In Summation - The Final Word podcast

Player FM - Internet Radio Done Right

Lagt till three år sedan

Innehåll tillhandahållet av Paul Townsend. Allt poddinnehåll inklusive avsnitt, grafik och podcastbeskrivningar laddas upp och tillhandahålls direkt av Paul Townsend eller deras podcastplattformspartner. Om du tror att någon använder ditt upphovsrättsskyddade verk utan din tillåtelse kan du följa processen som beskrivs här https://sv.player.fm/legal.

Rethinking Alzheimer's Disease Podcast

1
Ep 1: What Is Alzheimer’s Disease? 16:03

för 51 weeks sedan16:03

Spela Senare

Listor

Gilla

Gillad

16:03

Learn about the differences between Alzheimer's and dementia, and how Alzheimer's disease progresses. We talk about why catching the disease early can make a big difference. Dr. Sharon Cohen and Dr. Yaakov Stern walk us through the stages of Alzheimer's disease, from when there are no symptoms to when memory issues start to show. They explain the stages of Alzheimer’s and how it develops over time. We also hear from Kelly, who explains her personal experiences and concerns about developing Alzheimer’s, and what she does about it. For links to resources and information covered in this series, visit our website at HealthUnmuted.com/resources What did you think of this episode? We’d love to hear from you. Please visit healthunmuted.com/feedback to let us know! Rethinking Alzheimer’s Disease was made possible with support from Eisai Inc. [00:00:00] Introduction [00:03:10] What's the difference between Alzheimer's disease and dementia? [00:07:04] When does Alzheimer’s begin to develop? [00:09:08] What is Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI)? [00:10:36] What is subjective cognitive decline? [00:11:59] What is preclinical Alzheimer's disease? [00:13:13] Why is it important to detect Alzheimer’s disease early? Disclaimer: The content provided in this podcast is intended for informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified healthcare provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have heard on this podcast. Reliance on any information provided by this podcast or its guests is solely at your own risk. ©2024 Mission Based Media Ltd • April 2024 • AD-M2059…

In Summation - The Final Word

Dela

Serie hem•Feed

Attorney, host and creator Paul Townsend examines some of the most famous and infamous - and often misunderstood - court cases to make headlines across America. In doing so, he provides listeners with a true and unbiased understanding of the underlying facts as the judge or jury would have heard them at the time, explains what the role of each party was, breaks down the legal arguments presented, and gives the final word on who ultimately prevailed and why.

68 episoder

#Society #True Crime #Government #Paul Townsend

In Summation - The Final Word

updated för ungefär 11 timmar sedan

Dela

Serie hem•Feed

68 episoder

#Society #True Crime #Government #Paul Townsend

Alla avsnitt

1
In Summation Explains: Collateral Estoppel 6:24

för 11 hours sedan6:24

6:24

Lawyers, like other professionals, tend to use a lot of industry terms which don't make sense to the average person. Sometimes, those terms pop up in artcles and media describing a case, without explanation (often because the journalists themselves do not fully understand what they mean). Today, we discuss the term collateral estoppel, and what it means in a legal context. Enjoy.…

1
In Summation Explains: Decriminalization vs. Legalization 5:24

för 7 dagar sedan5:24

5:24

Welcome back. In this brief episode, Paul digs into the difference between the terms decriminalization and legalization. They are frequently used interchangeably by people who do not fully appreciate the difference. At the end of this In Summation Explains episode, you will come away with a deeper understanding of just what it means when the government decriminalizes, or legalizes, certain behaviors. Enjoy.…

1
In Summation Explains: No Harm No Foul, Right? 8:34

för 9 weeks sedan8:34

8:34

In the second installment of In Summation Explains, Paul explains what happens when someone undoes the wrong they caused before they get caught, and whether that is a defense to any potential liability after the fact. If you like this new format, write in and make your voice heard. Paul hopes you enjoy it and write in with more questions to answer.…

1
In Summation Explains: Habeus Corpus 11:51

för 10 weeks sedan11:51

11:51

What does habeus corpus mean? how does it work? what does it actually do? In this new segment of In Summation, Paul explains specific legal terms and areas of law which confuse people. This is going be based mostly on listener feedback, so if you are curious about a legal latin phrase, or legal theory, write in and Paul may explain it for you. Please leave feedback if you like this particular type of episode. Paul is trying to expand content and answer some listener questions and this seemed like the best way to accomplish both of those things. If you enjoy it, let us know.…

1
New York v. Daniel Penny 1:10:12

för 11 weeks sedan1:10:12

1:10:12

In this episode, recurring guest Adam Uris and I discuss the recent New York prosecution of Daniel Penny, the 24 year old marine corps veteran who killed Jordan Neely on the subway after Neely was aggressive and threatening to other passengers. Was this done in defense of subway riders? Did Penny go too far? Was the homicide justified or criminal? Adam and Paul discuss the culteral and legal aspects of the case and trade ideas on whether this case ever should've been brought, how the missteps of certain parties affected the outcome, and why the jury ultimately came to the decision they did.…

1
Georgia v. Jeffery Williams (aka Young Thug) (part 2) 38:41

för 16 weeks sedan38:41

38:41

Hello All, At the end of October there was a whirlwind of activity in the Young Thug trial down in Fulton County Georgia. All of a sudden, in the span of one week, multiple defendants opted to take a plea after nearly two years at trial. Listen to the breakdown of how the circus put on by the Fulton County DA came to an end, the contours of the plea, and make the decision for yourself whether it was the right way for Jeffery Williams to end his involvement in this proceeding. Since the recording of the episode, the remaining two defendants still on trial finally got their verdicts. One was convicted of a single crime, the other was acquitted. Paul still holds to the belief that Williams would have been convicted of at least something, which would likely have landed him with some additional jail time. Paul hopes this brings some clarity to a commonly misunderstood area of criminal practice.…

1
Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's Corporation 45:01

för 20 weeks sedan45:01

45:01

The wait is over and In Summation - The Final Word is back. At the request of a listener (thanks Ben!), in this episode we tackle a case which has really become THE case that people bring up when discussing how litigious American people are. We've all heard the story of the woman who spilled McDonald's hot coffee on herself and sued the company for millions. But as you'll see, the narrative of what really happened to Stella Liebeck, the plaintiff in that suit, has dramatically changed over time. She has gone from being the victim to a greedy opporuntist who manipulated a broken court system for her own personal gains. Before you make any judgments, listen to what really happened, and how Liebeck's life changed as a result of this case. As this is a civil case and I do not frequently litigate in the civil courts, Paul asks for a bit of understanding if you have additional questions. He will, as always, respond, but if it requires additional research on his end it may not be as quick as listeners are accustomed to. Sit back and enjoy.…

1
Georgia v. Jeffery Williams (aka Young Thug) 1:02:21

för 29 weeks sedan1:02:21

1:02:21

Hello Loyal Listeners, In Summation returns with a thorough explanation of one of the most truly absurd cases to take place in recent memory. Rapper/Hip Hop artist Young Thug burst into the music industry around 2013 and quickly became one of the most fresh and innovate voices in the genre. He did several collaborations with world famous talent and his star was rising. After his first studio album went platinum, it seemed as though he was solidying himself with serious potential for a long career. He had his own Atlanta based rap label, "YSL," which also showcased several of his friends and associates who also rapped and produced albums and mixtapes. YSL expanded to create and promote a very popular clothing line in the fashion industry. Young Thug went from growing up in abject poverty, to being wildly successful. But not everyone believed this meteoric rise to fame and prominence was done within the confines of the law. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and the Atlanta PD accused YSL of being a violent street gang, and claim Young Thug is the leader. He was arrested in May 2022 and, as of September 2024, is still in custody. Listen as Paul describes the absolute farce of a trial put on in Fulton County. This episode contains a thorough explanation of RICO, ethics, misconduct, overtrying a case, and the intersection of free speech and expression, specifically in the music industry, with criminal prosecutions. There are times when no hollywood screenwriter could ever capture the absurdity of real life, and the trial of Jeffery Williams is one of those times. Strap in and get ready, you will not believe what is happening in Georgia.…

1
United States v. Donald Trump (The FEDERAL Election Interference Case) 1:21:41

för 36 weeks sedan1:21:41

1:21:41

At this point, it's become difficult to keep track of all the different places that former (and possibly future) President Donald Trump has been indicted. To recap: he has been indicted in New York County by District Attorney Alvin Bragg. That case has already gone to trial and he was convicted of nearly three dozen counts of falsifying business records in an attempt to cover up another crime. That is NOT the case we discuss today. He's also been indicted in Fulton County, Georgia, on state RICO charges. That office appears to be in a bit of a shamble as 7 months into a different RICO trial, against Young Thug, the wheels have fallen off, 2 judges have been on-and-off the case, and a mistrial seems pretty likely at this point. This is also NOT the case covered by today's episode. There is also the case in the Middle District of Florida Federal Court regarding Trump's possession of, and refusal to return, certain classified documents. That case was recently dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon. That is also NOT the case we are discussing. Today's case concern's allegations that Donald Trump attempted to use various unlawful means to subvert the election, prevent the peaceful transfer of power, and deprive ordinary citizens in several states of their right to make their voice heard in our government through voting. Chances are you are at least somewhat familiar with this indictment, but do you really know what Trump is accused of doing? In this episode, Paul breaks down the indictment so you can understand what the Government has claimed Trump actually did to break the law, and Paul also discusses the recent decision on Presidential Immunity from the Supreme Court, as neither Trump, nor the Government, got the decision they wanted. But if Trump lost in that hearing, why are so many commentators losing their mind over the decision? Listen and find out. This will be part 1, as there was a lot to cover and the case is now set to go to trial, so stay tuned as (maybe) a trial episode will be coming later on! Hope you enjoy.…

1
Michigan v. Jennifer Crumbley (Prosecuting the Parents of a Killer) 51:10

för 38 weeks sedan51:10

51:10

Hello everyone, I've missed you. Due to a confluence of factors which I won't waste time or energy going into here, we had a slightly longer hiatus than I expected, but we are back and I expect the content to be a little more regular going forward. This episode is meaningful for a number of reasons. First, I bring on my law partner, Bob Gottlieb of Robert C. Gottlieb and Associates, to discuss the issues surrounding the Crumbley case. Second, while we agree on some of the guideline principles, we do not see perfectly eye to eye on this prosecution. You asked for more viewpoint diversity and variety. I deliver. Third, this is truly a fascinating case because it revisits some of the topics we've discussed in previous episodes, but in a new way. In late November 2021, James and Jennifer Crumbley bought their 15 year old son, Ethan, a Sig Sauer pistol as an early Christmas present. In Oxford, Michigan, where they lived, this was not uncommon or out of the ordinary. Ethan took the requisite safety courses, went to the gun range with his mother, had no history of violence, and was not a problem at school. Regardless, a few days after the pistol was given to him as a gift (though still supposed to be locked in a safe by his parents), Ethan brought both the gun and ammunition to his high school, and killed four people. Ethan pleaded guilty in October 2022 to all the charges and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole as a 16 year old. But the county prosecutor went on and charged his parents, Jennifer and James Crumbley with manslaughter for their role in facilitating the shooting. The prosecution argued that the parents knew, or at least should have known, that giving their mentally disturbed 15 year old a gun would result in a school shooting. We tackle the question of when a parent can be liable for the acts of their child, especially if the child has already been found fully liable for those acts themselves, and to what degree a parent needs to be fully aware of what is going on their child's life. When does negligent parenting become accessory to homicide? Paul and Bob hope you enjoy the conversation.…

1
Idaho v. Brian Draper and Torey Adamcik 53:14

för 1 year sedan53:14

53:14

Welcome Back Listeners! In this episode of In Summation, Paul discusses a horror movie turned real life. Inspired by the 1996 horror classic, Scream, Brian Draper and Torey Adamcik donned ghostface masks, black robes, and hunting knives to murder their high school classmate and friend, Cassie Jo Stoddart. Not only did they stab her 30 times while she was alone, house sitting for relatives, but they filmed themselves talking about the act before, and after, the crime. We look how two teenagers can sink to such moral depravity. We talk through interrogation techniques, and how good investigators narrow their focus on leads and ask the right questions. We discuss how and when a judge might decide to hold two trials, trying each defendant separately, instead of at the same time. And we answer one of the most common, and difficult, questions about being a defense attorney, "how can you defend awful people who have done such awful things?" Strap in Slasher Flick fans, because this installment shows how real life puts Hollywood to shame. Enjoy!…

1
United States v. Lori Loughlin, et al. (Varsity Blues Scandal) 51:57

för 1 year sedan51:57

51:57

Remember Full House? Remember how wholesome and family-friendly it was? Remember Aunt Becky? She was married to Uncle Jesse. She was part of that wave of television which instilled good family values and strong moral character while still being funny and entertaining...life before the OC. But despite Lori Loughlin's fairly robust acting career, she found herself on the wrong side of the law. In this episode, Paul breaks down the largest college admissions scandal in US history. The "Varsity Blues" case showcased everything wrong with how rich, entitled people could manipulate and cheat the system to get their kids into the higher education programs of their choice. There was no trial here, everyone in the case pleaded guilty, so this episode is a little different. But most cases don't go to trial, the vast majority of prosecutions end up in guilty pleas. Without getting into the weeds on whether that, in and of itself, is an issue we need to remedy, this case presents a look at the common situation of what you do when you have one legal argument to make, and it doesn't work. When a defense lawyer sees one avenue to getting a case dismissed, and the judge disagrees, sometimes the best advice you can give to a client is, know when to take a deal and reduce your punishment. This case is also interesting because of the unique nature of the deal that Loughlin got. Listen and enjoy!…

1
California v. Calvin Broadus (Snoop Doggy Dogg) 52:19

för 1 year sedan52:19

52:19

The 1990's were filled with high profile criminal trials for some of the most famous entertainers in the world. Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson headlined a list of extremely public trials, mostly centered in California. One case which seems to be getting lost amidst this glut of criminal prosecutions is the murder charge brought against a young up-and-coming gangster rap artist named Calvin Broadus, who adopted the stage name Snoop Doggy Dogg. A few months prior to the release of his first studio album, Broadus was arrested for the murder of rival gang member Philip Woldemariam. He, along with his bodyguard Malik Lee, argued that Woldemariam was shot and killed in self-defense during an altercation in a public park in Los Angeles. In this episode we discuss affirmative defenses, stand your ground laws, and what happens when a jury deadlocks on only some charges, but arrives at a verdict on others. Paul hopes you enjoy this throwback!…

1
Illinois v. August Spies, Albert Parsons, et al. (The Haymarket 8) 1:04:15

för 2 years sedan1:04:15

1:04:15

Hello again friends and family, Bucking a recent trend of recent cases, today we head back roughly 140 years to Chicago in the 1880s. This is another case where a person or group's personal ideology was put on trial instead of the men and their individual actions themselves. It's a cautionary tale on what our justice system could become if we aren't vigilant in preventing it. Chicago during the industrial revolution was a tense time. The working class was always looking for more from the captains of industry who owned the factories they worked in. Sometimes, if they felt that the pay or benefits they received was so substandard they couldn't take it anymore, they would go on strike. This case tells the story of one such strike. A group of socialist anarchists were asked to come in and give speeches to rally the striking workers. When they did so, a minor clash ensued between the striking men and the replacement labor the owners had brought in to try to break the strike. During the skirmish, police opened fire on the strikers, killing several men. The following day a protest was organized to shed light on the brutality of the Chicago PD. At the very conclusion of the protest, despite its peaceful nature, the police descended on the men and ordered them to disperse. At that point, a bomb was thrown at the line of police officers, killing one man. Chaos and a riot ensued with the police opening fire and many men getting killed. In response, the police arrested the organizers of the event, despite no evidence they threw the bomb or even advocated for any violence that day. This is the story of their show trial, and why it's so important to make sure we uphold the rights of people with whom we disagree. Enjoy!…

1
Florida v. Jamell Demons (YNW Melly) 57:22

för 2 years sedan57:22

57:22

Greetings friends of In Summation - The Final Word. Today's episode explores the unusual trial of Jamell Demons, aka YNW Melly, who was charged with the double murder of his close friends in what prosecutors claimed was staged to look like a drive-by shooting. This case has it all: gang members, rap stars, lyrics about murder, unusual crime scene forensics, GPS location evidence, petty thin-skinned lawyers, and a lot of question marks left over at the end. Listen and get a little perspective on the lives of Florida gang members, rap collectives, the failure to conduct a thorough investigation, and how free expression through rap lyrics can find their way into criminal cases.…

In Summation - The Final Word

1
Wisconsin v. Mark Jensen 53:01

för 2 years sedan53:01

53:01

Welcome back one and all. In this installment of In Summation - The Final Word, Paul breaks down one of the elements of the 6th Amendment confrontation clause. Generally speaking, a criminal defendant has the right to confront an accuser, or someone producing evidence or testimony against them. This is the basis for the rule against using hearsay at trials. In our case today, Mark Jensen was accused of murdering his wife, Julie. Julie had become increasingly suspicious of Mark in the time period leading up to her death and had given her neighbors a letter, which she instructed them to give to the police if anything happened to her. When she was found dead, the neighbors gave the police the letter which strongly indicated that law enforcement should investigate Mark should anything happen to her. Listen to the breakdown of how these issues played out, as several Supreme Court decisions altered the legal landscape while this case was pending. Additionally, Paul goes into the logistical issues for a prosecutor who has to retry a case 15 years after the initial trial.…

In Summation - The Final Word

1
Neil Heslin & Scarlet Lewis v. Alex Jones (Defamation) 1:16:42

för 2 years sedan1:16:42

1:16:42

Greetings and welcome back to In Summation - The Final Word. In this episode, Paul explores one of the select carve outs to the 1st Amendment's guarantee to free speech. With several very high profile cases on this topic in the last few years, it felt worthwhile for Paul to go through what defamation is, how it works, and why this particular brand of speech can be regulated. To really explore this topic, we examine one of the most heartbreaking series of events in recent memory. On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza went on a horrific and destructive killing spree at an elementary school in Newton, Connecticut. He ultimately killed 26 people, and ruined the lives of hundreds more. The country mourned the senseless loss of life and the event was front and center on national media for weeks. But then, a whisper of dissent began. A voice started to challenge the narrative. One person began to loudly assert that what we all thought we knew about the Newton Elementary School shooting was wrong. He started claiming that the whole event was a staged government production intended to spur support for gun control regulation. He said no one actually died and the people interviewed were actually "crisis actors." That man was Alex Jones. Jones launched a years-long assault through his growing media empire against the people who lost their children, and his supporters heard him and took some of the most offensive actions you can imagine. The parents of murdered children were harassed, followed, doxxed, threatened, and basically made to relive the worst moments of their life in despicable ways. Finally, the parents of 6 year old Jesse Lewis had had enough. Neil Heslin and Scarlet Lewis filed a defamation suit against Jones in what would set off a cascade of defamation lawsuits and would cripple Jones' "InfoWars" radio and internet show. Listen to how it all unfolded here.…

In Summation - The Final Word

1
Roe v. Wade & Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization 1:11:05

för 2 years sedan1:11:05

1:11:05

The long hiatus is over. Paul's trial in upstate New York is over and there are many cases to discuss on the horizon. For the grand return after an exhausting and stressful fight over a murder case, Paul is back discussing the two seminal cases on one of American culture's biggest lightning rods. We're going to discuss the arguments for and against a constitutional right to an abortion. First we will discuss the case that really started it all, Roe v. Wade. We are going to dive deep into the decision, what does it actually say, and what doesn't it say. What was the justification used to develop a right to an abortion, and were those arguments grounded on solid constitutional jurisprudence. Then we fast forward the clock roughly 50 years and look at the case which undid it all, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. We're going to examine why the Supreme Court did a complete about face, how significant it was to overrule the precedent set, and how the Supreme Court felt about the legal reasoning from the 1970s. We'll also examine whether the dissent makes valid points about how this ruling might open the door to a lot of other challenges which may cause people some great concern. Paul hopes that if nothing else, after this episode you'll be able to fully comprehend why the decisions went the way they did, even if you don't agree with the legal reasoning behind them.…

In Summation - The Final Word

1
Virginia v. John Brown (Slavery on Trial) 50:48

för 2 years sedan50:48

50:48

Greetings one and all! Thank you so much to the fans and supporters of this fine program as we hit the milestone 50th episode. Paul cannot thank you enough for the comments, the engagement, and the interest. It keeps him going. This episode is special to Paul. He wanted to do something a little more robust for the occasion. Here, we are going to be examining a truly remarkable trial. It's interesting not just for the legal issues which came up, and many fascinating legal issues did arise, but moreso because in this trial, the Commonwealth of Virginia sought to try not only a man, but an idea, abolitionism. Virginia was so incensed by the actions of one man John Brown, who raided Harper's Ferry in what was then still a part of Virginia, that they wanted to crush not only his physical body, but also the ideology which led him to do it. In this episode, Paul looks at what happens when prosecutors attempt to put an idea on trial, as well as what drives a man to actions which he is reasonably certain will lead to his own execution. John Brown was a prominent abolitionist, he came from a fairly wealthy and respectable family initially, but through sickness and the death of his wife, he fell on hard times. Regardless, from a young age he worked tirelessly to end the scourge of slavery in the United States. Disgusted by the inaction of the federal government on the issue, he elected to take matters into his own hands and spart a slave revolution which he hoped would lead to a moses-like exodus of slaves from southern states into a new paradise he would create for them. To accomplish this, he and 21 other men raided the armory at Harper's Ferry, Virginia, with the intention to send the arms there to grassroots rebellions throughout the south. His plan did not succeed in the literal sense, but in putting him on trial, Virginia made him a martyr and spread his message farther than Brown himself ever could have hoped. Paul really hopes you enjoy this episode, if you do, please subscribe and leave a positive comment or send feedback. Thank you all again for the continuing support!…

In Summation - The Final Word

1
South Carolina v. Alex Murdaugh 59:24

för 2 years sedan59:24

59:24

This episode needs very little introduction. The trial of Alex Murdaugh in the South Carolina Lowcountry was a national phenomenon. All major news outlets covered the story and the trial. Alex Murdaugh came from an incredibly prestigious legal family in South Carolina. His father's family had held solicitor (prosecutor) positions in their judicial circuit court for 87 years. He inherited a profitable personal injury law firm on top of that. He had a blond socialite wife, two perfect sons, and seemed to living the American dream. He was rich, famous, powerful, and influential. But Murdaugh had a secret. Followinga knee injury in the early 2000's he became seriously addicted to opioid pain killers. His addiction cost him everything. he stole from his clients, lost his law license, his wife and youngest son are killed, and he is he target of a failed murder attempt himself. Hear how this titan of the South Carolina legal scene fell from the highest high to the lowest low. In this episode, Paul breaks down how a defendant's motive fits into a criminal trial, he also explains how attorneys view the bond created by taking on the representation of an individual, and he tries to explain why it's not terribly surprising that after a 6 week trial, the jury deliberated for under 3 hours. Listen and enjoy!…

In Summation - The Final Word

1
United States v. Philip Esformes 56:18

för 2 years sedan56:18

56:18

What is "fraud?" How does it work? What are the recourses of someone who has been defrauded? Is fraud always criminal? In today's episode, Paul dives into healthcare fraud. Philip Esformes set up an elaborate scheme which triggered federal agencies like Medicare and Medicaid to pay his companies, and so, him, vast amounts of money. But the money wasn't actually going to treatment or services, Esformes was just making up fake billing reports, and then making/taking kickbacks to/from other vendors for other services that were either unnecessarily expensive or simply never happened to sweeten the deal even further. Listen as we discuss the arguments made at trial, why our federal government takes theft from its own coffers so seriously, and what happens when prosecutors abuse their significant powers and seize information which should be protected by a legal privilege. But then there is more. This case presents a unique opportunity for us to really explore the distinction between a presidential pardon as opposed to when the president commutes a person's sentence. To further make this case fascinating, we will look at the unique set of events which is leading the federal government to attempt to put Esformes back on trial after former President Trump let him out of jail. Listen and enjoy!…

In Summation - The Final Word

1
Wisconsin v. Darrell Brooks 1:11:25

för 2 years sedan1:11:25

1:11:25

Friend of the show Adam Uris returns to discuss the Waukesha, Wisconsin Christmas Parade Tragedy and ensuing prosecution of Darrell Brooks, the man who drove his red Ford Escape right through the parade. Brooks killed 6 people and injured over 60 more. This episode touches on a number of really fascinating legal topics. Paul and Adam discuss the difference between competency to stand trial and the legal definition of insanity, what a defendant has to establish to show insanity, and what a defense attorney can do when a defendant does not want to go along with an insanity defense. Brooks also chose to represent himself, so there is an interesting intersection explored between mental illness and self-representation. There is also a more global discussion about faith in the institution of the judiciary, whether it's eroding, and if so, why that's happening. Adam and Paul each give their opinions on how culture affects the criminal justice system and what improvements can be made to achieve a more just institution. Hope you enjoy!…

In Summation - The Final Word

1
New York v. Lenny Bruce 53:24

för 2 years sedan53:24

53:24

In the 1950's and 60's, Lenny Bruce was a transformative figure in the world of comedy. He was hip, brash, unfiltered, and...obscene? His biting social commentary made some people uncomfortable, and many felt that the words he used violated certain laws which regulated speech which may have the tendency to corrupt or degrade morals. In this episode, Paul breaks down governmental intervention in the realm of free speech. He explains the progression of speech protections over the past several decades, and examines how the attempted regulation of speech has migrated from topic to topic based on the changing mores of society. The prosecution of Lenny Bruce in many ways draws eerie parallels to attempts to silence opponents today, and it was no less offensive. The idea that a person can be criminally prosecuted and potentially sentenced to jail for making jokes at a venue people have to pay to attend simply because the humor is graphic in nature, or discusses certain taboo topics, is unconscionable. In today's world, it seems evident that nobody should be arrested for profane comedy. But let's all keep in mind that those same feelings should extend to all other areas of speech as well, and that profanity doesn't lose its protection simply because we no longer find it funny. Enjoy!…

In Summation - The Final Word

1
Impeachment 49:45

för 2 years sedan49:45

49:45

A lot of listeners have asked In Summation to publish an episode on impeachment. Paul thought it only fitting that episode 45 be the one to cover impeachment seeing as how our 45th president has the dubious distinction of being the most impeached president in American history. In this episode, Paul explains the historical background of impeachment, the circumstances in which it arises, why it has never actually removed a sitting president, and why the apparent use of impeachment as nothing more than a political tool is setting the trajectory towards places we should not go. As always, this podcast does not seek to take sides in any political battles. To the extent that anything said in the episode comes off as supporting one party, or the impeachment of any particular president, it was not meant to convey such a feeling. If you enjoy, please rate and subscribe.…

In Summation - The Final Word

1
Florida v. Nikolas Cruz (Marjorie Stoneman Douglas School Shooter) 58:15

för 2 years sedan58:15

58:15

Does the death penalty work? Does the threat of the death penalty work? Is it a deterrent to murder or other serious crimes? When and how does a person get put on death row? In this episode, Paul breaks down the unique case of Nikolas Cruz, the teenager who killed 17 people on Valentine's Day, 2018, at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. There was no question that Cruz was the individual responsible for the most egregious school shooting massacre to date in the United States. But did he deserve to be executed for it? Prosecutors and family members of the victims thought so. In this episode, Paul explains the special process by which the state attempts to execute someone, what showings have to be made and how the prosecution and defense teams in Cruz's case pushed their narratives and argued their cases. Enjoy.…

In Summation - The Final Word

1
Maryland v. Keith Davis, Jr. 1:05:30

för 2 years sedan1:05:30

1:05:30

This is a unique episode for a number of reasons. First, this is the first case Paul has covered which is technically still ongoing. There is hope that it may be brought to a just resolution in early 2023, but there is no way to know for certain just yet. Second, the fact pattern and procedural history of this case is more absurd than anything coming out of Hollywood. This is a longer monologue episode, and that is after much time was spent determining the most salient and important points to make for the purposes of this podcast. Paul believes the content of this episode speaks for itself, and encourages anyone who is interested in learning more or helping seek justice for Keith Davis, Jr. to reach out to Campaign Zero by going to https://campaignzero.org/#vision. Paul hopes that this case brings to light not only the plight of Keith Davis, Jr. and the corruption of Baltimore County State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby, but also highlights that situations like this do exist, we just don't hear about them because they don't make for good primetime news. But they deserve to be shared, and the public deserves to know, because sunlight is the best disinfectant, and only by showing things as they actually are can we take the necessary steps to make them better.…

In Summation - The Final Word

1
New York v. Robert Chambers (The Preppy Murder) 1:16:44

för 3 years sedan1:16:44

1:16:44

Special Guest Adam Uris is back! In this episode, Adam and Paul discuss The Preppy Murder, one of the most notorious trials in American history. In 1986 the body of recent high school graduate Jennifer Levin was found in Central Park. There was evidence that she had recently had intercourse and that she had been strangled. The investigation quickly narrowed in on Robert Chambers, a 19 year old upper east sider. Chambers was tall, handsome, put together, and quite possibly a sociopath. Listen as Adam and Paul break down the most sensational case in the United States until the OJ Simpson trial, laying out how the defense strategy of using the media worked to Chamber's advantage and how the prosecution's hands were tied perhaps a bit more than would be considered fair by a judge's routinely questionable rulings. This case has it all, high society, sex, drugs, murder, media sensationalism, and Dorrians Red Hand , an upper east side staple for underage alcohol abuse for decades.…

In Summation - The Final Word

1
United States v. Michael Avenatti 55:59

för 3 years sedan55:59

55:59

No matter how successful someone becomes, there is always the chance of flying a little too close to the sun and having the heat melt the wax holding your makeshift wings together. The same fate that befell Icarus happened to superstar celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti. Avenatti rose to national fame by representing some of the biggest names in celebrity. Athletes, entertainers (adult and otherwise), major corporations, you name it, Avenatti aggressively pursued their interests. When someone who fueds publicly with a sitting President and goes toe to toe with Supreme Court nominees falls from grace, the resulting splash is spectacular. In the case of Michael Avenatti, nearly everyone knows that he has been convicted of federal crimes, but a lot of people are unable to really fully explain what he did. This case digs into Avenatti's federal prosecution for charges that he attempted to extort Nike using compromising information which he received from a client. Further, Avenatti was convicted of essentially agreeing to represent that client, taking that information, and then trying to use it for his own personal financial gain as opposed to his client's best interest. Listen as Paul breaks down extortion, honest services fraud, conspiracies and substantive crimes while looping in the Interstate Commerce Clause to explain federal jurisdiction. As always, please send any and all feedback, Paul responds to every message he gets as quickly as possible!…

In Summation - The Final Word

1
Kennedy v. Bremerton 1:13:51

för 3 years sedan1:13:51

1:13:51

Hello Listeners, In this installment of In Summation, Paul brings on special guest host Andrew Heaton of the Political Orphanage podcast to discuss the recent Supreme Court decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton. What ensues is a great conversation about the First Amendment, specifically the negative and positive rights associated with religious liberty in America. Where is the line between accommodating the free exercise of religion by a state actor and condoning a state-sanctioned religion? Joseph Kennedy was an assistant high school football coach for the Bremerton School District in Washington State. A devoutly religious man, he would kneel in prayer at the 50-yard line after football games while the students were singing the school fight song, speaking with their friends/family, or heading back to the locker room. This practice became a problem for the school district, who felt that Kennedy's actions were likely violating the establishment clause. When he refused to cease, or change the time or manner in which he prayed, he was ultimately fired, and this law suit resulted. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, who had to grapple with the lines between an individuals right to freely exercise their religious practices and the prohibition of any sort of state-sanctioned religion. We hope you enjoy this deep dive into the legal arguments and merits of the ultimate decision!…

In Summation - The Final Word

1
Merle Denezpi v. United States (Double Jeopardy) 41:28

för 3 years sedan41:28

41:28

In Summation is back!!!! After a lengthy hiatus caused by a complex murder trial in New York we have finally returned to provide you with more insights into current legal issues, allowing you to amaze your friends and family with keen insights and deep knowledge. In this episode, we consider the case(s) of Merle Denezpi. This was a Supreme Court case decided in the October 2021 term, so alongside the likes of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health and Kennedy v. Bremerton. Accordingly, it got very little media attention because of the other blockbuster decisions. But I think the Denezpi case is truly significant, and here is why. Most Americans have a passing understanding of the concept of double jeopardy. If for no other reason than there was a 1999 movie with Ashley Judd and Tommie Lee Jones of that name which loosely touched upon the issue...But the basic concept is that the government (be it state or federal) cannot prosecute the same individual multiple times for the same criminal act. The district attorney cannot bring you to trial, lose, and turn around and charge you again to start the process over. Denezpi is a Native American, and while on Native American land, he was accused of sexually assaulting a traveling companion. He was tried in a tribal court, established by the federal government. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 140 days jail. After his sentence was up, he was re-arrested for the exact same actions and put on trial in federal court, where he was then sentenced to 30 years. That's right 140 days to 30 years. The question is, was it wrong for the Department of Justice to re-arrest and re-prosecute Denezpi after he had already been convicted and served time for this crime? Listen to the as Paul explains the legal history of double jeopardy, when does it apply and when has the Supreme Court determined a second prosecution is permissible. Also a special thanks to Eric Stipe, who has come to take over responsibilities as audio engineer for the show! Much appreciated.…

Välkommen till Player FM

Player FM scannar webben för högkvalitativa podcasts för dig att njuta av nu direkt. Den är den bästa podcast-appen och den fungerar med Android, Iphone och webben. Bli medlem för att synka prenumerationer mellan enheter.