Podcasts about Voir dire

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/_U9Gv2ieltoDay 29 of the Karen Read Retrial happened on June 9, 2025. On week 8 of the trial, will the jury get the case this week to deliberate?Special Prosecutor, Hanke Brennan, asks Dr. Wolfe, the Director of Accident Reconstruction at ARCCA, about the appearance of holes on the back of Mr. O'Keefe's hoodie and whether these holes are consistent with road rash or other damage. He asked him if he'd ever consider if Mr. O'Keefe may have fallen or landed on his back. Dr. Wolf stated he did not consider whether Mr. O'Keefe had fallen or landed on his back. Defense Attorney, Robert Alessi, asked for a Mistrial with Prejudice due to Intentional Misconduct by the prosecution regarding questioning about the hoodie and its damage. The defense argued the prosecution intentionally left out evidence about the holes on the back of the hoodie being clippings from the crime lab. The judge did not grant a mistrial but agreed to instructed the jury to disregard the questions and give a strong admonishment about the prosecution. When it came time to it, the Judge did not give a strong admonishment or admit the pictures into evidence. At the end of the day, the defense said that they will address this the following day.A Voir Dire of Dr. Laposata was conducted and Judge Cannone ruled she cannot testify that the wounds on John O'Keefe's arm were from a dog, but she will be able to testify about the original opinions about the cause and manner of death. Direct Examination continues on Day 30.RESOURCESWhat You Need to Know About the Retrial - https://youtu.be/89Jpa8vz1RQ Karen Read Retrial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKOJlfL__9F027hlETVU-vo Karen Read Trial - 2024 - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKUeCUzApgsEuQRXu5IXeTSThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

In Document 308, both parties in the United States v. Combs trial submitted a joint letter to Judge Arun Subramanian addressing the voir dire process, following their earlier filings (ECF Nos. 272 and 274) containing proposed questions for prospective jurors. The letter outlines areas of agreement between the prosecution and defense concerning how potential jurors should be questioned during selection. This includes standard demographic questions, prior jury service, general attitudes toward law enforcement and the justice system, and the ability to remain impartial in a high-profile case involving serious allegations. Both parties also agree on using written juror questionnaires before oral voir dire and ensuring the anonymity of jurors throughout the proceedings.However, the letter also details several points of dispute between the parties regarding specific voir dire questions. These disagreements primarily center around how directly jurors should be asked about their knowledge of Combs' past media controversies, opinions about the #MeToo movement, and whether jurors should be specifically questioned about their views on celebrity privilege or racial bias. The defense appears to want more targeted, probing questions to detect potential prosecutorial bias, while the government pushes back on what it sees as overly leading or prejudicial language. The letter asks Judge Subramanian to resolve these disputes before voir dire begins in earnest, underscoring how both teams are already deeply invested in shaping the jury long before opening statements are heard.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Nancy Grace and Sheryl McCollum dissect the legal complexities and cultural reverberations of the Sean "Diddy" Combs case. They discuss how media narratives, witness credibility, and the magnetic pull of celebrity can influence a jury’s perception—regardless of the facts. They unpack how victim stories are often distorted or dismissed and explore the deeply personal, often painful reasons many survivors stay silent for years before finding the strength to speak out Show Notes: (0:00) Welcome! Nancy and Sheryl introduce this week’s crime roundup (0:30) Happy Mother’s day weekend (3:00) Sean Combs…a.k.a Diddy has plead not guilty (6:00) Biggest obstacles for Diddy (7:30) Diddy's charges and public perception (8:00) Charisma in the courtroom (10:00) Defense tactics and likeability bias (13:00) Questioning victims - why didn’t they speak sooner? (15:00) Cassie Ventura’s video (19:00) Defining consent and power imbalances (20:00) Voir Dire - jury selection strategies explained (22:00) Open vs. silent strikes (22:30) Prediction of how long Diddy trial will last --- Nancy Grace is an outspoken, tireless advocate for victims’ rights and one of television's most respected legal analysts. Nancy Grace had a perfect conviction record during her decade as a prosecutor. She is the founder and publisher of CrimeOnline.com, a crime- fighting digital platform that investigates breaking crime news, spreads awareness of missing people and shines a light on cold cases. In addition, Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, a daily show hosted by Grace, airs on SIRIUS XM’s Triumph Channel 111 and is downloadable as a podcast on all audio platforms - https://www.crimeonline.com/ Connect with Nancy: X: @nancygrace Instagram: @thenancygrace Facebook: @nancygrace Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an Emmy Award winning CSI, a writer for CrimeOnLine, Forensic and Crime Scene Expert for Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, and a CSI for a metro Atlanta Police Department. She is the co-author of the textbook., Cold Case: Pathways to Justice. Connect with Sheryl: Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com X: @ColdCaseTips Facebook: @sheryl.mccollumSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In Document 308, both parties in the United States v. Combs trial submitted a joint letter to Judge Arun Subramanian addressing the voir dire process, following their earlier filings (ECF Nos. 272 and 274) containing proposed questions for prospective jurors. The letter outlines areas of agreement between the prosecution and defense concerning how potential jurors should be questioned during selection. This includes standard demographic questions, prior jury service, general attitudes toward law enforcement and the justice system, and the ability to remain impartial in a high-profile case involving serious allegations. Both parties also agree on using written juror questionnaires before oral voir dire and ensuring the anonymity of jurors throughout the proceedings.However, the letter also details several points of dispute between the parties regarding specific voir dire questions. These disagreements primarily center around how directly jurors should be asked about their knowledge of Combs' past media controversies, opinions about the #MeToo movement, and whether jurors should be specifically questioned about their views on celebrity privilege or racial bias. The defense appears to want more targeted, probing questions to detect potential prosecutorial bias, while the government pushes back on what it sees as overly leading or prejudicial language. The letter asks Judge Subramanian to resolve these disputes before voir dire begins in earnest, underscoring how both teams are already deeply invested in shaping the jury long before opening statements are heard.

In Document 308, both parties in the United States v. Combs trial submitted a joint letter to Judge Arun Subramanian addressing the voir dire process, following their earlier filings (ECF Nos. 272 and 274) containing proposed questions for prospective jurors. The letter outlines areas of agreement between the prosecution and defense concerning how potential jurors should be questioned during selection. This includes standard demographic questions, prior jury service, general attitudes toward law enforcement and the justice system, and the ability to remain impartial in a high-profile case involving serious allegations. Both parties also agree on using written juror questionnaires before oral voir dire and ensuring the anonymity of jurors throughout the proceedings.However, the letter also details several points of dispute between the parties regarding specific voir dire questions. These disagreements primarily center around how directly jurors should be asked about their knowledge of Combs' past media controversies, opinions about the #MeToo movement, and whether jurors should be specifically questioned about their views on celebrity privilege or racial bias. The defense appears to want more targeted, probing questions to detect potential prosecutorial bias, while the government pushes back on what it sees as overly leading or prejudicial language. The letter asks Judge Subramanian to resolve these disputes before voir dire begins in earnest, underscoring how both teams are already deeply invested in shaping the jury long before opening statements are heard.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Document 315 in the case of United States v. Sean Combs is a juror questionnaire issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This document is designed to screen and evaluate prospective jurors in advance of in-person voir dire. It includes detailed preliminary instructions reminding potential jurors not to include their names—only their juror numbers—and to answer all questions truthfully and thoroughly. The court emphasizes that some questions have multiple parts and must be fully completed. These instructions aim to preserve anonymity while allowing the court and attorneys to assess potential biases, prior knowledge, media exposure, and suitability for a trial expected to involve graphic allegations and significant media attention.The questionnaire likely includes sections on jurors' personal backgrounds, experiences with law enforcement or the legal system, opinions on celebrity, exposure to the case through media, and potential conflicts that could prevent impartiality. Such documents are routine in high-profile federal cases, especially those involving allegations as serious as racketeering and sex trafficking. The responses help attorneys for both the prosecution and defense to determine which individuals may harbor biases—positive or negative—toward the defendant, the justice system, or the nature of the charges. In this case, the questionnaire is a critical step in selecting the panel that will ultimately decide the fate of Sean Combs.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.315.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Document 315 in the case of United States v. Sean Combs is a juror questionnaire issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This document is designed to screen and evaluate prospective jurors in advance of in-person voir dire. It includes detailed preliminary instructions reminding potential jurors not to include their names—only their juror numbers—and to answer all questions truthfully and thoroughly. The court emphasizes that some questions have multiple parts and must be fully completed. These instructions aim to preserve anonymity while allowing the court and attorneys to assess potential biases, prior knowledge, media exposure, and suitability for a trial expected to involve graphic allegations and significant media attention.The questionnaire likely includes sections on jurors' personal backgrounds, experiences with law enforcement or the legal system, opinions on celebrity, exposure to the case through media, and potential conflicts that could prevent impartiality. Such documents are routine in high-profile federal cases, especially those involving allegations as serious as racketeering and sex trafficking. The responses help attorneys for both the prosecution and defense to determine which individuals may harbor biases—positive or negative—toward the defendant, the justice system, or the nature of the charges. In this case, the questionnaire is a critical step in selecting the panel that will ultimately decide the fate of Sean Combs.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.315.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. concludes our 4-part series on a sophisticated approach to voir dire. Bill discusses juror sympathy and commitment to following the law. Bill talks about a concept called sympathy override and gives examples of how to get jurors to open up about the concept of sympathy and whether they can maintain discipline when it comes to sympathy. You have to address the challenge that jurors will experience when their heart and head are in conflict. Next, Bill explains Pre-Commitment Theory and how to leverage public commitment from jurors to increase the likelihood of them sticking to their commitment, plus how Pre-Commitment Theory can also be used to hold each other accountable in deliberations. Verbal commitment in front of the other jurors is critical for this to work. Bill concludes by emphasizing that the key to the entire concept of this sophisticated approach to voir dire is pre-programming the juror brain and the stepwise process required to do so. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/pXC

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/OaPz08BtHZcDay 5 of the Karen Read Retrial happened on April 28, 2025. It began with testimony from Ian Whiffin of Cellebrite. He was approached by the Public Relations department to figure out why there is such confusion with the information from Jen McCabe's phone from the first trial. This new strategy from the Prosecution getting ahead of Jen McCabe's Google search for, "Hos long to die in cold," is smart and might take the string from that revelation when it is presented to the jury. Mr. Whiffin created a Timeline, combining health data, temperature, call/text logs, and location data from O'Keefe's phone. Cross-examination was conducted by Robert Alessi by confirming points on the timeline and highlighting what was included or left out. The Cross Examination was cut short due to the jury having a half day so that the Voir Dire of the ARCCA witnesses could be done.Hank Brennan did not use his time wisely when questioning the first ARCCA witness, Dr. Daniel Wolfe. Brennan accused Dr. Wolfe of being biased and assisting the defense with their case. Brennan yelled at Dr. Wolfe and didn't stop when the Judge asked him to. Judge Cannone eventually coaxed Brennan to move on and tighten his questioning with the next witness. The second ARCCA witness, Dr. Andrew Rentschler, admitted to having an uncomfortable lunch with Karen Read after he testified in court of the first trial. Judge Cannone requested ARCCA to send their report by May 7th. The Voir Dire is not done yet because the Prosecution and the Defense need to present their oral arguments. When will this happen? Stay tuned!RESOURCESDay 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rj_yLDmgIUWhat You Need to Know About the Retrial - https://youtu.be/89Jpa8vz1RQ Karen Read Retrial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKOJlfL__9F027hlETVU-vo Karen Read Trial - 2024 - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKUeCUzApgsEuQRXu5IXeTSThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

In this powerful courtroom session, expert crash analyst Daniel Wolfe faces intense scrutiny in a voir dire hearing with no jury present. Prosecutor Hank Brennan aggressively questions Wolfe over deleted texts with defense attorney Alan Jackson and his use of encrypted messaging. This is the full, raw audio of that testimony, exposing the behind-the-scenes communications that could reshape Wolfe's credibility as an independent expert. Hashtags: #KarenReadTrial #DanielWolfe #ExpertWitness #DeletedTexts #SignalApp #VoirDire #DefenseExpert #CourtroomDrama #TrueCrime2025 #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Karen Read Trial-EPISODE 3: Voir Dire – Defense Expert Daniel Wolfe Under Fire Description: In this powerful courtroom session, expert crash analyst Daniel Wolfe faces intense scrutiny in a voir dire hearing with no jury present. Prosecutor Hank Brennan aggressively questions Wolfe over deleted texts with defense attorney Alan Jackson and his use of encrypted messaging. This is the full, raw audio of that testimony, exposing the behind-the-scenes communications that could reshape Wolfe's credibility as an independent expert. Hashtags: #KarenReadTrial #DanielWolfe #ExpertWitness #DeletedTexts #SignalApp #VoirDire #DefenseExpert #CourtroomDrama #TrueCrime2025 #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

In this powerful courtroom session, expert crash analyst Daniel Wolfe faces intense scrutiny in a voir dire hearing with no jury present. Prosecutor Hank Brennan aggressively questions Wolfe over deleted texts with defense attorney Alan Jackson and his use of encrypted messaging. This is the full, raw audio of that testimony, exposing the behind-the-scenes communications that could reshape Wolfe's credibility as an independent expert. Hashtags: #KarenReadTrial #DanielWolfe #ExpertWitness #DeletedTexts #SignalApp #VoirDire #DefenseExpert #CourtroomDrama #TrueCrime2025 #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. continues with part 3 of our 4-part series on a sophisticated approach to voir dire. In this part, Bill talks about cognitive dissonance and personal responsibility. Cognitive dissonance is defined as mental discomfort. You have to give jurors examples of when you have experienced mental discomfort so they can relate and will share their own experiences with cognitive dissonance and also so they will hold themselves and each other accountable during deliberations. Next Bill describes how to address the topic of personal responsibility and how to plant seeds on it so you prime their brain for the concept of personal responsibility. Lastly, Bill talks about the topics of sharing fault and risk awareness. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/oBj

Leaving a decision to a group of our peers can be a double edged sword, but it's part of what makes this country great. Travis & P.J. dive deep into a jury pool. Great Law. Less Legal. Law Done Lite!

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D.'s second part of our 4-part series on a sophisticated approach to voir dire. Bill talks about emotional persuasion resistance and the goal during voir dire of inoculating jurors against emotional appeals. Bill shares example questions and stories for how to inoculate jurors against emotional appeals by the opposition during trial and how to identify jurors you want to keep and which you want to strike. Bill also talks about anchoring and how to approach the concepts of anchoring, high dollar awards, counter-anchoring and social inflation, all during voir dire. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Stb

Retired Federal Judge, author and recovery advocate Mary Beth O'Connor joins the podcast to chat about secular recovery and a discussion on privilege. Join us!

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. kicks off the first of a 4-part series on a sophisticated approach to voir dire. Bill lays out a highly advanced voir dire model based on behavioral science, cognitive psychology, and decision making research with a focus on cognitive fit, flexibility, and first impressions. It is critical in voir dire to build rapport with jurors to normalize differences in opinion and disclosure of information. The goal is to give jurors an easy out to strike themselves. Bill shares example questions to accomplish this and how to identify juror fit. Next, Bill talks about assessing cognitive flexibility and confirmation bias and gives examples on how to identify jurors with inflexible thinking. Lastly, Bill talks about the importance of likability, vulnerability, and relatability of the attorney and how that impacts your voir dire success and the rest of the trial. It is imperative to use personal experiences and stories to get jurors to open up, to be honest, and to trust you. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/5wH

So, you think you nailed your voir dire… Jurors are bonding with you, they're engaged, and it feels like a REAL conversation instead of a STALE Q&A.  Then, OUT OF NOWHERE, one juror starts “helpfully” suggesting random facts they believe you need. If you've ever seen a NEAR-PERFECT VOIR DIRE get blindsided by off-topic tangents, this episode is for YOU.   We're diving into H2H strategies like:

As a sitting district court judge and 29-year public defender, NITA Program Director Judge Cynthia McCollum knows a thing or two about jury selection, and in this episode, she opens up about how to get your jurors to open up. She serves up a baker's dozen of her best tips for getting jurors to talk during voir dire, mistakes she learned from as a public defender, what to know about Batson challenges, and anecdotes about her career trajectory before and on the bench. Topics3:50  First tip for getting jurors to open up during voir dire4:47  Second tip5:45  Judge's first time in court as a new lawyer 9:48. Third tip14:24  Fourth tip18:33  Fifth tip20:08  Being a public defender, then a judge24:42  Sixth tip26:39. Seventh tip29:28  What it's like to be a judge31:48  Eighth tip33:09  Ninth tip38:25  Tenth tip41:31  NITA involvement45:06  Eleventh tip48:35  Twelfth tip50:32  Baker's dozen tip about Batson52:39  Signoff questions Quote“Everyone needs to work on their jury selection. It's not a natural for a lot of people, because you get nervous about asking those tough questions.” Judge Cynthia McCollumResourcesJudge Cynthia McCollum (bio)Batson bonuses (file)Minnesota Deposition Skills and Trial Skills (programs) 

Join us as Peter Levine discusses how Edge transformed his outlook on voir dire. We'll cover having fun, being yourself, flowing with the answers, and getting through the venire with limited time.Contact Peter Levine atPhone: (323) 617-4406Website: https://www.peterlawfirm.com/home

Ever found yourself scrambling to come up with voir dire questions and hoping they land  Stop. Right. There.  Asking, “What should I ask in voir dire?” is like asking “What turn should I take?” without knowing where you're headed. Before you focus on the questions, you need to know the destination. In this power-packed 15-minute episode, we're breaking down how to craft a voir dire strategy that actually inspires jurors to take action in favor of your case instead of leaving them confused or disengaged.

Should you talk about money in voir dire? Before you panic and say, “No way, Sari! That's too risky!” — HEAR ME OUT. In this episode, I'm diving into one of the most controversial questions in jury selection:  Should you tell jurors the number you're asking for? Spoiler alert: I usually say yes.  BUT, (and it's a big but) HOW and WHEN you bring it up makes all the difference. Here's what we're covering:

Let's talk about the preponderance of the evidence. You know, the thing that's supposed to make your job easier but somehow ends up confusing the hell out of your jury?

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. shares ideas on how to upgrade your voir dire by applying measurement. One of the primary purposes of voir dire is to elicit information and Bill talks about ways to extract information from jurors to get accurate responses. Bill discusses how to handle oral questioning during voir dire, including the use of a 0-10 scale and asking jurors to give one reason for their number. After going over the scientific methodology for this approach to data collection, Bill talks about the art aspect of voir dire: the setup of the question, the answer set/options given to the jurors, and what to do with their answers. As an example, when you get negative information from a juror, you don't want to punish that juror with your reaction because you want to identify other jurors who share that same perspective so you can strike them. Reacting negatively to a juror's response could shut down other jurors who may feel the same way but want to avoid your negative reaction. Lastly, Bill talks about how to do this in Federal court or if you are really short on time. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Psf

In this episode, we delve into the fascinating career of Elizabeth Munro Farrugia, an accomplished trial lawyer licensed in Florida and California. Elizabeth is interviewed by UCLA law graduate Jennifer Milazzo and yours truly Jason Ingber, where they discuss Elizabeth's inspirations to pursue law, her experiences in different states, and her transition from an intern to a managing attorney. Elizabeth shares insightful stories, including her time in family law, the lessons learned from her mentors, and her approach to client advocacy. The conversation touches on various aspects of legal practice, from trial preparation and courtroom strategies to maintaining civility and integrity in the profession. A must-watch for anyone interested in a career in law or intrigued by the nuances of legal practice. 00:42 Introduction and Guest Introduction 01:54 Early Influences and Law School Journey 02:41 Internship Experiences and Lessons Learned 07:17 Differences in Legal Practice Across States 09:22 Career Transition to California 15:40 Starting Fresh in California 24:31 Mentorship and Early Experiences 25:12 Trial Preparation and Workload 27:21 Memorable Cases and Strategies 34:41 Differences in Legal Practice: Florida vs. California 36:29 Connecting with Clients 39:18 Effective Courtroom Techniques 4 5:10 Voir Dire and Jury Selection 48:53 Maintaining Integrity in Legal Practice    Like, Share & Subscribe - The Jason Ingber Show

We talk about a criminal trial as if it was a single event but of course that's not entirely true. A trial is made up of multiple parts starting with jury selection and going all the way to the delivery of a verdict. Not all of these stages of a trial always get attention but each of them can be tremendously important. In fact, some attorneys claim that a trial can be won or lost in the jury selection process– and that, of course, happens before any case is made to that jury. That is why we have decided to launch a new occasional series we are calling Anatomy of A Trial. In each segment, we will talk to an experienced trial lawyer who will go in depth with us about a particular piece of a trial.Our expert today is Tim Sledd. We will be talking with Tim about voir dire, the process of jury selection. How are jurors picked? What kind of strategies do lawyers use when looking for jurors? How do attorneys try to build a rapport with jurors even before opening statements are delivered?Join our Patreon here! https://www.patreon.com/c/murdersheetSupport The Murder Sheet by buying a t-shirt here: https://www.murdersheetshop.com/Send tips to murdersheet@gmail.com.The Murder Sheet is a production of Mystery Sheet LLC.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Kouri Richins had a surprise ruling in her case. The Presiding Judge Denied Request for In-person Voir Dire and Jury Selection even thought the Trial Judge allowed the motion. Her defense will most likely appeal, but will this be rectified by the time it goes to trial in May 2025? Unsealed Search Warrant also revealed that Kouri Richins asked her handy man for fentanyl. The handyman turned over his phone but tragically died in a motorcycle accident in September of 2024. Will the prosecutors be able to bring the text message evidence into trial? We'll find out in the future.Watch the full coverage: https://www.youtube.com/live/vERbyI9zqzI?t=5823sRESOURCEShttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCSfvTSwwZgThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

Explore how safetyism drives high jury verdicts and how defense teams can effectively navigate this evolving mindset in the courtroom. In this episode, IMS Senior Jury Consulting Advisor Dr. Jill Leibold and Senior Jury Consultant Dr. Nick Polavin join Thompson Coe Partner Zandra Foley to share expert strategies for identifying and addressing jurors' hyper-protective attitudes during voir dire. Understanding these beliefs can empower trial lawyers to enhance their jury selection process and secure favorable outcomes for corporate defendants.Hosted by IMS Senior Client Success Advisor Adam Bloomberg. Watch the video version on YouTube: https://youtu.be/7ZdjbJQjBzkLearn more about our team and featured guests:Jill Leibold, PhD: https://imslegal.com/team/jill-m-leibold-phdNick Polavin, PhD: https://imslegal.com/team/nick-polavin-phd Zandra Foley: https://www.thompsoncoe.com/people/zandra-e-foley/Adam Bloomberg: https://imslegal.com/team/adam-bloomberg Visit our website to browse podcasts and articles featuring top litigators, consultants, and industry experts: imslegal.com/insights IMS has delivered strategic litigation consulting and expert witness services to leading global law firms and Fortune 500 companies for more than 30 years, in more than 45,000 cases. IMS consultants become an extension of your legal team from pre-suit investigation services to discovery and then on to arbitration and trial. Learn more at imslegal.com.

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. talks about unique voir dire questions, particularly around damages, to help attorneys improve their jury selection process and to set the stage for openings. Bill gives examples of topics to ask about during voir dire that help to indoctrinate jurors. Some of the topics for questions Bill discusses: social inflation, lawsuit abuse, justice for the defense, commenting on articles/social media, anchoring, and open-ended questions. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/gYg

Discover the nuances of the voir dire process and learn what they don't teach you in Law School. Whether you're a law student or simply curious about the legal world, this episode offers valuable insights and real-world experiences straight from the courtroom.(05:15) Understanding Voir Dire(15:45) Jury Selection Challenges(25:00) The Art of Trial Advocacy(35:30) Preparing for Trial(45:00) Q&A and Closing ThoughtsSubmit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2024 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

Resonant conversations with jurors — those moments where you connect deeply on an emotional level — can be a game changer.  BUT. Is there such a thing as too much connection? Here's what we're diving into:

    Slam the Gavel welcomes back Theodore Chino, MBA, DCBA to the podcast Theo was last one Season 5, Episodes 128 and 143. The last time we spoke, we discussed if lawyers carry malpractice insurance. Not to anyone's surprise, some just don't.....     Today we discussed that if a person is suffering in family court, perhaps one should Voir Dire the judge as an attorney would a jury. Every parent has the right to know when the judge's last psychological evaluation was done, random drug screen and Polygraph. After all if attorneys and judges are allowed, via taxpayer dollars, to destroy families based on false allegations, bias and bald faced lies construed by CPS, the Litigant should be aware of all misconduct in the judges past history.To Reach Theodore Chino:  LinkedIn: Theodore Chino, or text Slam the Gavel podcast at 630-205-2466. Email: theo@alliedra.com******** Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryann*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals.Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

The judge finally rules on what evidence he'll consider at the trial. The Crown and Greg must decide how to proceed. 

My former legal assistant and right-hand-man, Jeff Seward, was called for jury duty in a Washington State criminal case.  (And -- gentle warning -- there's a short deviation to discuss jury selection in the Trump criminal trial.   And a couple of swear words littered within that discussion. . .)Biggest take away -- LISTEN to the answers your jurors give you!  Ignore them at your own risk!And -- for the lawyers -- juror research is the standard of practice.  And so, so few lawyers do it.  If you'd like help on how to do that research respectfully and ethically, email me and we can set up a consult:  joy@joybertrandlaw.com.

An extraordinary phase of the 2024 race unfolding this week as Donald Trump finds himself stuck in a Manhattan courtroom and the focus of historic Supreme Court arguments, while President Biden sprints across a major battleground state. Senator Claire McCaskill and former White House Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri zero in on that stunning split screen and what it could mean for the presidential race. Plus, Claire and Jen talk to constitutional law professor Michele Goodwin about the chipping away of reproductive freedom and how that could also shape the election.Further reading: Here is the map Jen mentioned, showing where reproductive rights stand, state by state.

Brock and Ben look at the upcoming Trump trial and why Trump should not take the stand, recent retaliations against Iran, and getting rid of Mike Johnson.

* Guest: Lowell Nelson - CampaignForLiberty.org, RonPaulInstitute.org * Voir Dire, Jury Nullification, Dred Scott & Donald Trump - L. Reichard White, LewRockwell.com Voir Dire is legal tampering with the jury, so the jury is not a random group of your peers, but a filtered group of individuals who are selected because they are most likely to submit to authority, follow the judge's instructions, and return a guilty verdict even when the law is unjust or unlawfully applied. * The Right to Assembly - Judge Andrew Napolitano, RonPaulInstitute.org "Last week, the Supreme Court effectively abolished the right to assembly in three Southern states." * The National-Security Branch Rules the Roost - Jacob G. Hornberger. * Utah's Step-By-Step Strategy in Support of Sound Money - Mike Maharrey, TenthAmendmentCenter.com "Utah laid the groundwork in 2011 with the passage of the Utah Legal Tender Act. The law made gold and silver coins issued by the federal government legal tender in the state. "It also specified that “the exchange of gold and silver coins for another form of legal tender does not create any individual income or sales tax liability.” In effect, it repealed both the state sales and capital gains taxes on gold and silver. The following year, 2012, the Utah Legislature renamed the act the "Specie Legal Tender Act," which expanded the definition of specie legal tender beyond only coins authorized by the feds, to include any gold and silver coins approved by the state. * "The passage of the Utah Legal Tender Act also set a precedent for other states to follow.  Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Arkansas have since made gold and silver legal tender." Earlier this year (2024), the legislature authorized the State Treasurer to hold up to 10% of certain funds in silver, gold, platinum, copper, or palladium. Doing this would be a defensive hedge against the losses of the federal reserve note, which as everyone knows is rapidly declining in value.

"We have our jury,” announced Judge Juan Merchan late Thursday as the historic trial against the former president continues. Senator Claire McCaskill and former White House Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri explore the heart of the case and underscore the finer points of jury selection (voir dire) with former US attorney and law professor Joyce Vance. Plus, a look at Biden's three-day stop in Pennsylvania and Speaker Johnson's big bet on bringing foreign aid votes to the floor this weekend.

In this episode of Hawk Droppings Hawk provides a detailed recap of the first day of Donald Trump's criminal trial in Manhattan. Hawk discusses the various pre-trial motions and evidentiary issues that were addressed, including the exclusion of certain evidence related to Trump's alleged affairs and the Access Hollywood tape.Hawk explains the jury selection process, noting that over 50 of the initial 96 potential jurors were excused after stating they could not be impartial. He highlights Judge Mershon's no-nonsense approach, ordering Trump to be present in court every day or face arrest. Hawk also criticizes a Fox News personality for encouraging Trump supporters to commit perjury and lie to get on the jury, calling it potential jury tampering.Overall, Hawk paints a picture of a chaotic first day, with Trump appearing disheveled and falling asleep at the defense table. He predicts the jury selection process will take at least two weeks, as the judge seeks to find impartial jurors who can fairly evaluate the evidence, which Hawk argues goes beyond just the falsification of business records and into the realm of campaign finance violations and election interference. SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk- Support Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com- Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct- Connect on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Podcasts Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.com- Listen to Hawk Droppings On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTBSimplecast: https://hawk-droppings.simplecast.com- Hawk Droppings RSS Feed: https://feeds.simplecast.com/pPVtxSNJ

Hawk covers the upcoming criminal trial of former President Donald Trump, which is set to begin on Monday April 15, 2024 in Manhattan. Trump is facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal during the 2016 presidential campaign.The charges stem from a complex timeline of events involving Trump, his former lawyer Michael Cohen, and the publisher of the National Enquirer, David Pecker. In 2015-2016, Pecker agreed to help Trump's campaign by "catching and killing" any stories about Trump's alleged affairs. Cohen then facilitated the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels and the $150,000 payment to Karen McDougal to prevent them from going public before the 2016 election. After the election, Trump reimbursed Cohen through a series of fraudulent payments disguised as legal fees.Hawk explains the process of how documents and witness testimony will be introduced as evidence in the trial. He also discusses the importance of the jury selection process, as the defense is expected to use both peremptory challenges and challenges for cause to try to stack the jury in Trump's favor. Hawk predicts the jury selection alone could take 2-3 weeks, with the full trial potentially lasting 4-6 weeks.Finally, Hawk notes that given the unique nature of this case involving a former president, the judge has been careful to balance firmness on trial dates with giving the defense ample opportunity to make their case. Hawk plans to provide frequent updates and analysis as the high-profile trial unfolds in the coming months.Click links below to read the Indictment and Statement of Facts:Indictment: https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdfStatement of Facts: https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-04-SOF.pdf SUPPORT & CONNECT WITH HAWK- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mdg650hawk- Support Hawk's Merch Store: https://hawkmerchstore.com- Connect on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mdg650hawk7thacct- Connect on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@hawkpodcasts ALL HAWK PODCASTS INFO- Additional Podcasts Available Here: https://www.hawkpodcasts.com- Listen to Hawk Droppings On Your Favorite Platform:Spotify: https://spoti.fi/3RWeJfyApple Podcasts: https://apple.co/422GDuLYouTube: https://youtube.com/@hawkpodcastsiHeartRadio: https://ihr.fm/47vVBdPPandora: https://bit.ly/48COaTBSimplecast: https://hawk-droppings.simplecast.com- Hawk Droppings RSS Feed: https://feeds.simplecast.com/pPVtxSNJ

Jalapeño Jack & Writs of Mandamus, VDare v. Letitia James & Norm's Voir Dire Stories . Law and Legitimacy (@LawPodDaily) with Norm Pattis and Michael Boyer is LIVE every weekday at 8:00am eastern. . The state of nature doesn't have to be nasty, poor, solitary, brutish and short. Really. . We—ordinary men and women—are populist by instinct, respect tradition, and are curious about how law shapes our lives and expectations. . In a world wrought with divisions and hatred, Law and Legitimacy has situated itself in a watchtower, keeping an ever-vigilant eye on the horizon. . Join us daily for the sight-lines of the day's most controversial events and trends. Norm Pattis and Michael Boyer offer an honest look at issues that matter to those who care about a good society, the rule of law, and the welfare of ordinary men and women. . Go to LAWPODDAILY.COM and SUBSCRIBE to the LAL Newsletter. . Find LAL: https://linktr.ee/PattisPodcast

Law and Legitimacy (@LawPodDaily) with Norm Pattis and Michael Boyer is LIVE every weekday at 8:00am eastern. . The state of nature doesn't have to be nasty, poor, solitary, brutish and short. Really. . We—ordinary men and women—are populist by instinct, respect tradition, and are curious about how law shapes our lives and expectations. . In a world wrought with divisions and hatred, Law and Legitimacy has situated itself in a watchtower, keeping an ever-vigilant eye on the horizon. . Join us daily for the sight-lines of the day's most controversial events and trends. Norm Pattis and Michael Boyer offer an honest look at issues that matter to those who care about a good society, the rule of law, and the welfare of ordinary men and women. . Go to LAWPODDAILY.COM and SUBSCRIBE to the LAL Newsletter. . Find LAL: https://linktr.ee/PattisPodcast

RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU WANT A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY.

Nathan and Cristina talk about the Majors verdict, Tinder's $499 subscription, and who should pay what…We hope you enjoyEmail: Feelingsfirstpod@gmail.comInstagram: FeelingsfirstpodTwitter: @feelings1stPod F3LP Blogs RSS

When we left off before the Thanksgiving break, the Crews family attorney, Tom Shaw, discussed Voir Dire, the jury selection process, and techniques used for the Crews trial. In this episode, we introduce Taylor Shaw. During the Jonathan Crews trial, Taylor served as co-counselor with his father, Tom Shaw. Taylor will dive into motions in limine, what that means, and present each side's and the defendant's motions in limine. Wonder what the defendant wanted to keep out of court? Listen and find out. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I'll be blunt—spewing words like "subsequent,” "prior," "motor vehicles,” or phrases like "Who here has experience with…,” “By a show of hands..." makes my head fucking hurt. You sound like a FREAK, and it's got to stop! WHO are you talking to? If you are wanting to connect with jurors, you've got to cut the bullshit lawyer-speak and remember how to talk like a normal person—like you're having coffee with a friend.  Here at H2H, I teach the coffee rule: be a human, not an attorney robot. You want the jury nodding, not scratching their heads. This encore episode is a rapid kick in the ass. Short, sweet, and straight up. -Sari   Mentioned in the episode: William N.   Quote: "Nobody drives 'vehicles.' If you're sitting at a coffee date looking at someone across from them and you're like, 'So, did you have to take your vehicle to get maintenance last week?' Slap yourself across the face because that is ridiculous. Nobody talks like that. Nobody. Jurors don't."   * * * * FREE H2H TRAINING * * * *  THREE POWERFUL STRATEGIES TO HELP READ A JUROR'S MIND Understand what the jury is thinking, so you can gain the confidence to trust them - and yourself - in the courtroom. Get the training here:  sariswears.com/jury 

“Ok, Sari, I get how important voir dire is, but what do I cover if I only have limited time?”   This. This is what you cover whether you have all the time in the world (put it at the end!) or limited time. What is “this?” Check out this episode, and get a pen and paper out! -Sari   Quote:  “Asking your jury, ‘How can money help?' will get you to where you need to go in voir dire.”   Podcast Tip:  There are three principles you must source from the jury during voir dire: - People should take responsibility when they hurt someone. - Money holds people responsible. - Money can help.   Shoutout: Curtis L.  

Voir Dire…French for “to speak the truth” is the process through which potential jurors are questioned by either the judge or a lawyer to determine their suitability for jury service.  In this episode, we discuss the jury selection process for the Jonathan Crews trial. We take the listeners into the first day of jury selection as we examine their body language, eye contact, answers to the juror questionnaire, and answers to questions from Crews attorney Tom Shaw during selection.  What is a perfect juror for this case? An ideal juror would be someone who can remain impartial, unbiased, and open-minded as they review evidence and listen to testimony from witnesses. Listen along as we take you behind the bar into Voir Dire… The best episodes are yet to come this season, so continue to download, listen, and share!  https://sheilawysocki.com/the-studio  PI Page: www.sheilawysocki.com Podcast Page: www.withoutwarningpodcast.com Patreon: www.withoutwarningpodcasts.com Twitter: @scrappymomPI Instagram: @withoutwarningpi @privateeyepups Facebook: Without Warning PI      All rights are reserved.© Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You can have the best questions in the world, but if you don't sequence your funnels correctly, you run the risk of totally fucking yourself in voir dire.    That's obviously NOT what we want, so I'm gonna help you out in today's podcast.   You'll want to grab a notepad and pen for this one because you're about to discover my formula for sequencing your funnels and help the jury solve your problems.    Tune in to the episode, y'all!    -Sari Links from today's episode: Podcast Episode 189: May the best principle win https://sariswears.com/podcast/ep-189-may-the-best-principle-win/     Quote Sari de la Motte -  "The likelihood of a fucked voir dire happening is reduced with a clear agenda."    * * * * FREE H2H TRAINING * * * *  THREE POWERFUL STRATEGIES TO HELP READ A JUROR'S MIND Understand what the jury is thinking, so you can gain the confidence to trust them - and yourself - in the courtroom. Get the training here:  sariswears.com/jury