In Summation - The Final Word

Welcome back! The wait for a new episode is over.In a triumphant return, Paul breaks down the federal case against Sean "Diddy" Combs. Combs was charged with RICO, sex trafficking, and interstate transportation for the purposes of prostitution.In this episode, we discuss what overcharging looks like, how fame affects criminal cases, and how to know when to put a case on as a defendant.Sean Combs need no introduction, he has been a household name in the United States since the 1990s. We have witnessed the evolution of the man from an upstart rapper talking about his life on the streets and his impoverished childhood to becoming one of the most successful cross-industry entrepeneurs in the world.But with all that fame, fortune, and money came vices. Combs notoriously hosted wild "freak off" sex parties, and some participants in those parties came forward to claim that they were not willing participants, that they were forced into commercial sex acts, and that Combs controlled them through a criminal organization using violence, coercion, financial malfeasance, and even arson.Was Sean Combs a sex trafficking, criminal mastermind? Or was he simply an abusive boyfriend with ex-girlfriends trying to cash in on his status?Listen and learn what the Sean Combs prosecution was about, and how the defense team kept the focus where it needed to be.

OJ Simpson's arrest and trial captivated the country. Dubbed the "trial of the century," the 1995 spectacle grabbed eyeballs with gavel to gavel coverage for approximately 10 months. The trial was packed with celebrity, DNA evidence, grusome crime scene photos, a massive fall from grace, racial tensions, devastating cross-examinations, jury field trips, and more.Since I couldn't possibly cover this massive case all on my own, I bring in special guest and attorney friend Anna Gorisch to help parse through the issues and cultural import of the moment. Thanks Anna!Enjoy!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.