Toal used the wrong legal standard entirely. Harpootlian told the court the question isn't whether Hill changed the verdict — it's whether she violated Murdaugh's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. That distinction changes everything about how the court evaluates the evidence. On the trial record, Kittredge told Waters that 404(b) is a rule of exclusion and said the gate was left wide open — he couldn't find a single financial evidence ruling that went the defense's way. He questioned why emotionally charged victim testimony from Murdaugh's financial crimes was admitted in a murder trial. Waters tried a Fargo reference. Justice Few ended it. Jim Griffin argued the state's underlying case has no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, and no biological transfer evidence from a close-range shotgun blast. If the financial testimony is stripped, the case changes shape. Eric Faddis, criminal defense attorney and former felony prosecutor, dissects the hearing moment by moment — what each justice's questions signal, where the state failed to hold ground, and which of the three possible outcomes the arguments most strongly pointed toward. He also addresses whether a federal Sixth Amendment challenge is viable regardless of how this court rules. Decision expected within sixty days.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHill #SupremeCourtSC #EricFaddis #CreightonWaters #Rule404b #JuryTampering #TrueCrime #HiddenKillersJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

The South Carolina Supreme Court heard Alex Murdaugh's double murder appeal today, and the state walked into a courtroom that wasn't friendly. The justices pressed prosecutor Creighton Waters on both tracks of the appeal — Becky Hill's jury tampering and the evidentiary errors at trial — and the exchanges revealed a bench that has serious doubts about what happened below. Justice James opened by asking about the egg juror affidavit that Justice Toal excluded from the evidentiary hearing. Chief Justice Kittredge went further, pointing out that Toal's order never addressed the allegation that Hill told jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh's testimony. He described the corroboration between multiple juror accounts and independent witnesses as "striking." Becky Hill is now a convicted perjurer, and that conviction didn't exist when Toal issued her ruling. Justice Few asked Waters directly: how do you call someone "not completely credible" when her guilty plea proves she lied under oath? Dick Harpootlian framed the defense argument around the Sixth Amendment — not whether Hill changed the verdict, but whether she compromised the constitutional right to an impartial jury. That distinction in legal standard may be the most consequential issue the court decides. On evidence, Kittredge told Waters that Rule 404(b) is a rule of exclusion and that he couldn't find a single piece of financial evidence the trial court kept out. He questioned why emotionally charged testimony from victims of Murdaugh's financial crimes was presented in a murder trial. Waters attempted a Fargo analogy. Justice Few cut him off. Jim Griffin argued the core weakness: no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, no biological transfer evidence from a close-range shotgun blast. If the financial testimony is ruled improperly admitted, what's left narrows considerably. Eric Faddis, criminal defense attorney and former felony prosecutor, analyzes every critical moment from the bench — what the questions reveal about each justice's thinking, where the state's arguments failed to land, and which of the three possible outcomes today's hearing most strongly favored. He also addresses whether a federal Sixth Amendment challenge remains an option regardless of the state court's ruling. Decision expected within sixty days.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHill #SupremeCourtSC #EricFaddis #CreightonWaters #JuryTampering #Rule404b #TrueCrime #HiddenKillersJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

The South Carolina Supreme Court heard Alex Murdaugh's double murder appeal today — and the justices came prepared to challenge the state. Across ninety minutes of oral arguments covering jury tampering and evidentiary errors, the bench directed its hardest questions at prosecutor Creighton Waters and gave the defense room to build its case. The jury tampering track opened with Justice James asking whether the court could consider the egg juror's affidavit — testimony Justice Toal excluded during the 2024 hearing. Chief Justice Kittredge escalated, noting that Toal's order failed to address the specific allegation that Becky Hill told jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh's testimony. He described the corroboration between juror accounts and independent witnesses as "striking." Hill is now a convicted perjurer — guilty of perjury, obstruction, and misconduct in charges that weren't part of the record when Toal ruled. Justice Few went straight at Waters: how do you call someone "not completely credible" when her guilty plea is proof she lied under oath? Dick Harpootlian framed the central argument: Justice Toal asked the wrong question. She evaluated whether Hill changed the verdict. The constitutional standard is whether she compromised the right to an impartial jury. Harpootlian argued those are fundamentally different inquiries — and the wrong one was applied. That legal standard dispute may be the fulcrum of the entire appeal. On evidence, Chief Justice Kittredge told Waters that Rule 404(b) is a rule of exclusion, not inclusion, and that the trial court left the gate wide open. He said he couldn't identify a single piece of financial evidence the trial judge excluded. He pressed on why emotionally charged testimony from victims of Murdaugh's financial crimes — people who lost life savings — was placed before a murder jury. Waters attempted to compare the case to the movie Fargo. Justice Few shut the analogy down. Jim Griffin argued what the state's case looks like without the financial testimony: no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, and no biological transfer evidence despite a close-range shotgun blast. If the court rules the 404(b) evidence was improperly admitted, the trial record fundamentally changes. Criminal defense attorney and former felony prosecutor Eric Faddis provides a full breakdown of the hearing — the specific exchanges that revealed the justices' thinking, the moments Waters struggled to hold ground, and the body language from the bench that tells its own story. He analyzes the three possible outcomes: conviction affirmed, new trial on jury tampering, or new trial on evidentiary grounds. He explains which outcome today's hearing most clearly pointed toward, what the timeline looks like, and whether Murdaugh retains a viable federal Sixth Amendment claim regardless of the state court's ruling. The court took the case under advisement. A decision is expected within sixty days. What happened in that courtroom today suggests this conviction is no longer the certainty it once appeared to be.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHill #SouthCarolinaSupremeCourt #CreightonWaters #DickHarpootlian #EricFaddis #JimGriffin #JuryTampering #HiddenKillersJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

Today the South Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Alex Murdaugh's appeal of his double murder conviction — and the questions from the bench landed almost entirely on the state. The hearing covered jury tampering and evidentiary errors, and on both fronts, prosecutor Creighton Waters faced sustained pressure he struggled to answer. On jury tampering, Justice James immediately asked about the egg juror affidavit that Justice Toal blocked from the evidentiary hearing. Chief Justice Kittredge noted Toal's order never addressed the claim that Becky Hill told jurors not to be fooled by Murdaugh's testimony and called the corroboration across multiple juror accounts "striking." Hill is now convicted of perjury, obstruction, and misconduct — a conviction that didn't exist when Toal ruled. Justice Few pressed Waters on how you describe someone as "not completely credible" when she's pled guilty to lying under oath. Harpootlian argued the legal standard itself was wrong — that Toal asked whether Hill changed the outcome instead of whether she violated Murdaugh's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. That's the constitutional question the justices will have to resolve. On the evidence, Kittredge told Waters that 404(b) is a rule of exclusion and said he couldn't identify a single piece of financial evidence the trial court excluded. He pressed on why emotional testimony from financial crime victims was put before a murder jury. Waters referenced the movie Fargo. Justice Few shut it down. Griffin reminded the court the state has no eyewitnesses, no murder weapons, and no biological transfer evidence from a close-range shotgun blast. Strip the financial testimony, and the evidentiary foundation shrinks fast. Criminal defense attorney Eric Faddis breaks down the hearing exchange by exchange — the tone from the bench, the moments the state lost ground, and what the justices' questions telegraph about the three possible outcomes. He assesses which result today's arguments most clearly favored and whether a federal Sixth Amendment appeal remains viable no matter what the state court decides. The court took the case under advisement. Sixty days.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHill #SouthCarolinaSupremeCourt #CreightonWaters #DickHarpootlian #JuryTampering #EricFaddis #MurdaughTrial #HiddenKillersJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

The South Carolina Supreme Court just heard Alex Murdaugh's appeal—and the prosecution faced a gauntlet of skeptical questions.February 11, 2026 marked the most significant moment in the Murdaugh case since the 2023 conviction. All five justices convened in Columbia to hear oral arguments on two core issues: whether former Clerk of Court Becky Hill's comments to jurors constituted jury tampering, and whether the trial itself was compromised by improper evidence.Chief Justice John Kittredge didn't hold back. He called Hill a "rogue clerk" and questioned why the trial court allowed such expansive testimony about Murdaugh's financial crimes. "I couldn't find any example of financial crime evidence that was excluded," he said. "The granular detail... is arguably problematic."Prosecutor Creighton Waters defended the state's approach, arguing jurors needed to understand the "slow burn" of Murdaugh's financial collapse to comprehend his motive. He even referenced the movie "Fargo" to illustrate desperation—prompting Justice John Few to cut him off: "I haven't seen 'Fargo'—get to the point."Defense attorneys Dick Harpootlian, Jim Griffin, and Phillip Barber argued Hill's statements—including telling jurors to "watch his body language" and not be "fooled"—violated Murdaugh's Sixth Amendment rights. They also challenged cell phone trajectory evidence, a blue raincoat with gunshot residue never linked to Murdaugh, and the volume of financial testimony as unfairly prejudicial.Waters maintained the evidence was "overwhelming" and Hill's comments "fleeting." But multiple justices questioned the logical connection between financial crimes and murder.The court will now deliberate privately. There's no deadline for a ruling. If the conviction is upheld, Murdaugh's team has signaled federal appeals are next. This episode breaks down everything from the hearing.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#AlexMurdaugh #MurdaughSupremeCourt #MurdaughAppeal #BeckyHill #DickHarpootlian #JimGriffin #CreightonWaters #MurdaughCase #SouthCarolina #MurdaughTrial

Today we're bringing you a critical update on John Anthony Castro.In November 2025, Castro filed an emergency motion for mistrial alleging that the government concealed criminal immunity agreements with witnesses — including a deal granted to Linda Rivera — and presented stipulations that he and his attorneys never agreed to.Here's what changed the landscape.In the government's response, filed on Thanksgiving, prosecutor Lauren Murphy conceded that Castro's Sixth Amendment rights were violated because he was not given the opportunity to discuss stipulations with witnesses. The government also acknowledged that evidence had been suppressed.However, in a 54-page response, the government did not address the alleged criminal immunity deal.Castro's legal team argues that by failing to respond, prosecutors forfeited the issue.Despite these concessions, the Fifth Circuit denied Castro's motion for release on December 8.Castro has since filed a writ of mandamus seeking to compel court action. His attorneys are preparing an expedited motion for default ruling, arguing that the government's admissions should result in immediate relief.Castro has described himself as a political prisoner, asserting that his continued imprisonment persists despite constitutional violations being acknowledged on the record.Through it all, he says he remains hopeful and prayerful.We will continue to monitor this case closely.Available in The Neoliberal Journals at https://theneoliberal.com

Over the past thirty-five years, the United States has quietly transformed its criminal-justice system into something resembling a permanent domestic battlefield.In this episode, we trace how successive “wars” at home—the war on crime, the war on drugs, the war on terror, and the war on immigration—have steadily altered the relationship between the citizen and the state. Each was justified as temporary. None truly ended.Drawing on constitutional history, crime data, and lived legal experience, this episode examines how fear replaced evidence as the engine of policy, even as violent crime fell dramatically across much of the country. The language of emergency survived the numbers that once justified it.We explore how punishment displaced treatment, how surveillance migrated downward toward the poor and powerless, and how federal authority expanded deep into local policing. From welfare drug testing to armored vehicles on city streets, the tools and posture of war became normalized in everyday American life.The episode also looks at what happened to the Bill of Rights under pressure—how guarantees of counsel, bail, due process, and protection from unreasonable searches were narrowed by exception, doctrine, and rhetoric. The Constitution remained on the page, but its reach shrank in practice.Finally, we examine how immigration enforcement and the war on terror completed the turn inward, creating parallel systems of justice and “Constitution-lite” zones where ordinary protections fade. The result is not chaos, but something more troubling: a stable, militarized normal.This is not a partisan argument. It is a structural one.A republic that repeatedly declares war on its own internal enemies must eventually decide whether rights are promises—or obstacles.The Mitten Channel is a network of podcasts.  

Navigating Domestic Violence and Assault Charges in El PasoIn this episode, attorney Carl DeKoatz joins the show to provide an in-depth look at how he handles domestic violence and assault cases in El Paso, Texas. Whether you are facing a misdemeanor or a serious felony, understanding your rights and the legal process is critical to protecting your future.Key Discussion PointsInteracting with Law Enforcement: If you are a potential defendant in an assault case, DeKoatz advises against communicating with the police at the scene. He emphasizes that officers are there to gather evidence rather than judge the situation. By explicitly stating you want to talk to a lawyer, you invoke your Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, which legally requires police to stop questioning.Your Rights at Home: You are generally not required to answer the door for the police. However, DeKoatz notes that officers may enter without a warrant under "exigent circumstances," such as hearing yelling or suspecting an immediate safety threat.The Cooling-Off Period: Following an arrest, there is often a 30-day protective order attached to a bond. DeKoatz views this as a necessary cooling-off period and strongly advises against any direct or indirect communication with the other party to avoid picking up additional charges.Preserving Evidence: To build a strong defense, it is vital to preserve all digital evidence, including texts and emails from the other party. This information can be used to provide context to the prosecution and show that an alleged victim's story may be inconsistent.Levels of Assault Charges:Simple Assault: Generally handled in misdemeanor courts.Third-Degree Felony: Charges escalate significantly if "impeding breath" or choking is alleged.Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon: This involves putting someone in fear of death or serious injury with a weapon, such as a knife or gun, often seen in high-conflict domestic disputes or road rage incidents.Self-Defense in Texas: DeKoatz frequently handles cases where clients were simply defending themselves. In these instances, the court uses both a subjective and objective standard to determine if a reasonable person in the defendant's shoes would have felt the need to use force.The Path to Resolution: The firm's goal is always to protect the client's record and prevent a single mistake from defining their life. While some cases go to trial, many are resolved through deferred supervision or dismissals based on the history of the parties and the strength of the evidence.Local Court InformationDomestic violence and assault cases in El Paso are typically handled in the "big glass building" located on San Antonio Street. Misdemeanor courts are generally located on the 7th and 8th floors, while felony charges are heard in the District Courts.Contact InformationIf you are in need of legal assistance for an assault or domestic violence matter, you can reach the Carl DeKoatz  at:FIRM: Carl DeKoatz Law FirmAddress: 718 Myrtle Ave, El Paso, TX 79901Phone: (915) 577-0913Website: HTTPS://DeKoatzLaw.com

Episode 273-Warning: Critical Gun Law Alert  Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode 273 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS New Jersey gun laws, accidental discharge, criminalization, reckless discharge, felony consequences, gun ownership rights, self-defense, insurance coverage, Second Amendment, gun safety, gun dealers, international disarmament, gun control, gun owner education, legal challenges. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, folks, the New Jersey legislature has done it again. They have passed some atrocious gun laws, and I need to make all of you aware of one, particularly, that is very much a threat. It is something that’s going to affect many, many gun owners, and it is not being talked about in the general media, of course, because of how they write these laws in such a sneaky, underhanded way. But this law is going to impact all of us, frankly. And the potential is there, under this law, to not only take away gun owners’ rights to have guns, but to turn us all into felons at any time, simply based on an accident. That’s right, an accident. Evan Nappen 01:31 Because what New Jersey legislature’s both houses have passed, and I expect, very shortly, the governor will sign, is Assembly Bill, 4976. (https://pub.njleg.gov/Bills/2024/A5000/4976_R2.PDF) And what this bill does is it criminalizes Accidental Discharges (ADs). Now, an accidental discharge is when your gun goes off, accidentally, either by what some folks call an uncommanded discharge or an accidental discharge. But it is something that can happen, and although we have to always be very careful, circumstances can be such that a mistake can be made. I mean, we’re all human, and mistakes can happen. And unfortunately, you know, I see it in the practice, and I get accidental discharge cases all the time where individuals make a mistake and a gun goes off unintended. It happens. Now sometimes it happens because of the actual mechanical flaws to a firearm and that can be because of a gun’s design. It can even be due to circumstances where a firearm can go off from the slightest touch. Evan Nappen 03:08 Now you may not be aware of this, but years and years ago, I know of a case where an individual had a shotgun that this fellow had kept loaded. One of those single shot, top-breaker type shotguns. You know, like the old kind of like the toppers, the H and R Toppers, and what have you, similar to that. It Page – 1 – of 11may even have been one. I don’t know. But it’s one of those old single shot shotguns. And for probably 50 years, that gun had remained loaded with a shell in it. At one point, there were folks that were causing all kinds of problems in this guy’s yard, and he wanted to scare them off. He didn’t want to shoot them, and he put the gun out of, pointed the gun out the window, and boom. It went off, and he never pulled the trigger. He absolutely never pulled the trigger. There was no hit to the primer of the shell when it went off. And what has happened was, in this particular design of the gun, the firing pin had been pushing against the primer because the hammer was down and it didn’t have a firing pin block. And for like 50 years, this gun sat there, sensitizing the primer so that the slightest touch, you know, just the right jolt, without having to actually pull the trigger, made it go off. So, a gun can actually even do that under those extraordinary circumstances. Evan Nappen 04:57 But normally, an accidental discharge or uncommanded discharge that we encounter is because somebody believed, honestly believed, their gun was unloaded. And it ends up, of course, that it wasn’t. Now this can happen because somebody thought they checked it and maybe even did check. But then, with a magazine in and the slide going forward, a round loads, but they didn’t realize that it loaded, because they checked that it was unloaded. And sure enough, there’s a round there. I mean, I’ve seen every combination of error that could happen and a discharge can occur. And, of course, we know the rules, always point in a safe direction, etc. Make sure your gun is unloaded. Double, triple check to make sure that the chamber is empty. That there’s no magazine, and there’s no live ammo. I mean, all those things that we do. But accidents can happen, just like in a motor vehicle. We drive as safe as we possibly can, but people still have accidents. And what New Jersey has done in this bill is essentially criminalize an accident so that individuals will be looking at what is, in all likelihood, felony level charges. And they structured this bill in just a sneaky, evil, devious way. It’s going to have great impact, and it’s going to create, I think, unintended consequences. Evan Nappen 06:40 Now, as gun owners, we have to understand how we have to behave if any of us ever are so unfortunate as to have an uncommanded or accidental discharge. So, the law talks about “recklessly” having a discharge. “Reckless” in criminal law means, you know, with a conscious disregard of a known risk, okay? Criminal laws can have recklessly or reckless as a standard, as opposed to something being intentional, right? So, if you intentionally meant to pull the trigger, that’s intentional. Reckless could still be you didn’t intend to do it. But if there was that conscious disregard of that known risk and it ended up discharged, then you could argue that it’s reckless. So, reckless is kind of a standard where it’s not that traditional mens rea, your mental and your mental state of having that intention to have the gun fire. Reckless has been in our criminal law for a long time, and reckless conduct is something that’s out there, like reckless driving. I’m sure that you have heard of that. Evan Nappen 08:05 But what they’re doing here is even more devious by using the word “reckless”. So, what now is being prohibited? And I’m going to read this to you so you can see how they’ve done this. It says, a person commits a disorderly person’s offense. Now that sounds like, okay. A disorderly persons offense in New Jersey is equivalent to a misdemeanor. It’s not a felony. So, you’re saying, well, first of all, this is not creating a felony. It’s creating a disorderly persons offense, right? It sounds like it’s, you know, Page – 2 – of 11apparently, trying to be reasonable. But trust me, folks, it isn’t. I’m going to show you why. “A person commits a disorderly persons offense by recklessly discharging a firearm.” Okay, so at this point they’re saying, well, it’s just a low level offense, and it’s for recklessly discharge. You know, we’ve conscientiously disregarded a known risk. Okay, so it started out sounding, you know, not great, but okay. It’s not. It shouldn’t affect a lot of folks, and luckily, if it does, it’s still a misdemeanor. And, of course, it requires that recklessness. So, that sounds all good. Evan Nappen 09:22 Let me start again and read you, but wait until you hear the rest of it. A person commits a disorderly persons offense by recklessly discharging a firearm “using live ammunition rounds”. Well, okay, that’s good to know. A blank gun isn’t a reckless discharge, but you know you’re firing a blank. No live ammo. Okay. So, if I’m firing dead ammo or ammo that’s not live, then that’s not a reckless discharge. Well, good. How do I get a discharge with ammo that’s not live? I don’t know how that’s even going to happen. But okay, they throw that in, probably more as subterfuge and, you know, smoke and mirrors. But again, here we go. “A person commits a disorderly persons offense by recklessly discharging a firearm using live ammunition rounds unlawfully . . .” Okay, unlawfully. So, you’re unlawful. “. . . or without a lawful purpose.” Whoops, wait a minute. “Without a lawful purpose.” You commit a disorderly persons offense by recklessly discharging a firearm without lawful purpose. Evan Nappen 10:35 Except that a second conviction for such an offense constitutes a crime of the fourth degree. Well, a crime is a felony, and that’s a fourth degree. It’s a year and a half in jail. And a third or subsequent conviction is a third degree and that’s five years in State Prison. Okay. So, you may even read this part and say, well, it’s still arguably, weirdly reckless, maybe. But it’s for discharging a firearm without lawful purpose, but at least it’s a disorderly persons offense. And I, boy, if we do it once, I sure wouldn’t think I’d do it again. So, why is this such a problem, you know. Evan Nappen 11:09 But oh, well, wait, wait, wait. We’re not done yet. Because then it says, if a person commits a violation under this section, you’re charged with a crime one degree higher than what ordinarily would be charged for such an offense when the violation occurs within 100 yards, 100 yards, folks. Not 100 feet. A football field’s worth of distance of an occupied structure. Oh, what’s an occupied structure? Any building, room, ship, vessel, car, vehicle, or airplane, or a place adopted for overnight accommodations of persons or for carrying on business therein. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Wait a minute! An occupied structure includes a car or vehicle, and it doesn’t even mean it has to be occupied. It means even a vehicle or a building or a room, and it has to be within 100 yards, a football field, of a car. If there’s a car driving by within 100 yards where the accidental discharge takes place. If you’re in your own home? I mean, this is basically every accidental discharge. You will probably be within 100 yards of a car or a building or a room, or hotel or whatever, or an airplane. Man, even if the airplane is flying over the sky, I don’t know. I mean, this is nuts. Evan Nappen 12:55 So, if the violation occurs within 100 yards of a “structure”, guess what? It’s no longer that disorderly persons offense. It’s bumped instantly to the fourth degree, felony level offense. Up to a year and a half Page – 3 – of 11in State Prison, and now you’re going to be a convicted felon. That’s if your gun discharged for not having, without a lawful purpose. Oh, you mean like an accident? Yeah! Like an accident. An accident because you didn’t have a lawful purpose. Did you lawfully have a purposeful accident? No, that’s silliness in a nutshell. So, what it means now is essentially any accidental discharge is a felony in New Jersey, and you can face State Prison time of at least a year and a half, unless it’s going to be enhanced even more based on these other factors. And as a felon, you lose your gun rights for the entire United States. Evan Nappen 14:12 And even if it’s kept at the misdemeanor, a so-called disorderly persons level, they’re still going to go after your gun license and your gun rights. They’ll claim, under Chapter 58-3 of the licensing law, that you’re somehow a danger to public health, safety, welfare. You think if you’re going to have a criminal charge, a criminal offense charged here of accidental discharge, where they’re classifying it as reckless because it went for a “an unlawful purpose”. Like I said, I don’t know how you have a lawful purpose accident. And it was somehow within 100 yards of any car or room, which made it originally a felony even, right? Felony level in New Jersey. You’re getting your license and your guns confiscated and taken and face prosecution over this insane law. Evan Nappen 15:17 Now, this is the consequences of this bill, right? But that’s just the consequences in the law itself, like the penalty you may face and licensing problems. But what it also means is that upon any accidental discharge, folks, any, you immediately, now, immediately, have a Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination, and you’re going to have to stand by that. Because I know in many of the cases we’ve seen, someone had an accidental discharge, and it may have gone through their wall. It may have gone to a neighbor’s house. It may have not whatever. But if you react, if you call the police, if you try to find out what happened, any type, you’re getting criminally charged. You have a right to say nothing. You have an absolute right, a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, because you will end up incriminating yourself. This is going to mean that any New Jersey gun owner who has an AD or an uncommanded accidental discharge needs to immediately take the Fifth and seek counsel, the Sixth Amendment. Just call your attorney and don’t say anything to anyone. Do not make any statements to law enforcement or anybody. And, you know, this is a shame. Because what if that round actually caused injury to somebody? Teddy Nappen 16:59 Actually take it a step further. Evan Nappen 17:01 Think about it. You’re gonna incriminate yourself. You gotta absolutely. Go ahead, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 17:07 Take it a step further. Imagine instead of “gun”, this was “car”. I asked. I was in. I got into a car accident. So, therefore, all car accidents are felonies, where there is nowhere. Were you back? Were you 100 feet from your driveway? Was there a car driving by? Did you back into that car? Felony! You are now a felon because of that. And don’t tell me it’s the firearm versus the car! Because the car is a Page – 4 – of 11two ton steel death machine that kills more people than firearms do. So, it’s that level of argument, the utter draconian insanity that they have created here. Where from an accident, an actual accident, God forbid. Evan Nappen 17:54 An accident. That is right. Teddy Nappen 17:56 You are guilty until proven innocent. Evan Nappen 17:59 And wait. Let me say this. This has been put out there as a possible problem for self-defenders. And that’s actually not completely accurate, because there’s an exemption here that says it’s an affirmative defense, if you fired your gun in self-defense. Okay. Affirmative defense means the burden is on you to prove that you acted in self-defense. Then they’ll say, okay, that wasn’t a reckless discharge. But even the fact that the legislature has to put in there that if you act in self-defense, it’s an affirmative defense. Well, wait a minute. Why is it an affirmative defense? Because it wouldn’t have been reckless if it was intentional. Why do we even need that? So, in other words, the legislature itself knows that they’ve manipulated this law to simply be discharge for unlawful purpose, period. If you didn’t have a lawful purpose when your gun went off, it’s felony level if it’s within 100 yards of a car, or a room, or a building. Insanity. Evan Nappen 19:05 And as you say, Teddy, it would be like making every car accident, any fender bender that you have, you become charged with a felony. New Jersey has done that to gun owners now. Any accident, any accidental discharge, you’re going to face these criminal charges. This is going to, you’re going to end up in the system. If you have an AD, you’re getting charged. And now we’re going to have to fight this out on an offense that is essentially strict liability. That is the way they’ve set it up. Couching it and hiding it under so-called reckless, recklessly. But when they actually write it, they put the recklessly with the little bonus of having “without a lawful purpose”. This is nuts. Nuts. Nuts. Evan Nappen 19:58 I’m telling you right now the cases we get, it’s going to be crazy, crazy and a problem. So, folks, be extra careful. This is bad news. It has passed both houses, and the Governor, I’m sure, will sign it very shortly, if he hasn’t signed it already. And now gun owners are at extreme risk under this law. Teddy Nappen 20:24 I just thought of another one, too. What if you’re a first time shooter and you go to a range course, you’re in a range, a gun range learning, and the gun accidentally goes off because you’re brand new to firearms? You’re now a convicted felon. No discretion. Evan Nappen 20:44 Oh, well. It was near a room. That’s right, no discretion, and anybody that has that AD. So, again, it’s designed to disenfranchise gun owners of Second Amendment rights. And by the way, you may not be Page – 5 – of 11able to then get even insurance coverage. Because if it’s criminalized over what you did, it’s not anymore. Now, you’re talking about behavior where they can claim it’s a criminal act. It’s a criminal act, okay? And again, you may depending on your policy, depending on what actually the injuries and damage, you may not even have coverage. The insurance companies will use it to deny you coverage. I’m sure of that. That’s their job, as it normally is, anyway. To try to figure out how to deny coverage. Well, they’ve just given them that ability on the civil side to further make it harder for you. It’s jeopardizing gun rights, and it’s looking at creating incarceration at felony level for gun owners. It’s outrageous, and it really is something that I’m sure we’re going to see major, major impact. And then that’s not the only fun. Go ahead, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 22:04 I was just curious on the constitutionality of it? Because they’ve made, there must be some avenue. Because it’s very, like they’re giving no discretion? And just saying. Evan Nappen 22:16 Nope. Teddy Nappen 22:16 It’s automatic. There’s no constitutional challenge. Evan Nappen 22:20 Well, I guess there could always be a constitutional challenge. But what’s going to happen is it’s going to have to be the fight. The real fight is going to be over, maybe an argument of, was there a conscious, conscientious disregard, or conscious disregard of a known risk. But the other side will argue that as soon as you have a gun with ammo, you have a known risk. I mean, a firearm, and that’s their entire anti-Second Amendment strategy. Teddy Nappen 22:43 When you deal with guns, you do so at your peril. Evan Nappen 22:53 Right! And that’s New Jersey case law, right there. So, they’re saying, hey, you do it at your peril. You took a known risk because you possessed a gun, even. You can well see a New Jersey jury buying that argument. This is nuts, and gun owners, beware, beware, beware, beware. And like I said, this isn’t the only shenanigan that occurred in Trenton. They also signed S1425. (https://pub.njleg.gov/Bills/2024/S1500/1425_R1.PDF) Now, this is actually law. This law, real quick, specifically applies just to dealers. Just to New Jersey dealers. How nice. They have their own very special law now. This law says, “A licensed dealer who sells or transfers a firearm to a person when the dealer knows or reasonably should know that person intends to sell, transfer, assign, or otherwise dispose of that firearm to a person who is disqualified from possessing a firearm under State or federal law is guilty of a crime of the second degree.” That means up to 10 years in State Prison. They have a minimum mandatory period of three and a half years, and they made it a second degree. This is insane. Page – 6 – of 11Evan Nappen 24:03 If you’re a dealer in New Jersey, they can claim that you reasonably should have known that a gun you transferred to somebody was going to be transferred to somebody who was disqualified from possessing. Let me give you an example. You sell a Red Rider BB gun. That’s a firearm under New Jersey law. And if you reasonably should have known that that person was going to let their kid have that BB gun, you’re looking at a second degree charge here, Dealers. Yeah for that BB gun. Because as long as the state can show you reasonably should know that, that the person intended to transfer it to someone who was disqualified, who would be arguably that minor, unless it’s under a strict exemption. I mean, this is the kind of pathways being cut here. How do you know or reasonably should know? What is that reasonably should have known nonsense? Evan Nappen 25:03 I mean, that’s again, 12 people on a jury are the ones who’s going to decide whether reasonably you should know. All the law says, “. . . ‘reasonably should know’ means that a person reasonably should know a fact when, under the circumstances, a person of reasonable prudence and competence would ascertain or know that fact.” Oh, that’s a that’s so crystal clear. Huh? Real, crystal clear. Now what it means is 12 people who aren’t smart enough to avoid jury duty are going to decide whether the dealer should have known on that gun sale. And if they decide otherwise, the dealer is looking at a minimum mandatory sentence on a second degree crime, which carries up to 10 years in State Prison. Okay? That’s what they’re doing. Focused on New Jersey dealers. Do you think they want to put every dealer in New Jersey out of business? I do. And that’s the other bonus law that’s actually signed into law. It’s ripe for abuse, folks. Beware. It is just atrocious what’s going on in New Jersey. Evan Nappen 26:07 Let me tell you about our fight. You know, we are in this fight. We constantly, we’ve tried to fight these things. New Jersey is an extremely tough environment. We’re going to see court challenges, even more court challenges, and it’s our state Association that’s going to be heading the fight. I’m sure we’re going to see a constitutional challenge to this so-called Accidental Discharge bill and the same over what they’re looking to do to dealers. And it’s ANJRPC, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs at the forefront, fighting for our rights. They’re the umbrella organization of gun clubs in New Jersey, and you can join as an individual member. You really need to. You’ll be sent email alerts, and you’ll be told what’s going on. And you know, we’re able to get changes made with pressure, but most importantly, our salvation seems to be in the judicial fight in the courts. The Association is there as we speak. This is an extremely tough environment in New Jersey, the toughest in America, where the oppression of Second Amendment rights is second to none. New Jersey wins the prize for Second Amendment oppression, and it’s the Association there at the forefront. You need to be a member. Go to anjrpc.org and join today. Be part of the solution. It’s really important that you do that. Evan Nappen 27:43 I’d also like to talk about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is an indoor range in Lakewood, easily accessible, off the Parkway. It’s where Teddy and I both shoot, and we both qualified. It’s where we got our CCARE and where we get our training. We love WeShoot. That’s the place to shoot. It’s a place you can shoot. They have a wonderful facility, a great pro shop, and great instructors. You’ve got to check out their website, magnificent photography there. And they run all kinds of great deals and Page – 7 – of 11specials, and they have all the top state of the art equipment. Check out weshootusa.com. weshootusa.com. You’ll be glad you did. It is a great resource for us to have a range right there in Central New Jersey that is as professional and modern as WeShoot. Go to weshootusa.com and check them out. You will be thrilled, just like Teddy and I. Well, that’s where we shoot. It’s what we love. You’ll love it too. Evan Nappen 29:00 Let me also mention my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the Bible of New Jersey gun law. I’m working on the update from what I just told you today. So, the free update will be coming out, including the 2026 Comprehensive Update. We’re going to look at and add in all the new laws that’ll be coming out shortly. So, if you have the book, make sure you scan the QR cover. The QR code on the cover. Join my free private subscriber base, and you’ll get notice of the updates that are forthcoming. You can buy the book at EvanNappen.com. That’s right, www.EvanNappen.com. Go to EvanNappen.com and get the big orange book today. You’ll be glad you did. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all Question and Answer, designed to make it as user friendly as possible. I try to make it so you can navigate these treacherous waters of Second Amendment oppression in New Jersey. So, go to EvanNappen.com and get your book. Teddy, what do you have for us today in Press Checks? Teddy Nappen 30:15 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free. While you’re talking about the utter insanity that is New Jersey, there’s one positive bit of news. It’s kind of been, you know, from the entire news cycle of everything they try to cover. There’s one thing that kind of slipped under the cracks that some people did pick up on. And it caught my eye. I was like, wait a second, I remember this. So, President Trump has withdrawn from the UN Register of Conventional Arms. (https://gunrights.org/united-states- withdraws-from-united-nations-register-of-conventional-arms/) That treaty. Now, I remember growing up as a kid, Dad, you told me, always keep an eye out if there are blue helmets walking down the street. Evan Nappen 31:01 Yeah, that’s right, that blue helmet day came, if that ever was to come. Yep. Teddy Nappen 31:08 And oh, I remember you telling me about that treaty. And you know that stupid, you know, the UN has always been an anti-gun organization, with that stupid, bent revolver they have. Evan Nappen 31:20 Yeah, the revolver with a barrel and a pretzel knot. (https://dam.media.un.org/archive/Gift-of- Luxembourg-to-the-United-Nations-2AM9LOQORWK.html) I mean, look at folks. It’s a revolver, by the way. It’s not an AK, you know. It’s not an AR. It’s not in an “assault firearm”. No, no. It’s a freaking revolver with a barrel in a pretzel knot there. Gee, who are the primary possessors of revolvers? I wonder. Is that paramilitary organizations? No. Terrorist, radicalized wackos? No. A revolver. Let me see. Oh, you mean, like average citizens? Wow, hmm. Interesting. Page – 8 – of 11Teddy Nappen 32:02 But what I remember that being back, you know, where this was a big fear. Where it was the giant arms treaty, where they were trying, I think it wasn’t ratified by Obama, but that was that insane policy to try, even. The UN even actually has an Office of Disarmament. (https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our- work/conventional-arms/legal-instruments/arms-trade-treaty) That’s actually their whole like deal. What they try to push for. Now, they cloak it in like militarily. If you actually go to the website, this was from the gunrights.org. (https://gunrights.org/united-states-withdraws-from-united-nations-register-of- conventional-arms/) The National Association of Gun Rights put out the article, and they provide the link where you can go on to the UN website. You can see their register of their whole charter on the UN, and it goes into they brag about it. We’ve recorded and captured 90% of the global arms trade. By the way, this was supposed to be about, you know, tanks, armored carriers. You know, stuff used in actual, like, large scale warfare. But then I love how they do this. In 2016 they adopted the international small arms and light weapons in parallel with the other seven categories, so we can keep track of all small arms. Hmm, 2016. What were they doing to try, what was the big anti-gun push to try to disarm us around that time? Thinking that they’re going to try to go around collecting our arms in the United States. Like it’s so disgusting. I love how they just cloak it. You actually can go on to their reports. I got bored. So, I clicked the arms report of 2023 and I was like, okay, armored carriers, all that . Small arms. I wanted to look and see who were like the top buyers. So, revolvers and self-loading pistols – Iraq. Apparently. Evan Nappen 33:57 Really? Teddy Nappen 33:58 Yeah, like 2,150 pistols from us to Iraq. Evan Nappen 34:03 Oh, from the U.S.? Teddy Nappen 34:05 Yeah, from the U.S. It keeps track of each country. Evan Nappen 34:07 Well, we’re making them. Teddy Nappen 34:09 Yeah. Evan Nappen 34:09 Of course. We’re a major industrial manufacturer. What we should be doing is making guns. Teddy Nappen 34:14 Yeah. And then rifles and carbines. They separate that from “assault firearms”. Rifles and carbines. 20,000 to Israel. So, there you go for that end. Page – 9 – of 11Evan Nappen 34:27 Yeah, Israel makes a lot of their own weapons, too, and they make really good ones. Teddy Nappen 34:32 Yeah, I know they have the Hebrew hammer. Evan Nappen 34:35 Oh, yeah! Teddy Nappen 34:35 The Tabor X95. (https://iwi.us/firearms/tavor-x95/) But with the sub-machine guns, Saudi Arabia, 550. Evan Nappen 34:41 This doesn’t even matter. This is so absurd, and it’s just trying to globalize Second Amendment oppression. You know, our country’s blessed with Second Amendment. And of course, New Jersey does everything it can to undermine it, but the majority of America doesn’t do that. But internationally, we, you know, they hate us. They hate our Constitution, and they want to see us disarmed. We are standing as a threat to their globalist intentions, right? Teddy Nappen 35:21 I mean, that was the famous line that Donald Trump said to the world. The world does not belong to globalists. And that’s a fact. And here, in their charter, they even say, such measures, as they’re describing the whole disarmament office, such measures can also encourage restraint in the transfer and production of armament and decelerate military build up. In words of, okay, we need to lower the amount of guns in the world and try to disarm the people. That’s the cover they run, but they dress it up. I will give the Left credit. Their ability to wordsmith their way into something else is crazy. Evan Nappen 36:06 Well, listen, man. It’s not every political group that can convince people, you know, that a man can be a woman. So, why can’t they convince the world about this with guns? Right? Teddy Nappen 36:17 Well, it’s the political group that has the. When they did the whole study on mental health of different groups, the vast majority of people that vote Democrat have mental illness. So, let that sink in. That was an actual study, and that was put out by, like, CNN! So. Evan Nappen 36:18 Really? Teddy Nappen 36:19 Yeah, they had to be like. No, I love it. If you are ever bored? Anyone who’s very bored, go on to CNN and catch Harry Enton, the statistics guy. He’s the golden retriever of CNN. He just talks about numbers, and he gets so excited. He’s like, oh my God, have you seen these numbers? I can’t believe Page – 10 – of 11it. He’s always, like, shocked every time. He sees like, you know, everyone keeps saying Trump’s numbers are going bad, but you go over to here. Six months ago, 84, and now, it’s 85. Oh, wow, amazing. Like, it’s just, it’s that energy. It’s crazy. Evan Nappen 37:13 Well, how old is he? Maybe he’s just trying to get excitement to statistics? Teddy Nappen 37:18 I know, but it’s just like, what are the numbers? Pretty good. He’s like, gad Zooks. He’s like, clapping. I know. It’s just like, what the heck is it? Like if anyone is bored? Just look up Harry Enten on CNN. He’s, it’s so fucking weird. Evan Nappen 37:37 Okay, I love it. All right, Teddy. Well, that is interesting to know, but I’m not surprised, not surprised at all. This is the moment, the moment when we discuss the GOFU, that is the Gun Owner Fuck Up. It is one of the most important aspects of what we do, because every day we deal with Gun Owner Fuck Ups. And when we can let the listeners know, you get to learn expensive lessons for free. And this week’s GOFU is real simple. It’s Accidental Discharge. Let me just make it real clear. Now, more than ever, more than ever, you’ve got to be extremely overly conscientious. You better triple check chambers. You’ve got to make sure. You cannot afford in any way to have any kind of Accidental Discharge in New Jersey, because you risk it all. You risk it all. You risk becoming a felon. You risk going to prison. You risk losing your gun rights for the entire United States. You risk not being covered, arguably, by insurance. It is an insane risk that New Jersey is imposing, and I’ve seen 80 cases throughout my entire practice. Unfortunately, they happen, and, you know, in hindsight, they’re all avoidable. But folks don’t be a GOFU. Please, please, please. Follow all the rules of safety, and make sure you treat every gun as loaded. Every gun, you treat as loaded. Do not for a second, not do that. It’s just that critical. They’re criminalizing those who make a simple mistake, and there is no tolerance. Evan Nappen 40:00 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 40:13 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Page – 11 – of 11 Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E273_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

Navigating the Complexities of Criminal Procedure: Eyewitness IDs, Prosecutorial Discretion, and Double JeopardyThis conversation delves into the complexities of criminal procedure, focusing on key areas such as eyewitness identification, prosecutorial discretion, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and the Double Jeopardy Clause. It highlights the systemic issues within the legal framework, particularly the challenges posed by unreliable eyewitness testimony and the significant power wielded by prosecutors. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding these legal doctrines for effective legal practice and examination preparation.In the intricate world of criminal procedure, understanding the nuances of legal doctrines is crucial for anyone studying law. This post explores three pivotal areas: eyewitness identification, prosecutorial discretion, and double jeopardy, each presenting unique challenges and implications for justice.Eyewitness Identification: Eyewitness testimony is often seen as compelling evidence, yet it is fraught with potential for error. The case of Ronald Cotton highlights how suggestive police procedures can corrupt a witness's memory, leading to wrongful convictions. The Supreme Court's Manson v. Brathwaite decision attempts to address these issues with a two-part test, but critics argue that the reliability factors can be tainted by the very procedures meant to be scrutinized.Prosecutorial Discretion: Prosecutors wield immense power in the judicial system, deciding who to charge and what charges to bring. While this discretion is necessary, it is not without limits. The Constitution provides checks against selective and vindictive prosecution, though proving such claims is notoriously difficult. The balance between prosecutorial power and accountability remains a contentious issue.Double Jeopardy: The Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being tried or punished multiple times for the same offense. However, the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine allows separate sovereigns, like state and federal governments, to prosecute the same act independently. This doctrine raises questions about fairness and the potential for excessive punishment.Conclusion: The tension between finality and fairness is a recurring theme in criminal procedure. As legal systems evolve, the challenge remains to reconcile traditional practices with scientific insights and constitutional protections. Understanding these dynamics is essential for navigating the legal landscape and advocating for justice.Subscribe Now: Stay informed on the latest legal insights and analyses by subscribing.TakeawaysEyewitness identification is a leading cause of wrongful convictions.The systemic crisis of misidentification is acknowledged by judges and scholars.Prosecutorial discretion is vast but not unchecked.The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches after formal adversarial proceedings begin.Double Jeopardy protects against multiple prosecutions for the same offense.The Manson v. Brathwaite test assesses the reliability of eyewitness IDs.The dual sovereignty doctrine allows for multiple prosecutions by different sovereigns.Confidence in eyewitness testimony can be artificially inflated by suggestive procedures.The reliability factors in eyewitness identification can be tainted by police procedures.Understanding the balance between finality and accuracy is crucial in criminal law.criminal procedure, eyewitness identification, prosecutorial discretion, Sixth Amendment, double jeopardy, legal doctrines, constitutional law, wrongful convictions, due process, legal education

Understanding the Sixth Amendment: The Right to Effective CounselThis conversation delves into the complexities of the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel, focusing on the Doctrine of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC) as established by Strickland v. Washington. It explores the two-pronged test for proving IAC, the implications of plea bargaining, and the distinction between structural errors and personal ineffectiveness. The discussion highlights the ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of counsel and the systemic issues within the criminal justice system.Navigating the labyrinth of the legal system can be daunting, especially when one's freedom is at stake. The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of the right to counsel is a cornerstone of justice, ensuring that even the most vulnerable have a guiding hand through the complexities of the law.The Strickland Test: At the heart of the right to effective counsel is the Strickland v. Washington case, which established a two-pronged test to determine ineffective assistance of counsel. This test requires proving both deficient performance by the lawyer and resulting prejudice affecting the trial's outcome. The challenge lies in overcoming the courts' deference to strategic legal decisions, making it a high bar for defendants to clear.Structural Errors and Autonomy: Certain errors, known as structural errors, bypass the need for proving prejudice. These include fundamental violations like a biased judge or denial of counsel, which automatically warrant a new trial. The recent McCoy v. Louisiana case highlights the importance of client autonomy, where a lawyer's decision to concede guilt against a client's wishes was deemed a structural error.Plea Bargaining and Counsel's Role: With over 90% of criminal cases resolved through plea deals, the quality of legal advice during these negotiations is crucial. Cases like Missouri v. Fry and Lafler v. Cooper underscore the importance of effective counsel in plea bargaining, where miscommunication or bad advice can significantly impact a defendant's decision and outcome.Conclusion: The Sixth Amendment's promise of effective counsel is vital for a fair trial, yet the Strickland test's stringent requirements often challenge its fulfillment. As legal debates continue, the focus remains on ensuring that the right to counsel is not just a promise, but a tangible reality for all.Subscribe now to stay informed on the latest developments in criminal procedure and the right to effective counsel.TakeawaysIneffective assistance of counsel is a critical area in criminal procedure.Strickland v. Washington provides the framework for IAC claims.The two-pronged test requires proving both deficient performance and prejudice.Deficient performance is measured against objective standards of reasonableness.Prejudice must undermine confidence in the trial's outcome.Structural errors lead to automatic reversals without needing to prove prejudice.Plea bargaining is a significant aspect of the right to counsel.Counsel's advice during plea negotiations can have profound consequences.The right to counsel is a personal right for the defendant.Systemic failures in legal representation can undermine the integrity of the justice system.Sixth Amendment, right to counsel, ineffective assistance of counsel, Strickland v. Washington, criminal procedure, plea bargaining, structural errors, legal representation, fair trial, legal standards

Understanding the Miranda Rule: A Deep Dive into Criminal ProcedureThis conversation delves into the complexities of confessions and interrogations within the framework of constitutional law, particularly focusing on the Fifth Amendment and the Miranda rule. It explores the historical context, the role of due process, the nuances of custody and interrogation, and the implications of waiver and invocation of rights. The discussion also highlights the exceptions to the Miranda rule and the ongoing debate surrounding the effectiveness and future of these legal protections.The phrase "You have the right to remain silent" is more than just a line from a TV show; it's a cornerstone of constitutional criminal law. This blog post explores the intricacies of the Miranda rule, its historical context, and its implications in modern criminal procedure.IntroductionImagine you're preparing for your criminal procedure exam, and you come across the Miranda rule. It's not just a theoretical concept; it's a critical component of legal analysis. This post will guide you through the complexities of the Miranda rule, its exceptions, and its consequences.The Three Constitutional LanesThe regulation of confessions doesn't rest solely on Miranda. It involves three distinct constitutional lanes: due process, the Fifth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment. Each lane has its own triggers, remedies, and exceptions, and understanding them is crucial for any law student or practitioner.Key Cases and Their ImpactBrown v. Mississippi: This case highlighted the need for voluntariness in confessions, setting the stage for the Miranda rule. Miranda v. Arizona: Established the requirement for Miranda warnings during custodial interrogations. Vega v. Teco: Recent rulings have further defined the scope and limitations of the Miranda rule, impacting police accountability.Practical ApplicationThe Miranda rule is not just about protecting rights; it's about balancing police powers and individual freedoms. Understanding the exceptions, such as the public safety exception, is essential for applying these principles in real-world scenarios.ConclusionThe Miranda rule remains a vital part of criminal procedure, but its effectiveness and scope continue to evolve. As you prepare for exams or practice law, remember to apply these principles sequentially and consider the broader implications of each case.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest legal insights and analysis.TakeawaysThe right to remain silent is a fundamental legal principle.Confessions must be voluntary to be admissible in court.The Miranda rule serves as a protective measure against coercion.Custody and interrogation are key triggers for Miranda warnings.Incarceration does not automatically imply Miranda custody.Waivers of rights must be both voluntary and knowing.Silence after receiving Miranda warnings is generally inadmissible.The search for truth in trials is a critical concern.Exceptions to Miranda exist, impacting the admissibility of statements.The interplay between different constitutional rights is complex and nuanced.Fifth Amendment, Miranda rights, confessions, criminal law, due process, interrogation, legal analysis, police questioning, constitutional law, rights of the accused

This Day in Legal History: Williams v. FloridaOn January 15, 1970, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Williams v. Florida, a significant case interpreting the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a trial by jury. The petitioner, Johnny Paul Williams, was convicted in a Florida court by a six-member jury and argued on appeal that his constitutional rights had been violated because the jury did not consist of twelve members. The Court, in a 6-2 decision authored by Justice Byron White, rejected this argument and held that the Constitution does not require a twelve-person jury in criminal cases.The ruling marked a turning point in how procedural aspects of jury trials were viewed under the Constitution. Drawing on historical analysis and functional reasoning, the Court concluded that the number twelve was a “historical accident” rather than a constitutional mandate. It emphasized that what mattered was whether the jury could fulfill its essential purpose: promoting group deliberation, guarding against government overreach, and representing a fair cross-section of the community.The Court's opinion opened the door for states to use smaller juries in certain criminal trials, leading to greater procedural flexibility. However, the ruling was not without its critics, including dissenting justices who warned that reducing jury size could dilute the quality of deliberation and increase the risk of wrongful convictions. The Court later clarified in Ballew v. Georgia (1978) that juries smaller than six members were unconstitutional, setting a lower boundary on size.Williams v. Florida continues to shape discussions around the structure and fairness of criminal jury trials. It reflects a broader judicial approach that balances historical tradition with evolving interpretations of fairness and efficiency in the criminal justice system. The decision also illustrates how constitutional protections, while deeply rooted, are not frozen in time but subject to ongoing judicial scrutiny.On January 17, 2026, a U.S. District Court will hear a request from Norwegian energy company Equinor to resume construction on its Empire Wind offshore project off the coast of New York. The company is suing the Trump administration after it suspended offshore wind development in federal waters, citing national security concerns related to radar interference. Equinor argues that the $4 billion project, now 60% complete, faces cancellation if construction doesn't continue by January 16. The case follows a recent decision allowing Danish company Ørsted to resume work on its own halted project off Rhode Island.The legal challenge is one of several confronting the Trump administration's broader effort to stall offshore wind development. Trump officials have paused work on five federal wind leases, citing a classified Defense Department assessment. Offshore wind companies say these actions threaten billions in investment and the viability of long-term energy goals. Empire Wind is projected to power about 500,000 homes once completed.US court to weigh New York project challenge to Trump offshore wind halt | ReutersThe Trump administration has reversed its decision to lay off nearly all employees of the Justice Department's Community Relations Service (CRS), an agency created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to mediate racial and ethnic conflicts. In a recent federal court filing in Boston, the DOJ stated that it rescinded the September layoff notices issued to 13 CRS staff members, citing “administrative discretion.” Civil rights groups, including two NAACP chapters and the Ethical Society of Police, had sued to block the terminations, arguing they were part of an unlawful attempt to dismantle the agency.Though the employees have been reinstated, it remains unclear if they will resume work on CRS functions. The plaintiffs have asked the court to hold a hearing to determine the practical impact of the reversal and whether CRS operations will truly continue. Under the Trump administration, the CRS reportedly stopped accepting new service requests and faced budget cuts, with the current White House proposal offering no funding for it. However, a bipartisan appropriations bill in Congress would allocate $20 million to support the agency.Previously, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani denied a temporary restraining order to stop the layoffs but said the plaintiffs had shown a strong likelihood of success. She is still considering whether to issue a permanent injunction to prevent dismantling the CRS.Trump administration reinstates fired employees of DOJ race-relations agency | ReutersTesla has agreed to enter mediation with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to try to resolve a federal lawsuit alleging widespread racial harassment at its Fremont, California factory. The EEOC claims Tesla allowed a hostile work environment where Black employees were subjected to slurs, racist graffiti—including swastikas and nooses—and other forms of discrimination, some of which appeared on vehicles coming off the assembly line. Tesla has denied the allegations, arguing it was unaware of the conduct and accusing the EEOC of seeking publicity.U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley approved a pause on some discovery deadlines to prioritize mediation efforts. The EEOC and Tesla are currently selecting a mediator, with talks potentially beginning in March or April. Both sides must report to the judge by June 17 if mediation fails. The lawsuit, filed during the Biden administration in September 2023, is part of a series of legal challenges Tesla has faced over workplace issues at its Fremont facility.In a separate case, Tesla recently avoided a class-action lawsuit when a California judge ruled that over 6,000 Black workers at the plant could not proceed as a group, citing a lack of willing witnesses.Tesla agrees to mediation that could resolve US agency's racism lawsuit | ReutersSix federal prosecutors in Minnesota resigned on January 13, 2026, in a move that may disrupt the Justice Department's intensified efforts to crack down on public benefits fraud. Among those stepping down are Joe Thompson, the former acting U.S. attorney for the district, and Harry Jacobs, a key figure in cases involving misused child nutrition program funds. Both were central to the high-profile Feeding Our Future investigation, which scrutinized alleged fraud in federal nutrition programs during the COVID-19 pandemic.Sources say the resignations were linked to political pressure from the Trump administration, including demands to investigate the widow of Renée Nicole Good, who was killed by a U.S. immigration officer earlier this month. The DOJ reportedly declined to pursue charges against the officer, leading to internal dissent.Minnesota Governor Tim Walz condemned the resignations as evidence of the Trump administration's politicization of the DOJ, accusing it of forcing out experienced, nonpartisan staff. The departures come amid a broader exodus from the department, including five senior lawyers from the Civil Rights Division, which had worked closely with Minnesota prosecutors after the murder of George Floyd in 2020.Attorney General Pam Bondi recently announced a new DOJ fraud division and plans to deploy prosecutors from other regions to Minneapolis. The White House has also ramped up enforcement in other liberal-leaning districts, which has led to more prosecutions related to immigration protests and officer assaults—and in some cases, grand jury rejections of those prosecutions.Six US Prosecutors Resign in Minnesota as Crackdown Builds (1) 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

Understanding the Exclusionary Rule: A Deep Dive into Criminal ProcedureThis conversation provides a comprehensive overview of the exclusionary rule in criminal procedures, detailing its historical evolution, the shift from judicial integrity to deterrence, and the mechanics of how the rule operates. It discusses the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, exceptions to the rule, the good faith exception, and the distinctions between Miranda violations and coerced confessions. The conversation concludes with insights on harmless error and impeachment, emphasizing the ongoing tension between individual rights and societal safety.The exclusionary rule is a cornerstone of criminal procedure, designed to protect constitutional rights by preventing illegally obtained evidence from being used in court. This rule, rooted in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, serves as a judicially created remedy rather than a personal constitutional right. Its primary goal is to deter police misconduct by ensuring that evidence obtained through illegal means is inadmissible in court.The Evolution of the Exclusionary RuleThe exclusionary rule has evolved significantly since its inception. Initially applied only to federal cases, it was extended to state courts through landmark cases like Mapp v. Ohio. This expansion was crucial in standardizing constitutional protections across the United States. However, the rule's application has been subject to numerous exceptions and limitations, reflecting the ongoing tension between individual rights and societal security.Key Cases and DoctrinesSeveral key cases have shaped the exclusionary rule, including Weeks v. United States, Wolf v. Colorado, and Mapp v. Ohio. These cases highlight the rule's development and the Supreme Court's shifting philosophy. The rule's application is further complicated by doctrines such as the "fruit of the poisonous tree," which extends exclusion to derivative evidence, and exceptions like the independent source and inevitable discovery doctrines.Balancing Rights and SecurityThe exclusionary rule embodies the delicate balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring collective security. While it aims to deter police misconduct, its application can result in the exclusion of reliable evidence, potentially allowing guilty individuals to go free. This trade-off underscores the rule's complexity and the ongoing debate over its effectiveness as a deterrent.ConclusionThe exclusionary rule remains a vital component of criminal procedure, reflecting the judiciary's commitment to upholding constitutional rights. As legal professionals and students navigate its intricacies, understanding its history, key cases, and exceptions is essential for mastering this complex doctrine.TakeawaysThe exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy.It aims to deter police misconduct by excluding illegally obtained evidence.Standing is crucial; defendants must prove their own rights were violated.The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine extends to derivative evidence.Exceptions to the exclusionary rule include independent source and inevitable discovery.The good faith exception allows evidence if officers acted reasonably.Miranda violations have different remedies compared to Fourth Amendment violations.Coerced confessions lead to absolute exclusion of evidence.Harmless error allows convictions to stand despite errors in evidence admission.The tension between individual rights and societal safety is central to the exclusionary rule.criminal procedure, exclusionary rule, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, judicial integrity, deterrence, fruit of the poisonous tree, good faith exception, Miranda rights

Idaho prosecutors have responded to Lori Vallow Daybell's appeal with a 59-page filing that systematically rejects every constitutional claim she raised. The convicted child killer argued her Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the court removed her attorney Mark Means. Prosecutors revealed Means simultaneously represented both Lori and her co-defendant husband Chad Daybell — with Chad paying the legal fees and sharing privileged information. That's a textbook conflict of interest, and the court was right to intervene. Her speedy trial claim falls apart under scrutiny: 353 days of delay came from her own competency evaluations, and she requested the venue change that added months to the timeline. The state's brief is blunt — she caused most of the delay, then complained about it. The Arizona evidence she wanted excluded proved the "dark spirit" murder pattern that connected Charles Vallow's death to the killings in Idaho. Same MO, same actors, same financial motive. Forensic testimony established JJ Vallow died of asphyxiation with a plastic bag over his head and duct tape binding his body. Tylee Ryan's remains were burned beyond recognition. Their mother collected Social Security benefits for months after they were dead. Chad Daybell sits on death row. Lori Vallow is serving three consecutive life sentences. This appeal won't change that.#LoriVallowDaybell #ChadDaybell #BreakingNews #TrueCrime #IdahoMurders #Appeal #CultMom #JJVallow #TyleeRyan #CourtNewsJoin Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISDOES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspodInstagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/tonybpodListen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

Episode 272- Jersey Spreads the Oppression  Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Second Amendment rights, New Jersey gun laws, national firearm licensing, anti-gun oppression, domestic violence restraining order, federal firearms licensing act, gun control measures, gun rights suppression, gun violence prevention, gun rights advocacy, gun rights litigation, gun rights education, gun rights resources, gun rights history, gun rights updates. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen Evan Nappen 00:15 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:17 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, New Jersey is spreading the oppression. New Jersey is like a cancer when it comes to Second Amendment rights, and it has to metastasize. This is really one of the primary reasons that Gun Lawyer, our show here, has reach that is further than just New Jersey, even though we focus a lot on New Jersey. But New Jersey is where we see the experimenting done at the cost of our rights, where we see the oppression in full force and effect. And we see their newest machinations coming from the Left wing, anti-Second Amendment, anti-American, think tanks getting their origins in New Jersey. Then spreading and then spreading, with an attempt to spread it to all of America. Evan Nappen 01:26 So, of course, we have New Jersey senators, strictly New Jersey senators here, that are now pushing a national gun licensing scheme, which is national Second Amendment rights oppression, to force the entire country into the agenda of disarmament via New Jersey style. And it is why you have to, we have to, keep the fight up here in New Jersey, which is the front line of the battle. We need to get our politics here changed, because the cancer has to stop. Evan Nappen 02:13 And here’s what they’re proposing right now. Granted, it’s not likely to pass in the current climate right now with Republicans in control, barely, but in control of both houses, and with President Trump at the helm. But it is something that tells you where the Democrats will go should they ever regain power again, and this is showing you just how far they will go to oppress our Second Amendment rights. I mean, it’s apparently not bad enough that the Democrats are so-called Democrat socialists, you know, communist light. But even just in terms of the Constitution that they are supposedly sworn to uphold, it is demonstrated as to be a false oath by them over and over again. Page – 1 – of 13 Evan Nappen 03:14 So, here is the current push, and by the way, this is from an article from Bearing Arms, and it’s by Tommy Knighton. It says, “NJ’s Senators Push National Gun Licensing Bill”. (https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2026/01/04/njs-senators-push-national-gun-licensing-bill- n1231085) So, who are the culprits here? Who are those oppressors out of New Jersey? Well, of course, it’s Senator (Corey) Booker and Senator (Andy) Kim. They’ve introduced this legislation, and they’re calling it the Federal Firearm Licensing Act (FFLA). Now, don’t confuse the title. Teddy Nappen 03:43 Doesn’t Cory Booker ever stop talking. Evan Nappen 03:46 Yeah. Don’t confuse this Federal Firearms Licensing Act with the way we traditionally think of an FFL as being a dealer. No, no, no. What they’re doing here, and maybe it’s part of their attempt to fool the public, I don’t know. But it would mandate that every American obtain a Federal Firearms License before purchasing or receiving any firearm. So, if you want to purchase or receive a firearm in America, you’re going to have to get an FFL. Now, this obviously isn’t a dealer FFL. It’s just a private person wanting to exercise Second Amendment rights FFL. This is apparently one of the most comprehensive federal gun control measures, what I prefer to call Second Amendment oppression measures, requiring and establishing a nationwide licensing system. Putting numerous new requirements on every American. Evan Nappen 04:59 Under this proposed legislation, you would need to complete a mandatory firearms training safety that includes both written and hands-on instruction before qualifying for a license. And this is a license just to obtain a firearm. This isn’t to carry a firearm. The Attorney General will then conduct background checks on every applicant, and the FBI would perform regular compliance checks to monitor license holders. So, you’re going to be constantly monitored by the FBI, as well as having to go through this. Each license will expire after five years, requiring gun owners to renew their permission to purchase firearms. And, of course, if the license expires and you don’t renew it, you’re losing your guns and your gun rights. And this is what the oppressionists, what New Jersey’s senators, are putting forward to try to create a national firearm licensing scheme. Of course, it has the end game of utter confiscation and to turn us into, you know, the U.K. basically. Evan Nappen 06:19 The bill will fundamentally alter how Americans can buy and sell firearms privately. Unlicensed individuals could no longer transfer to other unlicensed individuals. Instead, all transactions have to go through dealers, and selling or transferring a firearm without a Federal license issued within the previous 30 days would be illegal. Sellers are mandated to report transactions to law enforcement, etc. So, you can see this is just scratching the surface of this so-called Federal Firearms Licensing Act. It’s designed for the furtherance of their agenda. And this agenda we see come alive in New Jersey. How New Jersey citizens are turned into criminals. Law-abiding citizens turned into criminals by New Jersey Page – 2 – of 13 gun law. I deal with that every day, defending my clients who Jersey has made into law-abiding criminals. And this is something that they want to spread to the entire United States. So, beware. Evan Nappen 07:35 And keep in mind the history of gun rights oppression, beginning with New Jersey, and spreading to the entire U.S. is documented through a number of laws. For example, New Jersey first had the domestic violence misdemeanor and/or restraining order gun ban. New Jersey had it as a state law first, where if you had a domestic violence restraining order, or what New Jersey calls a disorderly person. We can view it as a misdemeanor offense. Concerning domestic violence, then you became a prohibited person to have a firearm. That was not a national law. That was state law. New Jersey was one of the originators of that law. Evan Nappen 08:22 And, of course, it was something that radically departed from what were traditionally prohibited persons. It had to be felons, convicted felons, and originally, it was violent felons, but at least you had to have a felony conviction. But now what you saw was misdemeanant, misdemeanant, a misdemeanant, suddenly having a gun disqualifier. And even less than being a misdemeanant, somebody with a civil restraining order became forfeit, disenfranchised of their Second Amendment rights. And New Jersey did it first to its own people. Then Senator, the corpse, Lautenberg, as you may recall, put it forward federally, and it became federal law by a New Jersey Senator. Creating new disqualifiers for domestic violence restraining order and/or domestic violence misdemeanor. Thereby, retroactively, by the way, because there’s no ex post facto when it comes to a civil disqualifier. Retroactively disqualifying hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people that were lawful gun owners into being unlawful gun owners. And lowering the bar for a loss of Second Amendment rights. Evan Nappen 10:01 This has impacted thousands of people in their gun rights, criminal prosecutions, et cetera. And, of course, no piece of paper ever actually really protected somebody. I mean, that’s a joke. You know, these restraining orders are feel good more than anything. I mean, good luck. I mean, we’ve seen case after case where, yeah, the person had a restraining order, and they still became victimized by the person who was restrained. And even taking away guns from the person who has the restraining order. Yeah, oh, there’s no way that they might get another gun, right? So, that thousands of people get their guns seized. Teddy Nappen 10:49 Or, the classic. He threw pretzels at me! Evan Nappen 10:52 Right! Oh, God. Teddy Nappen 10:53 Or where you get accused of something that isn’t true, that they make stuff up and there’s clear falsification. And then. Page – 3 – of 13 Evan Nappen 11:00 Teddy, you’re so right. As soon as that TRO, Temporary Restraining Order, issues based on the flimsiest of allegations, with you having no say whatsoever. And, you know, it’s harder to get a sandwich at Wawa, than to get a TRO issued against somebody. You now have to go to court. Your guns are going to be seized pursuant to that TRO, and you’re going to have a fight, not only on the allegations, but also on trying to regain your rights. And it’s just a nightmare that can be triggered on the flimsiest of allegations. We see it all the time. And oh, well, that’s not politically correct. Well, it doesn’t matter, folks. I don’t do this show so I can maintain political correctness. Evan Nappen 11:46 I’m telling you what I see as a practicing attorney all the time in this area. I see the abuse, abuse of rights, okay? I see this system being abused against individuals. None of this means that I’m in favor of someone being domestically abused, being violently abused in any capacity. I don’t want to see anybody abused. But that doesn’t mean that we do not talk about the actual effect that we see happen over and over and over again when it comes to the Lautenberg law that started with New Jersey and became federal law by New Jersey senators spreading the cancer, spreading the oppression, to the entire United States. So, that’s why this bill that you may think right now is not a threat, but don’t underestimate how important it is to be aware of it and to know that this very well could become reality. Because other bills in the past that were thought impossible, too, become law have become federal law. So, New Jersey is the state to watch when it comes to the danger to our Second Amendment rights. Evan Nappen 13:08 Now I have a letter here from Ask Evan, and this is from Ron. Ron says, I hope you had a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Well, thank you, Ron. I’m not sure if this is in your area of expertise, but I’m interested on how to handle fish and wildlife officers when hunting with a firearm. With open fields and extended powers granted them, what are we required to do and say to them when approached in the field while hunting,? Are there any recommendations or common issues you encounter how to prevent becoming a gun owner mess up of the week? I like how you call this. It’s a GOFU. You don’t want to be a GOFU, and I appreciate that you don’t want to be a GOFU. Teddy Nappen 13:45 Oh, check every, check every bush. Check every bush when you go out hunting, because you may find a fish and game officer. Evan Nappen 13:50 Hiding behind any bush, right? So, yeah, that reminds me of, I don’t know if I should tell that joke about. The law professor, the appellate judge, and the trial court judge all went hunting. So, they’re out hunting, and in front of the appellate court judge, the bush shook and moved, and out walks a deer. Now the appellate court judge looks at that and says, okay, there’s a three-part test to determine if that deer is a deer. You know, you gotta look at the antlers. You gotta look if there are any. Then you gotta look at the hoofs and the tail. And by the time he does a three-part test of the appellate judge’s determination, the deer is gone. It took off. Next thing you know, in front of the law professor, another little bush shakes and out walks a deer. And the law professor knows it’s a deer, but before he shoots, Page – 4 – of 13 he says, you know what’s the societal impact of me shooting this deer? I wonder how it might affect civil rights and current DEI requirements and all that. By the time he finishes all his social considerations, that deer is gone. Next thing you know, in front of the trial court judge, the bush shakes, and the trial court judge immediately fires into the bush and says, damn, I hope that’s a deer. Anyway, I know if you’re and maybe, maybe you have to be a lawyer to appreciate it, maybe you don’t. Evan Nappen 14:36 Anyway. Well, back to the hunting and fishing question here, Teddy. Sorry to torture people with that. And it’s a really good question. And what it says is, what do you do in this situation. Well, here’s the deal. Law enforcement is law enforcement. Fish and Game Officers are law enforcement officers, and they’re proud to say they are. So, the question is, do you have to talk to law enforcement? And the answer is, no, you don’t. You don’t have to talk to law enforcement. Now, what you do have to do, though, is you have to provide your pedigree information. I mean, if they asked to see your license, I would suggest show them your license and identifying yourself as you would with any officer, your pedigree information. But I would not talk anything about your activities in the field. I would not talk about anything about anything. Evan Nappen 15:40 I mean, if they walk up to you and you have your gun, then they want to make sure that things are safe. So, they may ask to secure your firearm in some manner, and it’s best to cooperate with that. But as far as what you say, you have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. You have a Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. You have no obligation to speak to them about any other questions they may have about having to do anything that requires you to say something without a lawyer, other than what I would just leave as identification and pedigree as to who you are, but that’s essentially how it is. And you know, if they say, hey, we want to search your vehicle. No, you do not consent to them searching your vehicle. If they’re going to search no matter what, then they’ll do whatever they’re going to do. But you are not going to consent to it, and that’s the difference. Evan Nappen 15:40 The problem is that with Fish and Game violations, you can end up having your gun rights in jeopardy. They will attempt to use your hunting violations as public health, safety, welfare, character assassination type tactics. Where they will say, oh, you didn’t hunt properly, or follow the hunting laws, etc, with firearms. And then they’ll use it to try to then take away your gun rights. So, there is a risk when hunting that hunting charges can jeopardize your gun rights by them using what I call the all- inclusive miscellaneous weasel clause, also known as “public health, safety, and welfare” of the 58-3 licensing requirements. They will take your hunting violations and try to push it into a claim that somehow you’re a danger. So, you have to be careful with having hunting violations, because, yes, it can directly come into conflict and cause problems for your Second Amendment rights on possession of firearms, generally speaking. So, always stand on your rights and be aware that your rights don’t just disappear because the Law Enforcement Officer you’re dealing with happens to be a Fish and Game Law Enforcement Officer. Page – 5 – of 13 Evan Nappen 15:55 Hey, let me tell you about our friends at WeShoot, which is a range where Teddy and I both shoot in Lakewood. We love WeShoot. Well, they’ve been spotlighting some of their instructors, and they have really top notch instructors. They are highlighting about their expert instructor, retired Detective Sergeant Jim Weinberg, aka Rabbi Jim, folks. That’s right, Rabbi Jim is a legendary instructor at WeShoot, and Rabbi Jim is really top notch. He’s had a lifetime of service. Over 30 years in law enforcement experience in both the Union County’s Prosecutor’s Office and as Union County Police Officer. And he spent two decades with SWAT/UCERT operator. He’s trained thousands, and he’s a PTC Certified Instructor as well. That’s for Police Training Commission purposes. And he served as a Fire Instructor at the police academy. And so he is one of their great trainers at WeShoot. He can do the RPO qualifications, and he can do CCARE. And he has a great teaching style. Jim is just one of the great instructors that you can have instruct you at WeShoot. Evan Nappen 20:50 It’s amazing resource that we have right there in Central Jersey, easily accessible off the Parkway. They have a great pro shop, great staff and a great range. I mean it. We love WeShoot, and so will you. Go to weshootusa.com, weshootusa.com. Check out their website. You’ll find they have wonderful photography and, of course, you want to check out the WeShoot girls that have great guns and other things that they display proudly that you will love to see. And you can find those at the pro shop. They often run great sales and deals. So, make sure you check out weshootusa.com. Evan Nappen 21:39 Also, I want to mention our good friends at the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs. Boy oh, boy, things are heating up. We have some major litigation that we’re going to see some major results on in the Third Circuit, where the full panel has agreed on a number of our issues to do the review. We’re cautiously optimistic here about seeing some real important wins in terms of the case law. The Association is there at the forefront on this litigation. Very exciting. Regarding so-called assault firearms and large capacity magazines, which we prefer to call standard capacity magazines and assault firearms. Man, the pejorative terms of the Left. They’re just so ridiculous. Evan Nappen 22:35 Anyway, the bottom line is, it’s not just words. It’s the effect that these wacko definitions that they put into law arbitrarily turn us into criminals, and that’s what has to end. I’m cautiously optimistic that the court is going to do that. The court is going to step up and finally address these key issues in a positive way for our Second Amendment rights. I mean, folks, I know it gets depressing out there with how we’re treated, but the truth is, we are making tremendous progress. We really are. Between President Trump’s administration and with the Supreme Court and with his appointment of judges throughout the federal court system, we are seeing great progress. I’m really excited for it, but we have to stay vigilant. As you know, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs will help you maintain your vigilance. Go to anjrpc.org, and make sure you join as a member. You’ll get those email updates, and you’ll be glad you did. Page – 6 – of 13 Evan Nappen 23:50 And let me also shamelessly promote my book New Jersey Gun Law, which is the Bible of New Jersey gun law, and you will enjoy it immensely. And you can say to yourself, how does a state like New Jersey even exist with this insane matrix of laws? But at least you’ll know because you have the book on how to safely navigate through them. So, get your copy of New Jersey Gun Law today. The 25th Anniversary Edition is available from EvanNappen.com Hey, that sounds like my name. Well, in fact, it is. Go to EvanNappen.com, and you’ll see the big orange book there. Get your copy today. Make sure you scan the front QR code and join my private subscriber base. I will send you out updates, and you’ll be able to access the archives. And I’m working on what will be the 2026 Comprehensive Update. We’re waiting to see if laws that have passed get signed into law, which I expect any day now they will be. And then I’m going to be putting out the update. So, you want to make sure you have the book and belong on the subscriber base so that you can stay current. Teddy, what do you have for us today? Teddy Nappen 25:03 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free. And because it’s the new year, we always gotta check in on the gun rights suppressors and what’s the latest of their propaganda. They decided to put out a report card like they’re, like they’re, a teacher scolding the states for failing to apply their gun rights oppression. (https://giffords.org/lawcenter/resources/scorecard/) But New Jersey, who is the teacher’s pet, got an A. Evan Nappen 25:34 Of course, New Jersey got an A. What does the “A” stand for? Teddy Nappen 25:37 “A” stands for anti-gunners. Also, for New Jersey, the Bloomberg check cleared. So, obviously they’re going to push for it. So. Evan Nappen 25:46 I thought a stands for “a holes”. Teddy Nappen 25:49 That works, too. But yeah, they break it down in that. You can go to their website and check it out. They make it very convenient to click and compare/contrast states. By the way, New Hampshire got an F. So, good job. Evan Nappen 26:03 Oh, New Hampshire, good. F for freedom. Teddy Nappen 26:06 F for freedom. Yep. F for freedom. A for anti-gunners. That’s how we look at it. But I love how they tote it. Which is gun law strength rank, number two. Sorry, they lost. I guess California still wins the day. Teddy Nappen 26:19 Really? Wait, who was number one? Page – 7 – of 13 Teddy Nappen 26:24 From pulling up from that, pulling up, I believe it was California. Evan Nappen 26:28 That makes sense. Teddy Nappen 26:30 They went. Yep, California is number one. Yeah, congratulations to California. Good luck. Good luck. How are the fires? Anyways, I love how they tote the gun death rate ranking, one of the lowest gun death rankings. They always love to tote that. And what is gun deaths? Well, anyone who’s been shot by a firearm, regardless. They count and they misconstrue and put a stamp on it. And by the way, a lot of the other states don’t like to report. Evan Nappen 27:05 They push these false statistics. They’re just such liars. They’re unbelievable. They just, you know, they contort the statistics to make it fit their agenda. It’s that simple. Teddy Nappen 27:17 Yeah, it’s what they do. And they highlighted New Jersey’s investment of nearly $34 million in community violence intervention programs. What does that translate into? Oh, the domestic violence programs, all the anti-gun, you know, NGOs to fund our gun right suppression. Basically, when they say that, it’s them saying New Jersey is paying Democrats to take away your rights. Evan Nappen 27:45 Good way to translate it. Teddy Nappen 27:46 Yeah, just from following the money. I do love the comment section. Again, I’m treating this like a teacher going over. Well, you did a very good job. However, for a way to improve, expand your firearm responsibility laws, aka make a law to circumvent the PLCCA so that you can sue gun companies to create gun deserts. They want to require prohibited people to relinquish their firearms, even though prohibited people aren’t allowed to possess firearms. But that’s just, you know, they’re just, they’re just throwing something extra out there. And to raise the minimum age for purchase or carry a firearms to 21. I mean, at this point. Evan Nappen 28:33 Raise the age for guns, but they want to lower voting to 16. It’s amazing how certain civil rights should have high ages, and other civil rights have low ages. But we can’t just say the age of majority for everything, God forbid, right? 18. Teddy Nappen 28:50 I know. I know the you know the age should be 20. You know, I wonder what would happen to the Dems when you hear the age 21 to vote? Yeah. Page – 8 – of 13 Evan Nappen 28:59 Yeah. Right. Just apply anything. Or freedom of speech. That’s the other one. Yeah, before you can say or you can do anything. Before you can voice your opinion, you need to. Teddy Nappen 29:11 After getting approved from the Government to speak. Evan Nappen 29:13 Right. Prior approval and taking training courses with licensure. Teddy Nappen 29:20 Well, they already want to do that. Evan Nappen 29:21 So that every right is registered. Teddy Nappen 29:24 Well, you have to have the safety of language, because words are violence. Also silence is violence. It actually kind of reminds me of when I had to do the ethics. Evan Nappen 29:34 Wait, they said that silence is violence? Teddy Nappen 29:36 Oh yeah, that’s the game the Left play. Either. Either you cannot say those things because those are mean. But also, silence is violence. The only logical thing you can do is agree with us. That is their logic, and it’s quite disgusting how they play that game. Evan Nappen 29:54 I like that. Silence is violence. Teddy Nappen 29:56 Silence is violence but also, don’t use hurtful language. Figure that out. It’s a trap. That is the game they play. Evan Nappen 30:01 Why did you shoot that person? Well, because he didn’t say anything and silence is violence. Teddy Nappen 30:06 It honestly reminds me of when we had to do the ethics course for when you’re when you become a attorney. The certification they do. This woman comes up and then says to everyone, everyone on Zoom. By the way, they said to us in the very beginning, no one make comments to the speakers, Page – 9 – of 13 please. We know there’s disagreements, but this must be said. She gets up on the podium and says, you are not a comedian. Do not make jokes. That is offensive. Evan Nappen 30:06 Do not make jokes? Teddy Nappen 30:12 Do not make jokes. And my first thought was, my God, you are the problem with society. Like you can’t make jokes. I’m like, oh, my God. So yeah, but getting back to the. Evan Nappen 30:14 No jokes. Wasn’t that from Zulu? Remember when he was talking? Teddy Nappen 30:55 No, no, no. He says. Evan Nappen 30:56 What did he say in Zulu? Teddy Nappen 30:57 The sergeant, the Sergeant, Sergeant, yes. They say, no comedian. Evan Nappen 31:02 No comedian. Teddy Nappen 31:05 He’s going through like, he’s going through roles. Evan Nappen 31:08 Right. Because they’re getting ready for battle. Teddy Nappen 31:10 After the battle, he says Hicks? You’re alive. Say your name. Oh, I’m alive. Thank you, sir. No comedians. Yeah, I will give this card one thing important that I like. It basically lays the whole groundwork of them chastising the Trump administration for its very pro-gun activities they’ve done throughout the Government. Evan Nappen 31:42 Criticizing President Trump for expanding Second Amendment rights? Okay, so do they make a list or something? Teddy Nappen 31:48 Oh, they made a wonderful list. And I was like. Page – 10 – of 13 Evan Nappen 31:50 Let’s hear all the terrible things President Trump has done in expanding Second Amendment rights. Teddy Nappen 31:55 Cutting $800 million of public safety grants, and $150 million to the violence intervention and prevention programs. Evan Nappen 32:03 Nice. The propaganda arm. Teddy Nappen 32:05 Yeah, all that. And then going after ending the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. You know, all the horrible laws that we’ve been getting in the SAFE offices? Those were created by the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Trump ended that office and then created. Evan Nappen 32:24 That was propaganda office of Biden. Teddy Nappen 32:28 Correct. And he ended that. Also the dealer regulation. This is them saying it. Dealer regulation, gun hardware. Trump has considered many cuts to the ATF and removing core ATF policies for penalizing gun dealers. You know. Evan Nappen 32:43 Those were outrageously bad. Teddy Nappen 32:46 One screw up and you lose your license. Evan Nappen 32:49 Yeah. So, that was great that he got rid of all that. Teddy Nappen 32:53 Gun Violence Research Policy cut hundreds of staff to the CDC and, you know, another propaganda department, pumping out false data and oversaw allocation of research grants, you know, to oh, Bloomberg’s college. Evan Nappen 33:07 Yeah. Because they want to make it a health issue so they can regulate it in that manner. And it’s not a health issue. And yet, they want to put it in that context, so then they can Page – 11 – of 13 Teddy Nappen 33:18 Then the big highlight, which I’m laughing that they actually know about this, the One Big, Beautiful Bill where it removes the tax requirement for gun silencers. They were trying to put a short barreled rifles, sawed off shotguns. I know those two. I don’t I don’t know if those two made it. Evan Nappen 33:35 Any other weapon. Suppressors, any other weapons. And by getting rid of the tax, the idea there is now we’re in litigation that the entire NFA needs to go. And, of course, with success with that lawsuit, where if there is no tax, then it loses its justification for existence. Then we can actually legalize machine guns by way of a simple reconciliation bill where we remove the tax through NFA even on machine guns. That’s how we’ll get the job done. Teddy Nappen 34:10 Take me back four years ago and tell me there would have been a bill put forward to effectively kneecap and shatter the NFA. That is the earth shattering power that this administration has done. Evan Nappen 34:26 And think about this. For the first time since 1934 when this was enacted, we’ve actually been able to take a piece out of it, and the piece has been the actual money that’s been collected. And by the way, there’s been a boom since the tax is gone, in people getting suppressors and getting these other things, even with the law still in effect. I have recently seen that the turnaround time on getting suppressors without having to pay the tax is very quick, as quick as one day. Even electronically, I’ve been hearing. So, it’s very fast turnaround, and it’s being done without having to pay the 200 bucks. Now, of course, if you live in the gun right suppression state of New Jersey, the state still bans silencers. But that’s currently being challenged in court as well. At the moment, you can’t have a suppressor because New Jersey is in favor of gun owners damaging their hearing and making sure that it is as unsafe as possible for any gun owner in terms of hearing protection. But we should see that litigation come to fruition shortly. Anything else on the list that President Trump has done? Teddy Nappen 35:43 Oh, they were going after, of course, the forced reset trigger. They’re trying, oh, yeah, that we’re like. No longer will the ATF come breaking down your door or trying to get, you know, going through and, you know, creating their own work by then saying, oh, it’s fine. And no, it’s not. And then going after innocent people who are making a purchase. It’s the level all these things. I just tell these people. This is as pro-gun as we could possibly get with this administration at the moment. And there’s still more to come, because we’re in the second year. We’re just starting the second year. Evan Nappen 36:21 I know. I know it’s just the beginning of our Christmas gift list of fun. So, it’s great. All right, well, so long as we keep making progress, which we are. But let me tell you about this week’s GOFU, which is, of course, the Gun Owners Fuck Up. And it’s important to know this so that you don’t end up having an expensive lesson learned, where you get to learn it on the cheap. You get to learn it free from the show. So, these are based on actual cases, actual clients, actual real GOFUs that I’ve seen. This week’s GOFU has to do with make sure you know the dates of your gun purchases, because New Jersey has Page – 12 – of 13 one gun a month, right? One handgun within a 30-day period. You can’t get more than that. So, I always look at one gun a month as kind of the gun of the month where you have to buy one every 30 days. But whether or not you want to take that approach or not, the problem is, don’t attempt purchase within the 30 days, even by accident, because it’ll have ramifications. It gets picked up on because of how the system is designed. If you even inadvertently end up in that more than one gun within 30 days, you can have serious problems. So, be very cautious. I’ve even had debates over the counting in terms of hours for the difference. Make sure you have a good buffer in there until we knock that law out as unconstitutional, which it really should be. I don’t want to see you have a GOFU in which the purchase within the 30 days triggers an escalation to seizure, revocation and possible criminal charges. The whole nine yards coming down on your head. Keep the count of days accurate and clear. Evan Nappen 37:07 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 37:30 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Page – 13 – of 13 Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E272_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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