Podcasts about Sixth Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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