In Summation - The Final Word

Scott Peterson met Laci Rocha in 1994 while Peterson was working in the Pacific Cafe in Morro Bay, California. They began dating and were married in 1997. To the outside world, they had a picture perfect marriage. Scott got a good job with an agricultural products sales company and Laci worked as a substitute teacher. They bought a house, and in 2002 Laci announced that they would be welcoming their first child in February 2003.But under the surface, Scott was coming apart. He had extramarital affairs, including one which began in November 2002, while his wife was several months pregnant. He told the woman that he was a widower. Less than two months later, on Christmas Eve 2002, Laci Peterson went missing.The bodies of Laci and the developed fetus were found in April 2003. Within a week, Scott Peterson was arrested and charged with murder.In this episode, Paul explains the confusing process of jury selection, how the process of whittling down an entire jury panel to the people who actually hear the case takes place.Additionally, we look at the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence. Paul explains what the difference is, that there is no inherent hierarchy of credibility between the two, and how an entire prosecution can be built solely on circumstantial evidence and yet be every bit as convincing as if there were direct witnesses to the event.Thanks for listening! If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and rate it on whatever platform you stream on.

Aaron Hernandez had a difficult upbringing. He has a strained family life combined with losing his father at an early age which set him on a path of rebellion. He was brash, quick-tempered and took offense at even the most benign gestures. He was also a very talented football player, the one aspect of his life where he excelled and gave him a future.It was the love of football which connected him to Odin Lloyd, the man who was dating the sister of Hernandez's fiancé. Lloyd was a semi-professional football player himself, and became close friends with the NFL star. Then, for reasons nobody fully understands, Lloyd was shot dead on June 17, 2013 approximately a mile from Hernandez's residence. Hernandez was arrested shortly thereafter and the rest is history.In this episode, Paul provides some insight into the New England Patriot's most infamous Tight End, how he lived and how he died. We examine one the biggest issues which will come up in a trial...what was the defendant's motive?While a prosecutor is typically not required to prove motive as an element of a crime, jurors are always curious as to why a person would commit murder. In this case, we see how even when a prosecutor is well versed in the facts of his or her case, it is still difficult to paint a convincing picture for a jury when you can't give any reasonable explanation for why the defendant did what he is alleged to have done.We also discuss the complicated issue of how much a defense attorney should concede to maintain credibility with a jury. It's a fine line that good lawyers have to continuously walk, and knowing what you can fight and what you have to just accept is often a difficult task in the moment. In the Hernandez case, Paul explains why he felt the defense attorney conceded too much and ultimately gave away the case.If you enjoy the episode, please subscribe to the show and send me any feedback you have.

By the middle of the year 2000, the Enron corporation was a giant in the energy industry. The stock price was a whopping $90.56 per share, Forbes magazine had rated it the most innovative company in the country for six consecutive years, and it had a giant market share in the energy field.A lot of the credit for this was given to Jeffrey Skilling, a Harvard Business School graduate and consultant for McKinsey and Company who was hired by Enron in 1990. By February 2001, Skilling had worked his way up to take the reins as CEO of the entire company. But then he abruptly resigned less than six months later while the stock was taking a downward turn. Shortly thereafter, the company filed for bankruptcy and Skilling found himself indicted for fraud.In this episode, Paul gives a basic overview of what was happening at Enron which led to Skilling getting indicted and how the prosecutor was able to secure their chief witness against him. He also explains why the order of witnesses is vitally important in a trial and the value of making a criminal case about the flesh and blood victims rather than focus on numbers and accounting.If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and rate it, so that other people will be able to find it easier. Thanks for listening and please share any feedback you have.

In the wake of the highly public Derek Chauvin trial, people seem to be curious about the guilty verdicts of both murder and manslaughter. How are they different and when is it appropriate to charge one, the other, or both? Having discussed murder in several previous cases, we focus on manslaughter in this episode.Shortly after 4:45 pm on March 25, 1911, a fire ignited on the 8th floor of the Asch Building in downtown New York City. The 8th, 9th and 10th floors belonged to the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, owned by Max Blanck and Isaac Harris. The fire claimed the lives of 146 people in the approximately 18 minutes of the blaze, and the fire marshal's investigation revealed that the door to the stairwell on the 9th floor was locked from the outside. The fire escape collapsed and the elevator stopped working trapping the workers inside as the fire crept towards them.Harris and Blanck were charged with manslaughter in one of the largest profile cases for unintentionally causing death in the nation's history.In this episode, Paul breaks down the different types of manslaughter charges, and how they differ from murder. He also explains the different types of sentencing that can be imposed and how double jeopardy works. Please enjoy, and if you like the show, subscribe!

Charles Manson needs no introduction. He has become a boogeyman figure in American culture. Virtually everyone is aware of the brutal murders committed by the Manson "family." People recall that during his trial, Manson carved an X into his forehead, and later that X was replaced with a swastika. He never expressed any remorse whatsoever for trying to trigger Helter Skelter, a race war, by killing white celebrities he had no previous quarrel with.Manson's name is synonymous with criminal insanity and cultish behavior. The murders which took place at the Polanski/Tate house and then the LaBianca home the following night terrified the public. When the actual reasons for the murders became known, it only intensified society's reaction.In this episode, Paul explains how the law of conspiracy works and how it relates to joint liability for criminal actions. Paul breaks down how one individual can be convicted of a substantive crime committed by another. He also covers what happens in the unique situation where a client demands to testify but the attorney representing him is so opposed to it that he refuses to question him.Please subscribe and send feedback to [email protected]. Enjoy!

Michael Jackson has been undeniably influential in the entertainment industry since he was eight years old. The King of Pop has wowed millions with his singing and dancing and was an international sensation for decades.In 1993 that world came crashing down as allegations of child molestation arose and the Santa Barbara District Attorney's Office extensively investigated Jackson's relationship with young boys. Ultimately, the allegations could not be substantiated and no arrest was ever made. The damage to Jackson's career, reputation and emotional well-being, however, was severe.Nearly a decade later, a second round of allegations of child abuse would lead to Jackson's arrest and trial. The same district attorney who investigated Jackson in 1993 would prosecute him at his very public 2005 trial. Listen as Paul breaks down the allegations for each instance and explains how the 1993 claims impacted the 2005 trial. As always, there will be a discussion of the legal arguments, the merits of the claims, and explanations of the rulings and how they impacted the trial. A lot of people have very strong feelings about the claims made here, but frequently do not know the details of the substance of what these children actually said and what corroboration they had. At the end of the episode, you'll be in a position to judge for yourself whether you believe these acts of molestation ever happened, or whether the Thriller was simply a soft target for extortion. Enjoy!

Around 30 years ago, on March 2, 1991, Rodney King spent the evening drinking and watching basketball with some friends. A little after midnight, he got into his car and started driving down the Los Angeles freeway. When the California Highway Patrol attempted to stop him for speeding, he led law enforcement on an 8 mile high-speed chase. Most people recall that when he was finally pulled over, he received an excessively severe beating by members of the Los Angeles Police Department, which was caught on video, and which sparked national outrage at the misconduct of the police.In this episode, Paul explains the doctrine of qualified immunity, what it does and what it does not shield government actors from. Additionally, listeners will hear the difference between parole and probation, examines how change of venue can impact a jury pool, and how a federal civil rights prosecution works. This is the story of the prosecution of the LAPD officers whose use of force was so excessive that it set the city of Los Angeles on fire for six full days.If you enjoy the episode, please subscribe to the show.

On March 13, 2006, Crystal Magnum and Kim Mera Roberts were hired by the Duke University Lacrosse team as strippers for a party over spring break. After the party, Magnum claimed that she had been raped by three of the team members. Over the next year, the entire country watched with baited breath as the story transformed from indignation and condemnation towards the three affluent, privileged players to disgust at how one rogue prosecutor violated countless ethical rules and zealously persecuted the three defendants, knowing that the evidence did not support that they had committed any crime.Listen as Paul breaks down polygraphs, witness identification procedures, credibility considerations, and law enforcement's ethical responsibilities while discussing the Duke University Rape Case, North Carolina v. David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann. Enjoy!

I suspect you are not familiar with the name Ross Ulbricht. But chances are you have heard of his alias, the Dread Pirate Roberts. The Government claimed that Ulbricht chose the pseudonym from the Princess Bride so that he could anonymously run the Silk Road, an open air online marketplace where anyone could buy or sell all manner of illegal contraband using bitcoin without having to disclose their identity. The draw of the Silk Road was that people could safely and securely buy or sell items which in the past would have required risking a personal interaction with individuals who may just kill you and take your money rather than conduct a business transaction.The Government used its vast resources to take down the silk road, but like so many other cases we've discussed, it came down to one very intelligent and dedicated government agent who saw something nobody else did and cracked the case wide open.From there, you can decide for yourself whether the Government adhered to all their own rules and regulations and whether Ulbricht was simply the creator of the site who passed it on or the continuing mastermind behind all transactions. I hope you enjoy discussing this fascinating case and please feel free to leave me any feedback you have.

Who is Steven Donziger? Chances are you've never heard of him. He may be a brave human rights activist or perhaps an exceptionally talented con man. One thing is for certain, the story of his life is a wild roller coaster. Donziger is a Harvard Law graduate who sued Texaco/Chevron in 1993 for the pollution and devastation in the Ecuadorian Amazon. After winning a massive international judgment, the oil giants launched a crusade to ruin his life. In this episode, Paul explains where a lawsuit can be brought, what the federal RICO law actually is and how it applies to private individuals as well as why lawyers refuse to violate the attorney client privilege. Donzier now has a criminal contempt case pending in federal court, but the background information and legal battles to this point warranted their own episode. This is Part I of the United States (but really Chevron Oil) v. Steven Donziger. Please rate and review if you liked it!

There is something about political corruption which is especially jarring to the common citizen. We expect our elected officials to pursue their constituents' interests and to work to improve the quality of life for all. When they instead seek ways to peddle their influence or abuse their power for personal gain, it draws significant righteous indignation. On January 7, 2015, Shelly Silver was elected to his 11th straight term as Speaker of the New York State Assembly. He was the leader of the state legislature. Two weeks later, he was arrested and charged with something called Honest Services Fraud. Tune into this installment of In Summation - The Final Word where Paul explains what Honest Services Fraud is and how it fits into the spectrum of political corruption. He will also discuss what happens when a defendant wins a case on appeal, and what that means for a re-trial. As always, Paul appreciates everyone who takes the time to listen and support the show.

Phil Spector held enormous influence over the music industry for decades. He produced some of the most widely recognizable songs from the most widely recognizable artists. But underneath the genius was a man prone to violent outbursts. On February 3, 2003 everything came crashing down for Phil Spector when B-list actress Lana Clarkson was fatally shot in his mansion. His ensuing arrest for murder brought to light several interesting legal issues. In this episode, Paul explains when a defendant's character and history of bad behavior can be exposed to a jury, as well as gives a basic explanation of what hearsay is and why it's generally inadmissible at a trial. Listen and enjoy.

On August 2, 2016 Queens native Karina Vetrano went out jogging and never came home. That night, her body was found and the Howard Beach Jogger murder became a sensational story in New York City for months. A 20 year-old man named Chanel Lewis was ultimately arrested and convicted of the murder. In this episode, Paul discusses the prosecution of Lewis and breaks down how the insanity defense is argued in New York, what police are allowed to do while interrogating a suspect, the basics of DNA evidence in a courtroom setting and what actually happens when a jury is hopelessly deadlocked.

In the 1990s Dr. Murad Jacob Kevorkian assisted approximately 130 people commit suicide in Michigan. In response, the Michigan legislature passed laws barring the practice and judges issued injunctions against the practice. In this episode, Paul examines the unyielding drive of "Dr. Death" to euthanize those who he believed had the right to die on their own terms with dignity. Listen and discover how the concepts of legal relevancy and the specific elements of a crime came front and center in a trial which captured national headlines and ultimately left Dr. Kevorkian frustrated and disappointed.

At just 24 days, army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's tenure as National Security Advisor is the shortest ever on record. But he is far more notable for his three year delayed sentencing on a guilty plea to lying to federal agents. In this episode, Paul explains how federal sentencing works and tackles the issue who who ultimately has the authority to stop a prosecution, all in the context of the Flynn case. Tune in to hear how the Honorable Emmet Sullivan enlisted a third party to argue against the Department of Justice's decision to drop it's own prosecution, how the appeal was circumvented, and how President Trump ultimately put the issue to bed.

Al Capone used fear and intimidation to rule the organized crime world of Chicago for much of the 1920s. Yet despite all the blood on his hands and wake of destruction he left behind, law enforcement could never make a case against him for violent crimes. In this episode, Paul discusses how Al Capone learned the hard way that the only two things in life you can always count on are death and taxes.

Martin Shkreli was labeled "what's wrong with capitalism in America" after increasing the cost of certain life-saving medication for HIV+/AIDS patients over 5000% percent. He was universally reviled and detested. And then he was arrested and indicted on federal charges. But Shkreli's indictment had nothing to do with the decision to raise the price of this crucial medication. In this episode, Paul clarifies what federal laws Martin Shkreli was actually accused of breaking, and why it was so hard for him to get a fair trial.

On February 26, 2012 a local neighborhood watch coordinator in Sanford Florida by the name of George Zimmerman shot a 17 year old high school student named Trayvon Martin to death under suspicious circumstances. Was it murder? Self-defense? Listen as Paul breaks down exactly what Zimmerman was charged with, what his defense was and how the prosecution and defense made their arguments to the jury. Paul explains how and why the decisions each lawyer made impacted the case significantly.

Was Casey Anthony a party girl who killed her own daughter so she could live a life free of responsibility? Or was she a grieving mother whose past history of suffering abuse impacted her ability to show distress and mourn? Paul explains how the facts of this case get progressively more outrageous while breaking down trial strategy and showing why sometimes less is more when arguing to a jury.

Welcome to the podcast! In this introductory teaser episode Paul provides a bit of background on who he is and what this podcast is about. In his career as a lawyer, he has had had more conversations than he can count where people could remember one specific facet of a case that was splashed all over the media for months, but had no idea how or why the case ended the way it did. This podcast is for people who are curious to really know what happened in these dramatic legal battles and how they came to their final resolutions.