POPULARITY
26 episodes with Sixth Amendment
26 episodes with Sixth Amendment
22 episodes with Sixth Amendment
15 episodes with Sixth Amendment
10 episodes with Sixth Amendment
8 episodes with Sixth Amendment
6 episodes with Sixth Amendment
8 episodes with Sixth Amendment
8 episodes with Sixth Amendment
19 episodes with Sixth Amendment
11 episodes with Sixth Amendment
6 episodes with Sixth Amendment
4 episodes with Sixth Amendment
2 episodes with Sixth Amendment
2 episodes with Sixth Amendment
2 episodes with Sixth Amendment
4 episodes with Sixth Amendment
14 episodes with Sixth Amendment
Psychiatrist, internist, and addiction medicine specialist Muhamad Aly Rifai discusses his article, "Physician patriots: the forgotten founders who lit the torch of liberty." Muhamad calls for a remembrance of the five physician-patriots—Dr. Benjamin Rush, Dr. Josiah Bartlett, Dr. Lyman Hall, Dr. Matthew Thornton, and Dr. Oliver Wolcott—who signed the Declaration of Independence, risking everything for the principles of equality and unalienable rights. He contrasts their revered role with the current plight of physicians who face persecution, silencing, and legal battles within a politicized health care system, citing violations of First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendment rights. Muhamad emphasizes Dr. Benjamin Rush's profound influence beyond medicine, in shaping the nation's moral and educational fabric. The conversation serves as a rallying cry for contemporary physicians to reclaim their heritage as defenders of liberty, to organize, speak out against injustice, and fight for the ability to practice medicine ethically and without political interference, much like their predecessors did. Muhamad asserts that this new revolution is just beginning, with doctors ready to defend life, liberty, and patient dignity on new battlefields like clinics, courtrooms, and the internet. Our presenting sponsor is Microsoft Dragon Copilot. Microsoft Dragon Copilot, your AI assistant for clinical workflow, is transforming how clinicians work. Now you can streamline and customize documentation, surface information right at the point of care, and automate tasks with just a click. Part of Microsoft Cloud for Healthcare, Dragon Copilot offers an extensible AI workspace and a single, integrated platform to help unlock new levels of efficiency. Plus, it's backed by a proven track record and decades of clinical expertise—and it's built on a foundation of trust. It's time to ease your administrative burdens and stay focused on what matters most with Dragon Copilot, your AI assistant for clinical workflow. VISIT SPONSOR → https://aka.ms/kevinmd SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST → https://www.kevinmd.com/podcast RECOMMENDED BY KEVINMD → https://www.kevinmd.com/recommended
In response to the Court's request during the November 22, 2024, hearing, defendant Sean Combs has submitted a letter addressing the permissible scope of his communications under the Court's order and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23.1. Combs' legal team outlines the types of interactions he is allowed to engage in, ensuring compliance with the Court's directives while upholding his First and Sixth Amendment rights. The letter emphasizes the importance of balancing the need to prevent potential jury tampering or undue influence with Combs' constitutional rights to free speech and a fair trial.The submission seeks to clarify the boundaries of acceptable communications, proposing guidelines that would allow Combs to maintain necessary personal and professional interactions without violating legal restrictions. By providing this detailed briefing, Combs' attorneys aim to assist the Court in establishing clear parameters that protect the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.(commercial at 11:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.85.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf
Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf
Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf
Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf
Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf
Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdf
Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team has raised concerns over a recent search of his jail cell at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, alleging that federal authorities seized materials protected by attorney-client privilege. According to his attorney, Marc Agnifilo, the confiscated items include handwritten notes detailing defense strategies and witness information for Combs' upcoming trial. Agnifilo contends that this action violates Combs' Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, as the materials were intended solely for legal preparation.The defense argues that the seizure of these privileged documents could compromise Combs' ability to mount an effective defense. They have filed a motion requesting the return of the materials and are seeking assurances that prosecutors will not use the information in the ongoing case. Combs is currently awaiting trial on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering, with proceedings scheduled to begin in May 2025.Let's dive in!(commercial at 8:52)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:United States v. COMBS, 1:24-cr-00542 – CourtListener.comDiddy's Lawyers Say Jail Cell Sweep Violated His RightsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In response to the Court's request during the November 22, 2024, hearing, defendant Sean Combs has submitted a letter addressing the permissible scope of his communications under the Court's order and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23.1. Combs' legal team outlines the types of interactions he is allowed to engage in, ensuring compliance with the Court's directives while upholding his First and Sixth Amendment rights. The letter emphasizes the importance of balancing the need to prevent potential jury tampering or undue influence with Combs' constitutional rights to free speech and a fair trial.The submission seeks to clarify the boundaries of acceptable communications, proposing guidelines that would allow Combs to maintain necessary personal and professional interactions without violating legal restrictions. By providing this detailed briefing, Combs' attorneys aim to assist the Court in establishing clear parameters that protect the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.(commercial at 11:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.85.0.pdf
Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team has raised concerns over a recent search of his jail cell at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, alleging that federal authorities seized materials protected by attorney-client privilege. According to his attorney, Marc Agnifilo, the confiscated items include handwritten notes detailing defense strategies and witness information for Combs' upcoming trial. Agnifilo contends that this action violates Combs' Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, as the materials were intended solely for legal preparation.The defense argues that the seizure of these privileged documents could compromise Combs' ability to mount an effective defense. They have filed a motion requesting the return of the materials and are seeking assurances that prosecutors will not use the information in the ongoing case. Combs is currently awaiting trial on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering, with proceedings scheduled to begin in May 2025.Let's dive in!(commercial at 8:52)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:United States v. COMBS, 1:24-cr-00542 – CourtListener.comDiddy's Lawyers Say Jail Cell Sweep Violated His Rights
Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team has raised concerns over a recent search of his jail cell at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, alleging that federal authorities seized materials protected by attorney-client privilege. According to his attorney, Marc Agnifilo, the confiscated items include handwritten notes detailing defense strategies and witness information for Combs' upcoming trial. Agnifilo contends that this action violates Combs' Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, as the materials were intended solely for legal preparation.The defense argues that the seizure of these privileged documents could compromise Combs' ability to mount an effective defense. They have filed a motion requesting the return of the materials and are seeking assurances that prosecutors will not use the information in the ongoing case. Combs is currently awaiting trial on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering, with proceedings scheduled to begin in May 2025.Let's dive in!(commercial at 8:52)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:United States v. COMBS, 1:24-cr-00542 – CourtListener.comDiddy's Lawyers Say Jail Cell Sweep Violated His RightsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In response to the Court's request during the November 22, 2024, hearing, defendant Sean Combs has submitted a letter addressing the permissible scope of his communications under the Court's order and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23.1. Combs' legal team outlines the types of interactions he is allowed to engage in, ensuring compliance with the Court's directives while upholding his First and Sixth Amendment rights. The letter emphasizes the importance of balancing the need to prevent potential jury tampering or undue influence with Combs' constitutional rights to free speech and a fair trial.The submission seeks to clarify the boundaries of acceptable communications, proposing guidelines that would allow Combs to maintain necessary personal and professional interactions without violating legal restrictions. By providing this detailed briefing, Combs' attorneys aim to assist the Court in establishing clear parameters that protect the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.United States District Judge Arun Subramanian has denied Sean Combs's renewed motion for bail following a November 22, 2024, hearing. Combs originally filed the motion on November 8, 2024, with both parties providing supplemental letters on November 25 and 26, 2024, to support their arguments. The court evaluated the presented evidence and legal arguments during the proceedings and determined that the conditions of bail sought by Combs were not appropriate under the circumstances.The decision to deny bail highlights the court's assessment that Combs's release might pose legal or procedural risks that outweigh any arguments for his freedom pending further proceedings. Details of the ruling emphasize the seriousness of the case against him, with Judge Subramanian concluding that Combs must remain in custody as the legal process continues.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.92.0_1.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.85.0.pdf
In response to the Court's request during the November 22, 2024, hearing, defendant Sean Combs has submitted a letter addressing the permissible scope of his communications under the Court's order and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23.1. Combs' legal team outlines the types of interactions he is allowed to engage in, ensuring compliance with the Court's directives while upholding his First and Sixth Amendment rights. The letter emphasizes the importance of balancing the need to prevent potential jury tampering or undue influence with Combs' constitutional rights to free speech and a fair trial.The submission seeks to clarify the boundaries of acceptable communications, proposing guidelines that would allow Combs to maintain necessary personal and professional interactions without violating legal restrictions. By providing this detailed briefing, Combs' attorneys aim to assist the Court in establishing clear parameters that protect the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.United States District Judge Arun Subramanian has denied Sean Combs's renewed motion for bail following a November 22, 2024, hearing. Combs originally filed the motion on November 8, 2024, with both parties providing supplemental letters on November 25 and 26, 2024, to support their arguments. The court evaluated the presented evidence and legal arguments during the proceedings and determined that the conditions of bail sought by Combs were not appropriate under the circumstances.The decision to deny bail highlights the court's assessment that Combs's release might pose legal or procedural risks that outweigh any arguments for his freedom pending further proceedings. Details of the ruling emphasize the seriousness of the case against him, with Judge Subramanian concluding that Combs must remain in custody as the legal process continues.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.92.0_1.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.85.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In response to the Court's request during the November 22, 2024, hearing, defendant Sean Combs has submitted a letter addressing the permissible scope of his communications under the Court's order and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23.1. Combs' legal team outlines the types of interactions he is allowed to engage in, ensuring compliance with the Court's directives while upholding his First and Sixth Amendment rights. The letter emphasizes the importance of balancing the need to prevent potential jury tampering or undue influence with Combs' constitutional rights to free speech and a fair trial.The submission seeks to clarify the boundaries of acceptable communications, proposing guidelines that would allow Combs to maintain necessary personal and professional interactions without violating legal restrictions. By providing this detailed briefing, Combs' attorneys aim to assist the Court in establishing clear parameters that protect the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.United States District Judge Arun Subramanian has denied Sean Combs's renewed motion for bail following a November 22, 2024, hearing. Combs originally filed the motion on November 8, 2024, with both parties providing supplemental letters on November 25 and 26, 2024, to support their arguments. The court evaluated the presented evidence and legal arguments during the proceedings and determined that the conditions of bail sought by Combs were not appropriate under the circumstances.The decision to deny bail highlights the court's assessment that Combs's release might pose legal or procedural risks that outweigh any arguments for his freedom pending further proceedings. Details of the ruling emphasize the seriousness of the case against him, with Judge Subramanian concluding that Combs must remain in custody as the legal process continues.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.92.0_1.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.85.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
This Day in Legal History: Miranda v. ArizonaOn June 13, 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona, fundamentally reshaping American criminal procedure. The case centered on Ernesto Miranda, who had confessed to kidnapping and rape during a police interrogation without being informed of his constitutional rights. In a narrow 5–4 ruling, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel require law enforcement officers to inform suspects of their rights before custodial interrogation begins.The decision mandated that suspects be told they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in court, and that they have the right to an attorney—either retained or appointed. These now-standard warnings, known as "Miranda rights," became a required part of police procedure across the United States.Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the majority, emphasized that custodial interrogation is inherently coercive and that procedural safeguards were necessary to preserve the individual's privilege against self-incrimination. The dissenters, led by Justice Harlan, argued the decision imposed an impractical burden on law enforcement and that traditional voluntariness tests were sufficient.Miranda sparked immediate controversy, with critics warning it would hamper police efforts and allow guilty individuals to go free. Nonetheless, it has endured as a cornerstone of American constitutional law, embodying the principle that the government must respect individual rights even in the pursuit of justice. Over the years, the ruling has been refined but not overturned, and Miranda warnings are now deeply embedded in both law enforcement training and popular culture.Tesla has filed a trade secret lawsuit in California federal court against former engineer Jay Li and his startup, Proception, alleging that Li stole confidential information to accelerate the development of robotic hands. According to the complaint, Li worked on Tesla's Optimus humanoid robot project from 2022 to 2024 and allegedly downloaded sensitive files related to robotic hand movements before departing the company. Tesla claims Li used this proprietary data to give Proception an unfair edge, enabling the startup to make rapid technological gains that had taken Tesla years and significant investment to achieve.The suit points out that Proception was founded just six days after Li left Tesla and began showcasing its robotic hands five months later—devices Tesla says bear a “striking similarity” to its own designs. Tesla is seeking monetary damages and a court order to prevent further use of its alleged trade secrets. Legal representation for Tesla includes attorneys from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, while counsel for Proception and Li has not yet been disclosed.Tesla lawsuit says former engineer stole secrets for robotics startup | ReutersA federal district court and a federal appeals court issued conflicting rulings over President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles amid protests over aggressive immigration enforcement.U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled earlier in the day that Trump's order to deploy the Guard was unlawful. He found that the protests did not meet the legal threshold of a “rebellion,” which would be necessary for the president to override state control of the Guard under the Insurrection Act or related powers. Breyer concluded the deployment inflamed tensions and stripped California of the ability to use its own Guard for other state needs. His 36-page opinion ordered that control of the National Guard be returned to California Governor Gavin Newsom.However, about two and a half hours later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay, temporarily pausing Breyer's ruling and allowing Trump to retain command of the Guard for now. The three-judge panel—two appointed by Trump and one by President Biden—stressed that their order was not a final decision and set a hearing for the following Tuesday to evaluate the full merits of the lower court's decision.Meanwhile, a battalion of 700 U.S. Marines was scheduled to arrive to support the Guard, further escalating the federal presence. Critics, including L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and Senator Alex Padilla—who was forcibly removed from a press event—argued that the military response was excessive and politically motivated. Supporters of the deployment, including Trump and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, defended it as necessary to restore order. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed public opinion split, with 48% supporting military use to quell violent protests and 41% opposed.Appeals court allows Trump to keep National Guard in L.A. with Marines on the way | ReutersIn a pattern that surprises few, the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court has granted President Donald Trump a series of victories through its emergency—or "shadow"—docket, continuing a trend of fast-tracking his policy goals without full hearings. Since returning to office in January, Trump's administration has filed 19 emergency applications to the Court, with decisions in 13 cases so far. Of those, nine rulings went fully in Trump's favor, one partially, and only two against him. These rapid interventions have enabled Trump to enforce controversial policies—including ending humanitarian legal status for migrants, banning transgender military service, and initiating sweeping federal layoffs—despite lower court injunctions.District court challenges to these actions often cite constitutional overreach or procedural shortcuts, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly overruled or paused these lower court decisions with minimal explanation. The emergency docket, once used sparingly, has become a regular tool for the Trump administration, matching the total number of applications filed during Biden's entire presidency in under five months. Critics argue that the Court's increasing reliance on this docket lacks transparency, with rulings frequently unsigned and unexplained. Liberal justices have voiced strong objections, warning that rushed decisions with limited briefing risk significant legal error.The Court's 6-3 conservative majority, including three Trump appointees, has given the president a judicial green light to implement divisive policies while litigation plays out. Some legal scholars argue these outcomes reflect strategic case selection rather than simple ideological bias. Still, in light of the Court's current composition and its repeated willingness to empower executive action, the results are hardly shocking.Trump finds victories at the Supreme Court in rush of emergency cases | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Tomaso Albinoni.This week's closing theme is Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7 by Tomaso Albinoni, a composer whose elegant, expressive works have often been overshadowed by his more famous contemporaries. Born on June 14, 1671, in Venice, Albinoni was one of the early Baroque era's leading figures in instrumental music and opera. Though he trained for a career in commerce, he chose instead to live independently as a composer, unusual for his time. He wrote extensively for the violin and oboe, and was among the first to treat the oboe as a serious solo instrument in concert music.Albinoni's style is marked by a graceful clarity and balanced formal structure, qualities well represented in this week's featured piece. The Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7 is a compact, three-movement work likely composed for a theatrical performance or ceremonial function. It opens with a dramatic Grave, setting a solemn tone that gives way to a lively Allegro and a brief yet expressive final movement.The G minor tonality gives the piece an emotional intensity, without tipping into melodrama—typical of Albinoni's refined dramatic sensibility. While his best-known composition today may be the Adagio in G minor—ironically, a piece reconstructed long after his death—Albinoni's authentic works, like this sinfonia, display a deft hand at combining lyricism with architectural clarity.His music enjoyed wide dissemination in his lifetime and was admired by J.S. Bach, who used Albinoni's bass lines as models for his own compositions. As we close out this week, Albinoni's Sinfonia in G minor offers a reminder of the beauty in restraint and the enduring resonance of Baroque form.Without further ado, Tomaso Albinoni's Sinfonia in G minor, T.Si 7. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Bryan Kohberger's defense team filed a motion to continue his trial, citing the immense complexity of the case and the need for more time to prepare a constitutionally sound defense in a potential death penalty proceeding. Central to their argument was the overwhelming volume of discovery—spanning thousands of documents, extensive digital forensics, and controversial investigative techniques like investigative genetic genealogy (IGG)—that still required analysis. The defense stressed that critical forensic testing, alternative suspect leads, and expert witness coordination were all in progress but incomplete, and that proceeding without adequate preparation time would severely undermine Kohberger's Sixth Amendment rights.Additionally, the motion addressed a new and pressing concern: recent unauthorized leaks of sensitive case information to the media, which the defense claims have irreparably tainted the jury pool and complicated trial readiness. The leaked material included confidential investigative details and potential evidentiary matters that had not yet been addressed in court, prompting fears that media exposure could bias potential jurors and violate Kohberger's right to a fair trial. The defense argued that the leaks not only compromised the integrity of the case but also necessitated further investigation into their source and impact, requiring additional time to file proper motions and possibly request venue changes. Together, these issues formed the basis of their request for a delay, asserting that justice demands a careful, deliberate approach—especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:052025+Defendants+Motion+to+Continue.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
This lecture provides an overview of crucial constitutional rights within the realm of criminal procedure, extending from the moment an individual faces charges through potential post-conviction challenges. It details Sixth Amendment trial guarantees, including the rights to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, confrontation of witnesses, and compulsory process. The lecture then addresses the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy, explaining when it attaches and relevant doctrines like the same-elements test and dual sovereignty. Furthermore, it covers the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection considerations, particularly as they relate to sentencing and prosecution, before discussing the right to counsel at trial and on appeal. Finally, the lecture explores the avenues and limitations of post-conviction remedies, such as habeas corpus.This conversation delves into the essential aspects of trial rights, double jeopardy, due process, and post-conviction review, providing a comprehensive overview of key legal doctrines. It emphasizes the importance of the Sixth Amendment in ensuring fair trials, the complexities surrounding double jeopardy, the implications of the 14th Amendment on due process and equal protection, the right to counsel, and the intricacies of post-conviction remedies like habeas corpus.TakeawaysTrial rights are crucial for ensuring fairness in the legal process.The Sixth Amendment provides essential protections for defendants.Double jeopardy prevents multiple prosecutions for the same crime.The Blockburger test determines if two offenses are the same for double jeopardy.The dual sovereignty doctrine allows both state and federal prosecutions.Due process under the 14th Amendment ensures fairness in sentencing.The right to counsel extends beyond just the trial stage.Ineffective assistance of counsel can be challenged under Strickland.Habeas corpus allows for post-conviction challenges to legality of detention.AEDPA imposes strict limits on federal habeas petitions.Sound Bites"You can't systematically exclude groups.""Crawford changed the whole framework.""The key test is the Blockburger test."
In a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian, the Government opposed Sean "Diddy" Combs's request to bar witnesses from speaking with their attorneys during breaks in cross-examination. Prosecutors argued that the defense provided no legal precedent supporting such a prohibition, especially regarding third-party witnesses with independent counsel. The Government noted that the defense's reliance on Perry v. Leeke was misplaced, as that Supreme Court decision focused specifically on a testifying defendant's communication with their attorney during a brief recess—not third-party witnesses.The letter emphasized that the Supreme Court, in Perry, actually underscored the constitutional limits of such communication bans, particularly that overnight restrictions would violate the Sixth Amendment. The Government also cited United States v. Triumph Capital Group, a Second Circuit case, to highlight that brief, mid-day limitations on defendant-attorney discussions may be permissible, but broader restrictions—especially those impacting non-party witnesses—pose serious constitutional concerns. Ultimately, the Government asked the court to reject the defense's request and preserve witnesses' rights to consult with counsel during trial breaks.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.333.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
This lecture provides an overview of crucial constitutional rights within the realm of criminal procedure, extending from the moment an individual faces charges through potential post-conviction challenges. It details Sixth Amendment trial guarantees, including the rights to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, confrontation of witnesses, and compulsory process. The lecture then addresses the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy, explaining when it attaches and relevant doctrines like the same-elements test and dual sovereignty. Furthermore, it covers the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection considerations, particularly as they relate to sentencing and prosecution, before discussing the right to counsel at trial and on appeal. Finally, the lecture explores the avenues and limitations of post-conviction remedies, such as habeas corpus.SummaryThis lecture series on Criminal Procedure delves into the essential rights and protections afforded to defendants under the U.S. Constitution. It covers the Sixth Amendment's trial rights, the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy protections, and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection guarantees. The discussion also highlights the importance of the right to counsel, post-conviction remedies, and emerging issues in criminal law, providing a comprehensive overview of the principles that govern the criminal justice system.TakeawaysThe Sixth Amendment guarantees a fair trial through various rights.Double jeopardy prevents multiple prosecutions for the same offense.Due process includes both procedural and substantive protections.The right to counsel is fundamental for a fair trial.Post-conviction remedies allow for challenging convictions.Emerging technologies pose new challenges to criminal procedure.The Equal Protection Clause ensures non-discriminatory enforcement of laws.The right to an impartial jury is crucial for justice.Procedural default can block federal review of claims.New evidence can lead to claims of actual innocence in court.Sound Bites"The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial.""Due process ensures fair procedures in adjudication.""Access to counsel is essential for a fair trial."Criminal Procedure, Trial Rights, Double Jeopardy, Due Process, Equal Protection, Right to Counsel, Post-Conviction Remedies, Legal Standards, Criminal Justice Reform
In a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian, the Government opposed Sean "Diddy" Combs's request to bar witnesses from speaking with their attorneys during breaks in cross-examination. Prosecutors argued that the defense provided no legal precedent supporting such a prohibition, especially regarding third-party witnesses with independent counsel. The Government noted that the defense's reliance on Perry v. Leeke was misplaced, as that Supreme Court decision focused specifically on a testifying defendant's communication with their attorney during a brief recess—not third-party witnesses.The letter emphasized that the Supreme Court, in Perry, actually underscored the constitutional limits of such communication bans, particularly that overnight restrictions would violate the Sixth Amendment. The Government also cited United States v. Triumph Capital Group, a Second Circuit case, to highlight that brief, mid-day limitations on defendant-attorney discussions may be permissible, but broader restrictions—especially those impacting non-party witnesses—pose serious constitutional concerns. Ultimately, the Government asked the court to reject the defense's request and preserve witnesses' rights to consult with counsel during trial breaks.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.333.0.pdf
In a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian, the Government opposed Sean "Diddy" Combs's request to bar witnesses from speaking with their attorneys during breaks in cross-examination. Prosecutors argued that the defense provided no legal precedent supporting such a prohibition, especially regarding third-party witnesses with independent counsel. The Government noted that the defense's reliance on Perry v. Leeke was misplaced, as that Supreme Court decision focused specifically on a testifying defendant's communication with their attorney during a brief recess—not third-party witnesses.The letter emphasized that the Supreme Court, in Perry, actually underscored the constitutional limits of such communication bans, particularly that overnight restrictions would violate the Sixth Amendment. The Government also cited United States v. Triumph Capital Group, a Second Circuit case, to highlight that brief, mid-day limitations on defendant-attorney discussions may be permissible, but broader restrictions—especially those impacting non-party witnesses—pose serious constitutional concerns. Ultimately, the Government asked the court to reject the defense's request and preserve witnesses' rights to consult with counsel during trial breaks.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.333.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
This lecture outlines criminal procedure, focusing on the stages from initial arrest through the pretrial process. It explains the constitutional standards for seizing an individual, differentiating between reasonable suspicion and probable cause, and discusses Terry stops and arrest warrants. The text then details pretrial steps, including initial appearances, bail, grand jury proceedings, prosecutorial discretion, plea bargaining, and pretrial motions. Finally, it examines key constitutional protections like the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (including Miranda rights) and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at crucial stages, highlighting their interactions and exceptions.This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of criminal procedure, focusing on the critical pretrial phase and the interactions between law enforcement and individuals. It covers essential topics such as the definitions of seizures and arrests, the importance of constitutional amendments, the process of initial appearances and bail decisions, charging procedures, plea bargaining, pretrial motions, the right to a speedy trial, and the implications of Miranda rights and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The discussion aims to equip listeners with a solid understanding of these foundational legal concepts, essential for both exams and practical application in the field.TakeawaysUnderstanding the core principles of criminal procedure is essential.The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.Reasonable suspicion is required for brief investigatory stops.Probable cause is necessary for full custodial arrests.Exigent circumstances allow for warrantless arrests in emergencies.The initial appearance before a judge must happen promptly after arrest.Bail decisions balance the need for public safety and the defendant's rights.Plea bargaining is a common outcome in the criminal justice system.Pretrial motions can challenge the prosecution's case before trial.The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.Sound Bites"This is your essential guide to criminal procedure.""Reasonable suspicion lets them stop and ask questions briefly.""The key is the urgency, the impracticability of waiting.""The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial."criminal procedure, law enforcement, constitutional amendments, arrests, pretrial phase, Miranda rights, speedy trial, evidence suppression, plea bargaining, legal rights
This lecture covers lawful arrests, pretrial procedures, and confession/interrogation law, building on Fourth Amendment search and seizure. Key topics include constitutional standards for stops, frisks (reasonable suspicion), and arrests (probable cause); pretrial steps from initial appearance to plea negotiations; and Fifth/Sixth Amendment safeguards concerning Miranda warnings, waiver, invocation, and right to counsel at critical stages. A seizure occurs when a reasonable person wouldn't feel free to leave, distinguishing temporary stops (reasonable suspicion, limited pat-down) from custodial arrests (probable cause, full procedures). The Terry stop allows brief stops and pat-downs based on articulable suspicion of criminal activity and a reasonable belief of being armed and dangerous, limited to weapon discovery. Arrests generally require a warrant based on probable cause from a neutral magistrate, with exceptions for exigent circumstances (fleeing suspect, public safety). Warrantless felony arrests in public are permitted with objective probable cause, respecting the individual's dignity and avoiding excessive force. The pretrial process begins with an initial appearance (charges, counsel, release). Bail is considered under the Eighth Amendment (no excessive bail), balancing offense seriousness, criminal history, and community risk, potentially involving release on recognizance, bonds, or preventive detention. Federal felony cases often require a grand jury indictment (probable cause), while other jurisdictions use prosecutorial information and preliminary hearings as a screen against unfounded prosecutions. Prosecutors have broad charging discretion and utilize plea bargaining (guilty plea for reduced charge/sentence) which raises concerns about coercion and unequal power. Pretrial motions, especially to suppress illegally obtained evidence (Fourth Amendment challenges), are crucial. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy trial. The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled self-incrimination during custodial interrogation (Miranda warnings: right to silence, use of statements, right to counsel, appointed counsel if indigent), requiring knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waivers based on totality of circumstances. Invoking the right to counsel or silence requires ceasing interrogation. Exceptions to Miranda include public safety and non-custodial questioning (voluntariness still applies). The Sixth Amendment guarantees counsel at critical stages after formal charges (indictment, arraignment, etc.), such as plea discussions, lineups, and hearings, requiring knowing and intelligent waivers. Massiah prohibits deliberate elicitation of incriminating statements from an indicted defendant without counsel. Elstad allows subsequent admissible statements after defective initial Miranda warnings if later warnings are proper and waiver is valid. Edwards' "bright line" rule requires ceasing interrogation upon invoking Miranda counsel until counsel is present or the suspect initiates further communication. The lecture concludes by summarizing these themes, leading to discussions on trial, sentencing, and post-conviction in the next session.
In response to the Court's request during the November 22, 2024, hearing, defendant Sean Combs has submitted a letter addressing the permissible scope of his communications under the Court's order and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23.1. Combs' legal team outlines the types of interactions he is allowed to engage in, ensuring compliance with the Court's directives while upholding his First and Sixth Amendment rights. The letter emphasizes the importance of balancing the need to prevent potential jury tampering or undue influence with Combs' constitutional rights to free speech and a fair trial.The submission seeks to clarify the boundaries of acceptable communications, proposing guidelines that would allow Combs to maintain necessary personal and professional interactions without violating legal restrictions. By providing this detailed briefing, Combs' attorneys aim to assist the Court in establishing clear parameters that protect the integrity of the judicial process while respecting the defendant's fundamental rights.(commercial at 11:31)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.85.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In a motion filed on April 4, 2025, the U.S. government asked the court to implement protective measures for three key victim-witnesses expected to testify in the criminal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. The government argued that Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4 should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms to safeguard their privacy, dignity, and mental well-being. Unlike Victim-1—confirmed to be Cassie Ventura—who has agreed to testify using her full name, the other three requested anonymity due to concerns about harassment, stigma, and professional fallout. Prosecutors further requested that the defense be barred from revealing these individuals' personal details in open court and that any court exhibits containing their names be sealed, with redacted versions available to the public.The motion cited precedent from similar federal cases, including those involving sex trafficking and abuse, where anonymity was granted to protect victims from retraumatization and undue exposure. The government emphasized that these requests were narrowly tailored to balance the victims' privacy rights with the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The motion was brought under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771), which ensures victims are treated with fairness and respect, and it stressed that denying these protections could discourage victim cooperation or inhibit truthful testimony. If granted, the court's decision would mark a significant procedural step in shaping how key testimony will be handled in Diddy's high-profile federal trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdf
In a motion filed on April 4, 2025, the U.S. government asked the court to implement protective measures for three key victim-witnesses expected to testify in the criminal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. The government argued that Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4 should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms to safeguard their privacy, dignity, and mental well-being. Unlike Victim-1—confirmed to be Cassie Ventura—who has agreed to testify using her full name, the other three requested anonymity due to concerns about harassment, stigma, and professional fallout. Prosecutors further requested that the defense be barred from revealing these individuals' personal details in open court and that any court exhibits containing their names be sealed, with redacted versions available to the public.The motion cited precedent from similar federal cases, including those involving sex trafficking and abuse, where anonymity was granted to protect victims from retraumatization and undue exposure. The government emphasized that these requests were narrowly tailored to balance the victims' privacy rights with the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The motion was brought under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771), which ensures victims are treated with fairness and respect, and it stressed that denying these protections could discourage victim cooperation or inhibit truthful testimony. If granted, the court's decision would mark a significant procedural step in shaping how key testimony will be handled in Diddy's high-profile federal trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In this episode of Consider the Constitution, host Dr. Katie Crawford-Lackey welcomes back Kendra Johnson, assistant Public Defender in Fairfax, Virginia, to explore the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Johnson explains how these amendments form the backbone of criminal procedure in America and protect citizens from government overreach.The discussion begins with an overview of each amendment: the Fourth Amendment protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment covering rights such as protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy, and the Sixth Amendment ensuring the right to a speedy trial, impartial jury, and legal counsel. Johnson shares insights into the historical context of these amendments, explaining how the Framers developed these protections in response to abuses they had witnessed under British rule.The conversation highlights landmark Supreme Court cases that have shaped these rights over time, including Katz v. United States, which established the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard; Miranda v. Arizona, which created the famous "Miranda warnings"; and Gideon v. Wainwright, which guaranteed the right to an attorney even for those who cannot afford one.The episode concludes with a discussion of emerging challenges to these constitutional protections in the digital age, including questions about surveillance technology, online trials, and artificial intelligence in the criminal justice system. Johnson emphasizes that these amendments are vital not just for those accused of crimes but for all citizens, as they establish boundaries on government power that protect everyone's liberty regardless of who holds political office.
Today, Hunter spoke with Heather Rogers and Caitlin Becker of the Santa Cruz County Public Defenders. In 2020, the Sixth Amendment Center put together a report detailing the severe issues with how Santa Cruz County provided Public Defense. At the time, a law firm was working a flat rate fee contract to provide public defender services in the county. As is expected, that system was deeply flawed and couldn't meet the demands of the Sixth Amendment. Fast forward five years, Heather, Caitlin, and the team at the Santa Cruz County Public Defender has transformed the office into a comprehensive holistic defender program. How did that happen? What are the benefits of this model? All those questions and more on today's episode! Guest Heather Rogers, The Public Defender, Santa Cruz County, California Caitlin Becker, Director of Holistic Defense, Santa Cruz County, California Resources: Read the 6AC Report Here https://6ac.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/6AC_ca_santacruzcountyreport_2020.pdf Contact Santa Cruz County Public Defenders Here https://www.santacruzdefenders.us/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/heather-rogers-3525b4242/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtvUi9TWRyNIOvEwgHN87KA https://www.facebook.com/CruzDefenders# https://www.instagram.com/cruzdefender/ https://x.com/cruzdefender Contact Hunter Parnell: Publicdefenseless@gmail.com Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com Subscribe to the Patron www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN Trying to find a specific part of an episode? Use this link to search transcripts of every episode of the show! https://app.reduct.video/o/eca54fbf9f/p/d543070e6a/share/c34e85194394723d4131/home Guest Heather Rogers, The Public Defender, Santa Cruz County, California Caitlin Becker, Director of Holistic Defense, Santa Cruz County, California Resources: Read the 6AC Report Here https://6ac.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/6AC_ca_santacruzcountyreport_2020.pdf Contact Santa Cruz County Public Defenders Here https://www.santacruzdefenders.us/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/heather-rogers-3525b4242/ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtvUi9TWRyNIOvEwgHN87KA https://www.facebook.com/CruzDefenders# https://www.instagram.com/cruzdefender/ https://x.com/cruzdefender Contact Hunter Parnell: Publicdefenseless@gmail.com Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com Subscribe to the Patron www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN Trying to find a specific part of an episode? Use this link to search transcripts of every episode of the show! https://app.reduct.video/o/eca54fbf9f/p/d543070e6a/share/c34e85194394723d4131/home
In a motion filed on April 4, 2025, the U.S. government asked the court to implement protective measures for three key victim-witnesses expected to testify in the criminal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. The government argued that Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4 should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms to safeguard their privacy, dignity, and mental well-being. Unlike Victim-1—confirmed to be Cassie Ventura—who has agreed to testify using her full name, the other three requested anonymity due to concerns about harassment, stigma, and professional fallout. Prosecutors further requested that the defense be barred from revealing these individuals' personal details in open court and that any court exhibits containing their names be sealed, with redacted versions available to the public.The motion cited precedent from similar federal cases, including those involving sex trafficking and abuse, where anonymity was granted to protect victims from retraumatization and undue exposure. The government emphasized that these requests were narrowly tailored to balance the victims' privacy rights with the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The motion was brought under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771), which ensures victims are treated with fairness and respect, and it stressed that denying these protections could discourage victim cooperation or inhibit truthful testimony. If granted, the court's decision would mark a significant procedural step in shaping how key testimony will be handled in Diddy's high-profile federal trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In a motion filed on April 4, 2025, the U.S. government asked the court to implement protective measures for three key victim-witnesses expected to testify in the criminal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. The government argued that Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4 should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms to safeguard their privacy, dignity, and mental well-being. Unlike Victim-1—confirmed to be Cassie Ventura—who has agreed to testify using her full name, the other three requested anonymity due to concerns about harassment, stigma, and professional fallout. Prosecutors further requested that the defense be barred from revealing these individuals' personal details in open court and that any court exhibits containing their names be sealed, with redacted versions available to the public.The motion cited precedent from similar federal cases, including those involving sex trafficking and abuse, where anonymity was granted to protect victims from retraumatization and undue exposure. The government emphasized that these requests were narrowly tailored to balance the victims' privacy rights with the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The motion was brought under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771), which ensures victims are treated with fairness and respect, and it stressed that denying these protections could discourage victim cooperation or inhibit truthful testimony. If granted, the court's decision would mark a significant procedural step in shaping how key testimony will be handled in Diddy's high-profile federal trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In a motion filed on April 4, 2025, the U.S. government asked the court to implement protective measures for three key victim-witnesses expected to testify in the criminal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. The government argued that Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4 should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms to safeguard their privacy, dignity, and mental well-being. Unlike Victim-1—confirmed to be Cassie Ventura—who has agreed to testify using her full name, the other three requested anonymity due to concerns about harassment, stigma, and professional fallout. Prosecutors further requested that the defense be barred from revealing these individuals' personal details in open court and that any court exhibits containing their names be sealed, with redacted versions available to the public.The motion cited precedent from similar federal cases, including those involving sex trafficking and abuse, where anonymity was granted to protect victims from retraumatization and undue exposure. The government emphasized that these requests were narrowly tailored to balance the victims' privacy rights with the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The motion was brought under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771), which ensures victims are treated with fairness and respect, and it stressed that denying these protections could discourage victim cooperation or inhibit truthful testimony. If granted, the court's decision would mark a significant procedural step in shaping how key testimony will be handled in Diddy's high-profile federal trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdf
In a motion filed on April 4, 2025, the U.S. government asked the court to implement protective measures for three key victim-witnesses expected to testify in the criminal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. The government argued that Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4 should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms to safeguard their privacy, dignity, and mental well-being. Unlike Victim-1—confirmed to be Cassie Ventura—who has agreed to testify using her full name, the other three requested anonymity due to concerns about harassment, stigma, and professional fallout. Prosecutors further requested that the defense be barred from revealing these individuals' personal details in open court and that any court exhibits containing their names be sealed, with redacted versions available to the public.The motion cited precedent from similar federal cases, including those involving sex trafficking and abuse, where anonymity was granted to protect victims from retraumatization and undue exposure. The government emphasized that these requests were narrowly tailored to balance the victims' privacy rights with the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The motion was brought under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771), which ensures victims are treated with fairness and respect, and it stressed that denying these protections could discourage victim cooperation or inhibit truthful testimony. If granted, the court's decision would mark a significant procedural step in shaping how key testimony will be handled in Diddy's high-profile federal trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdf
In a motion filed on April 4, 2025, the U.S. government asked the court to implement protective measures for three key victim-witnesses expected to testify in the criminal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. The government argued that Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4 should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms to safeguard their privacy, dignity, and mental well-being. Unlike Victim-1—confirmed to be Cassie Ventura—who has agreed to testify using her full name, the other three requested anonymity due to concerns about harassment, stigma, and professional fallout. Prosecutors further requested that the defense be barred from revealing these individuals' personal details in open court and that any court exhibits containing their names be sealed, with redacted versions available to the public.The motion cited precedent from similar federal cases, including those involving sex trafficking and abuse, where anonymity was granted to protect victims from retraumatization and undue exposure. The government emphasized that these requests were narrowly tailored to balance the victims' privacy rights with the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The motion was brought under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771), which ensures victims are treated with fairness and respect, and it stressed that denying these protections could discourage victim cooperation or inhibit truthful testimony. If granted, the court's decision would mark a significant procedural step in shaping how key testimony will be handled in Diddy's high-profile federal trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
In a motion filed on April 4, 2025, the U.S. government asked the court to implement protective measures for three key victim-witnesses expected to testify in the criminal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. The government argued that Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4 should be permitted to testify under pseudonyms to safeguard their privacy, dignity, and mental well-being. Unlike Victim-1—confirmed to be Cassie Ventura—who has agreed to testify using her full name, the other three requested anonymity due to concerns about harassment, stigma, and professional fallout. Prosecutors further requested that the defense be barred from revealing these individuals' personal details in open court and that any court exhibits containing their names be sealed, with redacted versions available to the public.The motion cited precedent from similar federal cases, including those involving sex trafficking and abuse, where anonymity was granted to protect victims from retraumatization and undue exposure. The government emphasized that these requests were narrowly tailored to balance the victims' privacy rights with the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. The motion was brought under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771), which ensures victims are treated with fairness and respect, and it stressed that denying these protections could discourage victim cooperation or inhibit truthful testimony. If granted, the court's decision would mark a significant procedural step in shaping how key testimony will be handled in Diddy's high-profile federal trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss President Trump's Executive Orders that target major law firms (such as WilmerHale and Jenner & Block). The orders target the firms for retaliation based largely on their past support of various left-wing legal causes. Do those Orders violate the firms' (and their clients') Free Speech Clause or Petition Clause rights? Might they also violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (in civil cases) and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (in criminal cases)? Recorded on March 31, 2025.
Prosecutors in Idaho aren't pulling any punches—Bryan Kohberger's family won't be getting VIP seats at his murder trial. In a sharp court filing, Deputy Latah County Prosecutor Ashley Jennings made it clear: if the defendant's relatives are potentially going to testify, they'll need to sit outside the courtroom until that moment comes. No exceptions. Jennings told the judge that while the state may call members of the Kohberger family to testify, their potential witness status means they can't sit in on other people's testimony beforehand. This is standard trial procedure—witnesses are usually excluded until after they've taken the stand, so their own words aren't influenced by what others say. It's courtroom 101. But Kohberger's defense doesn't see it that way. His attorneys submitted a request asking that his family be given the same priority seating as the victims' families. They argued that excluding his relatives would violate his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The state wasn't having it. Jennings responded that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant a public trial—not the right to pick the audience. And when it comes to courtroom rights, the Idaho Constitution specifically gives the families of homicide victims the ability to be present at trial. Kohberger's family? They don't get that same legal status. Jennings pointed out that the law just doesn't give the accused's family the same courtroom privileges as the victims' next of kin. It's not personal—it's statutory. To complicate matters further, there's some history here. Back in December 2022, Bryan Kohberger and his father were pulled over twice while driving across Indiana during their trip home to Pennsylvania, not long after the murders. That kind of detail might come up in court—potentially putting his father on the witness list, and by extension, on the bench outside the courtroom. Meanwhile, Kohberger's sister, Amanda Kohberger, has already been seen making court appearances of her own, including being spotted exiting a Pennsylvania courthouse early in the investigation. Whether she ends up on the witness list remains to be seen, but the prosecution isn't ruling anything out. In another filing twist, the defense requested the judge ban anyone in the courtroom from wearing clothing that features the victims' faces. They didn't argue against the victims' families attending, but they took aim at what they wear—specifically calling out what they said were prejudicial displays, possibly directed at the Goncalves family. Kohberger, now 30, was a Ph.D. student in criminology at Washington State University when prosecutors say he drove across state lines to Moscow, Idaho. There, according to investigators, he entered an off-campus home around 4 a.m. and stabbed four University of Idaho students to death: Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. Two of the victims were allegedly asleep or otherwise incapacitated during the initial attack, making it unlikely they had any chance to react. Investigators found a Ka-Bar knife sheath under Madison Mogen's body. DNA allegedly matching Kohberger's was recovered from the snap of the sheath. Prosecutors also say his phone data and surveillance footage put him near the crime scene. They claim he was even captured on his own selfie camera around 10:31 a.m.—just six hours after the murders took place. If true, that timeline could be a linchpin in the prosecution's case. Kohberger has pleaded not guilty to four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary. His trial is scheduled to begin on August 11 in Boise, after a judge granted a change of venue. If convicted, he faces the possibility of the death penalty. #BryanKohberger #IdahoMurders #TrueCrimePodcast #CourtroomDrama Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
Prosecutors in Idaho aren't pulling any punches—Bryan Kohberger's family won't be getting VIP seats at his murder trial. In a sharp court filing, Deputy Latah County Prosecutor Ashley Jennings made it clear: if the defendant's relatives are potentially going to testify, they'll need to sit outside the courtroom until that moment comes. No exceptions. Jennings told the judge that while the state may call members of the Kohberger family to testify, their potential witness status means they can't sit in on other people's testimony beforehand. This is standard trial procedure—witnesses are usually excluded until after they've taken the stand, so their own words aren't influenced by what others say. It's courtroom 101. But Kohberger's defense doesn't see it that way. His attorneys submitted a request asking that his family be given the same priority seating as the victims' families. They argued that excluding his relatives would violate his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The state wasn't having it. Jennings responded that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant a public trial—not the right to pick the audience. And when it comes to courtroom rights, the Idaho Constitution specifically gives the families of homicide victims the ability to be present at trial. Kohberger's family? They don't get that same legal status. Jennings pointed out that the law just doesn't give the accused's family the same courtroom privileges as the victims' next of kin. It's not personal—it's statutory. To complicate matters further, there's some history here. Back in December 2022, Bryan Kohberger and his father were pulled over twice while driving across Indiana during their trip home to Pennsylvania, not long after the murders. That kind of detail might come up in court—potentially putting his father on the witness list, and by extension, on the bench outside the courtroom. Meanwhile, Kohberger's sister, Amanda Kohberger, has already been seen making court appearances of her own, including being spotted exiting a Pennsylvania courthouse early in the investigation. Whether she ends up on the witness list remains to be seen, but the prosecution isn't ruling anything out. In another filing twist, the defense requested the judge ban anyone in the courtroom from wearing clothing that features the victims' faces. They didn't argue against the victims' families attending, but they took aim at what they wear—specifically calling out what they said were prejudicial displays, possibly directed at the Goncalves family. Kohberger, now 30, was a Ph.D. student in criminology at Washington State University when prosecutors say he drove across state lines to Moscow, Idaho. There, according to investigators, he entered an off-campus home around 4 a.m. and stabbed four University of Idaho students to death: Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. Two of the victims were allegedly asleep or otherwise incapacitated during the initial attack, making it unlikely they had any chance to react. Investigators found a Ka-Bar knife sheath under Madison Mogen's body. DNA allegedly matching Kohberger's was recovered from the snap of the sheath. Prosecutors also say his phone data and surveillance footage put him near the crime scene. They claim he was even captured on his own selfie camera around 10:31 a.m.—just six hours after the murders took place. If true, that timeline could be a linchpin in the prosecution's case. Kohberger has pleaded not guilty to four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary. His trial is scheduled to begin on August 11 in Boise, after a judge granted a change of venue. If convicted, he faces the possibility of the death penalty. #BryanKohberger #IdahoMurders #TrueCrimePodcast #CourtroomDrama Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
Prosecutors in Idaho aren't pulling any punches—Bryan Kohberger's family won't be getting VIP seats at his murder trial. In a sharp court filing, Deputy Latah County Prosecutor Ashley Jennings made it clear: if the defendant's relatives are potentially going to testify, they'll need to sit outside the courtroom until that moment comes. No exceptions. Jennings told the judge that while the state may call members of the Kohberger family to testify, their potential witness status means they can't sit in on other people's testimony beforehand. This is standard trial procedure—witnesses are usually excluded until after they've taken the stand, so their own words aren't influenced by what others say. It's courtroom 101. But Kohberger's defense doesn't see it that way. His attorneys submitted a request asking that his family be given the same priority seating as the victims' families. They argued that excluding his relatives would violate his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The state wasn't having it. Jennings responded that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant a public trial—not the right to pick the audience. And when it comes to courtroom rights, the Idaho Constitution specifically gives the families of homicide victims the ability to be present at trial. Kohberger's family? They don't get that same legal status. Jennings pointed out that the law just doesn't give the accused's family the same courtroom privileges as the victims' next of kin. It's not personal—it's statutory. To complicate matters further, there's some history here. Back in December 2022, Bryan Kohberger and his father were pulled over twice while driving across Indiana during their trip home to Pennsylvania, not long after the murders. That kind of detail might come up in court—potentially putting his father on the witness list, and by extension, on the bench outside the courtroom. Meanwhile, Kohberger's sister, Amanda Kohberger, has already been seen making court appearances of her own, including being spotted exiting a Pennsylvania courthouse early in the investigation. Whether she ends up on the witness list remains to be seen, but the prosecution isn't ruling anything out. In another filing twist, the defense requested the judge ban anyone in the courtroom from wearing clothing that features the victims' faces. They didn't argue against the victims' families attending, but they took aim at what they wear—specifically calling out what they said were prejudicial displays, possibly directed at the Goncalves family. Kohberger, now 30, was a Ph.D. student in criminology at Washington State University when prosecutors say he drove across state lines to Moscow, Idaho. There, according to investigators, he entered an off-campus home around 4 a.m. and stabbed four University of Idaho students to death: Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. Two of the victims were allegedly asleep or otherwise incapacitated during the initial attack, making it unlikely they had any chance to react. Investigators found a Ka-Bar knife sheath under Madison Mogen's body. DNA allegedly matching Kohberger's was recovered from the snap of the sheath. Prosecutors also say his phone data and surveillance footage put him near the crime scene. They claim he was even captured on his own selfie camera around 10:31 a.m.—just six hours after the murders took place. If true, that timeline could be a linchpin in the prosecution's case. Kohberger has pleaded not guilty to four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary. His trial is scheduled to begin on August 11 in Boise, after a judge granted a change of venue. If convicted, he faces the possibility of the death penalty. #BryanKohberger #IdahoMurders #TrueCrimePodcast #CourtroomDrama Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
Prosecutors in Idaho aren't pulling any punches—Bryan Kohberger's family won't be getting VIP seats at his murder trial. In a sharp court filing, Deputy Latah County Prosecutor Ashley Jennings made it clear: if the defendant's relatives are potentially going to testify, they'll need to sit outside the courtroom until that moment comes. No exceptions. Jennings told the judge that while the state may call members of the Kohberger family to testify, their potential witness status means they can't sit in on other people's testimony beforehand. This is standard trial procedure—witnesses are usually excluded until after they've taken the stand, so their own words aren't influenced by what others say. It's courtroom 101. But Kohberger's defense doesn't see it that way. His attorneys submitted a request asking that his family be given the same priority seating as the victims' families. They argued that excluding his relatives would violate his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The state wasn't having it. Jennings responded that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant a public trial—not the right to pick the audience. And when it comes to courtroom rights, the Idaho Constitution specifically gives the families of homicide victims the ability to be present at trial. Kohberger's family? They don't get that same legal status. Jennings pointed out that the law just doesn't give the accused's family the same courtroom privileges as the victims' next of kin. It's not personal—it's statutory. To complicate matters further, there's some history here. Back in December 2022, Bryan Kohberger and his father were pulled over twice while driving across Indiana during their trip home to Pennsylvania, not long after the murders. That kind of detail might come up in court—potentially putting his father on the witness list, and by extension, on the bench outside the courtroom. Meanwhile, Kohberger's sister, Amanda Kohberger, has already been seen making court appearances of her own, including being spotted exiting a Pennsylvania courthouse early in the investigation. Whether she ends up on the witness list remains to be seen, but the prosecution isn't ruling anything out. In another filing twist, the defense requested the judge ban anyone in the courtroom from wearing clothing that features the victims' faces. They didn't argue against the victims' families attending, but they took aim at what they wear—specifically calling out what they said were prejudicial displays, possibly directed at the Goncalves family. Kohberger, now 30, was a Ph.D. student in criminology at Washington State University when prosecutors say he drove across state lines to Moscow, Idaho. There, according to investigators, he entered an off-campus home around 4 a.m. and stabbed four University of Idaho students to death: Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. Two of the victims were allegedly asleep or otherwise incapacitated during the initial attack, making it unlikely they had any chance to react. Investigators found a Ka-Bar knife sheath under Madison Mogen's body. DNA allegedly matching Kohberger's was recovered from the snap of the sheath. Prosecutors also say his phone data and surveillance footage put him near the crime scene. They claim he was even captured on his own selfie camera around 10:31 a.m.—just six hours after the murders took place. If true, that timeline could be a linchpin in the prosecution's case. Kohberger has pleaded not guilty to four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary. His trial is scheduled to begin on August 11 in Boise, after a judge granted a change of venue. If convicted, he faces the possibility of the death penalty. #BryanKohberger #IdahoMurders #TrueCrimePodcast #CourtroomDrama Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
In this episode, I sit down with law student Troy for a really interesting chat about how criminal prosecution works, particularly when a victim isn't willing to testify. We look at what rights victims have in the legal system and how the state can still move forward with a case even if the victim isn't cooperating. We also take a look at laws like Marcy's Law in Ohio and how they impact things. Our conversation covers how these legal rules come into play in high-pressure situations and sheds light on important topics like evidence and confrontation rights. Plus, we discuss the unique challenges prosecutors face. Whether you're studying law or just curious about how criminal defense operates, this episode gives you a fascinating glimpse into the stuff you might not learn in law school but will definitely encounter in the field.Key Moments04:19 Prosecutors Shifting to Victims' Input06:42 "The Burning Bed" Synopsis11:23 Courtroom Debate: Prosecutor vs. Victim Rights14:15 "Matlock Moment in Court Dramas"16:56 Confrontation and Defendant's Rights19:25 Proving Guilt Without Victim Testimony22:29 Jury Doubt and Confrontation Clause27:15 "Mastering Rules Before Creativity"Here's what you'll discoverVictim's Role: Understand the implications of Marcy's Law and how victim input is dynamically shaping courtroom decisions - but not always as a deciding factor.Confrontation Conundrum: Gain clarity on the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and its critical role in ensuring defendants can question their accusers in court, which is fundamental to fair trials.Evidential Challenges: Learn about how the absence of victim testimony creates hurdles for the prosecution and how hearsay exceptions can or cannot overcome these obstacles.Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law Mentioned in this episode:Circle 270 Media Podcast ConsultantsCircle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com
Stephen Jones is one of the most well-known trial attorneys currently practicing. With six decades of experience working some of the country's most high-profile Civil Rights cases, he would become a household name after accepting the position of representing Timothy McVeigh in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing. In this week's episode, Stephen was kind enough to join me for what I think is best described as a Craft-Conversation around the art of practicing law. So while we talk extensively about his time spent representing McVeigh, if you're looking for your ‘true-crime' fix, this isn't it. We discuss the importance of the Sixth Amendment as a buffer against vengeance, managing the emotional-toll that complex cases take on even the best attorneys, and the often unspoken balancing act between desire for swift justice and need for procedural patience. You don't have to be a lawyer to appreciate the wisdom shared in this episode. But for those who are in the legal profession, I think this is a rare opportunity to listen to, and hopefully learn from, someone who embodies what it means to practice the law in its purest form: absent of ego or prejudice. Enjoy the show. ________________SHOWNOTESBOOK: Other's Unknown by Stephen JonesOKLAHOMA HISTORICAL SOCIETY: Voices of Oklahoma Audio Interviews
Join Katie and Liz on this week's episode of True Crime New England where they tackle another harrowing exoneration case. In May of 1991, a man named Kenneth McLean was shot and killed in Roxbury, Massachusetts, supposedly after a drug deal went wrong. A teenage witness, who admitted he didn't see the face of the shooter, only a notable ponytail, later identified Robert Foxworth as the killer. He was subsequently tried alongside two other men, who he did not even know, who were said to have been present at the shooting. Unfortunately, due to some withheld evidence and a violation of Foxworth's Sixth Amendment right, he was sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of first-degree murder. What followed was nearly 30 years of legal battles, in which Robert Foxworth fought hard for his freedom, claiming innocence the entire time.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
