Next Witness...Please

WOUB Public Media
  • 5.0 (9)
  • GOVERNMENT
Next Witness...Please

Ever found yourself lost in legal jargon? Fear not! Our mission is to decode complex legal concepts into everyday language, making them accessible to all. Meet your hosts, the dynamic duo known as the Judicial Twins! Retired judge Tom Hodson brings over 50 years of legal expertise as a trial judge, defense attorney, and former Judicial Fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States. Retired judge Gayle William-Byers, with more than two decades of public service as a prosecutor and judge, is now sharing her knowledge as a Judicial Fellow for The National Judicial College and a legal analyst. Join us as we embark on a quest to demystify the legal system and increase your understanding of its complexities. Tune in to "Next Witness... Please" for enlightening discussions, insightful perspectives, and a deeper understanding of the law. Don't miss out – subscribe now and let's unravel the mysteries of the legal world together!

  1. 3 DAYS AGO

    Why Sean 'Diddy' Combs Remains Behind Bars: Judges Break Down the Denial of Bail

    Why is Sean “Diddy” Combs still in jail and not out on some type of bond, bail, or pretrial release? On this edition of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson explore the federal criminal charges against Combs and look closely at why he currently is being held in the Metropolitan Detention Center in New York City and not released on bond. Combs is in jail pending a trial date which is expected to be set during a pretrial conference in federal court in New York City on October 9. Combs was arrested in New York on September 16 and initially charged with racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion, and transportation to engage in prostitution. The racketeering charge carries with it a maximum sentence of life in prison, the trafficking charge carries a maximum sentence of life and a minimum sentence of 15 years, and the transportation charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. The charges were the result of a long investigation which is still ongoing. Judges Byers and Hodson discussed the original search warrants for Combs in an April 4 episode of WOUB’s Spectrum Podcast titled “What do music mogul Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs and Donald Trump have in common?” https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-does-music-mogul-sean-diddy-combs-and-donald/id1124539097?i=1000651458552 At his arraignment, federal prosecutor Emily Johnson argued that Combs had a long and turbulent history of intimidating accusers and witnesses. He has a history of violence. Also, she claimed that part of his mode of operation was extortion and intimidation of victims or potential witnesses against him. The prosecution team filed a letter with the magistrate requesting that no bond be given to Combs. In the 16-page detention letter, the team said: “… the defendant poses an ongoing and significant danger to the community, has repeatedly engaged in obstructive conduct, and presents a serious risk of flight. The Government respectfully submits that the defendant cannot meet his burden of overcoming the statutory presumption in favor of detention. There are no conditions of bail that would assure the appearance and compliance of the defendant, or the safety of others. Accordingly, any application for bail should be denied.” Here is a copy of the entire detention letter: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/sean-combs-detention-memo.pdf Combs’ attorneys said they were willing to post a $50 million dollar bond and agreed that Combs be given house arrest with 24-hour surveillance and strict limitations for visitors. The magistrate turned down the defense’s suggestion and held Combs without bond. A trial judge reviewed the matter and agreed with the magistrate. Combs’ attorneys have now appealed their bond request to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. As of the date of this podcast, the 2nd Circuit has not ruled on the matter and Combs remains in jail. Judges Byers and Hodson review the bond issue and explain considerations a judge may review in deciding the issue of pretrial release. Hear their analysis of this case from a judicial perspective.

    1h 1m

  2. OCT 1

    America’s Public Defender Crisis: How the System Fails the Most Vulnerable

    America’s criminal courts are facing a crisis, namely the lack of public defenders and court appointed attorneys to defend people charged with crimes. Over the past decade, the paucity of defenders for the indigent has grown from an issue lurking just beneath the surface of our judicial system to one of an acute nature. In some states it has grown beyond acute and is, in fact, a critical problem. To understand the issue, we need to go back to 1963 when the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright decided that indigent defendants, in cases where there is the potential of jail time, had a constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to court appointed counsel. States and local courts then scrambled to create public defenders, paid for by the government, to handle indigent defendants’ cases. When a public defender is not available, the court must appoint a private attorney to represent the poor. Often those attorneys are paid with local funds. But the demand for public defenders keeps rising and public defenders are leaving their positions, in record numbers, due to burnout, low wages, staggering workloads and crippling student debt. In a 2016 article, the Guardian indicated that approximately 90 percent of all criminal defendants qualify for a public defender. Hence the workloads for these attorneys are horrendous. One commentator referred to them as the “pack mules” of the legal system. Yet in some states, the burden is far too great. For example, in Cole Co., Missouri the caseloads are 225 percent above recommended levels. Rural areas are hit especially hard by this problem. For example, in Ohio, according to the Ohio Supreme Court, 75 percent of Ohio’s lawyers work in the state’s seven largest counties leaving many of the remaining 81 counties to be without high quality legal services. More than half of Ohio’s population live in these smaller counties and people and courts are often unable to find an attorney when one is needed. In Pennsylvania in May 2024, the state had 850 public defenders, according to a professor at the University of Pennsylvania law school. The need is for 1,200 lawyers leaving a 30 percent shortfall. The study also showed that 60 of the Commonwealth’s 66 counties had attorney staffing levels below what is required. Legal scholars have called this dearth of public defenders a “national crisis.” The Harvard Law Review reported in 2023: “Just over the last decade, the Sixth Amendment Center, a nonprofit organization that evaluates indigent defense systems, has published reports documenting how the constitutional right to counsel in our criminal courts is routinely violated in Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin. During the same period, the American Bar Association has developed evidence-based state-specific workload standards for public defenders in Colorado, Indiana, Missouri, Louisiana, Rhode Island…New Mexico and Oregon which, if followed, would require most offices to double in size.” As a result of the lack of public defenders, indigent clients often languish in jail longer than their affluent counterparts. Also, they often get scant legal assistance. On this edition of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Tom Hodson and Gayle William-Byers examine this crisis, its ramifications, and possible solutions. If you want more information about this topic, please check out the 6th Amendment Center at https://6ac.org/.

    1h 2m

  3. SEP 23

    Behind the Bench: How Judges Maintain Decorum and What Happens When They Don't

    What should judges expect from courtroom participants, and what happens if a judge crosses the line? In this episode of Next Witness...Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson tackle the often-overlooked topic of judicial decorum. They offer both insight and entertainment, with personal and humorous examples of maintaining—or losing—judicial decorum. Every court, from state to federal, has codes of conduct requiring judges to be patient, dignified, and respectful in their official roles. At the same time, judges are tasked with keeping order in their courtroom and sometimes that is not an easy task. Recently, we’ve seen a range of judicial styles, especially in high-profile cases like those involving Donald Trump from Judge Arthur Engoron and Judge Juan Merchan in New York, Judge Scott McAfee in Georgia to federal judges like Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida and Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., Our retired judges share stories of outlandish courtroom moments, such as a Michigan trial judge's recent outrageous behavior, and discuss techniques they personally used to stay composed. They also dive into what triggers judges to lose their cool and reveal what really goes on in a judge’s mind while managing a courtroom. Our judges also dive into how judges can be disciplined for inappropriate conduct in court.

    1h 2m

  4. SEP 9

    Trump’s Legal Gauntlet: Two Retired Judges Weigh In

    Donald Trump is currently entangled in two major federal criminal cases plus a criminal case in New York and at least two civil cases on appeal. These cases amount to a mixed bag of legal issues – some complex and some bordering on frivolous but all problematic for judges. On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson guide listeners through Trump’s legal troubles—not as advocates, but through the lens of judicial analysis. They discuss the federal classified documents case in Florida and dig deep into the January 6 election interference case before Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C. They break down the new superseding indictment filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith in that case and compare it to the original indictment against Trump. Our pair of retired judges also simplify the complex issues facing Judge Juan Merchan in Trump’s New York criminal case, where 34 guilty verdicts are at stake. Finally, they tackle two of the appellate cases Trump has filed in the sexual assault and defamation cases involving E. Jean Carroll offering insight into the legal roadblocks ahead. Delivered in clear, accessible language, they shed light on what’s next for Trump’s legal battles.

    1h 5m

  5. AUG 21

    Trump’s Motions Put Judge Merchan in the Hot Seat

    New York Judge Juan Merchan is set to rule on pivotal motions from Donald Trump’s legal team, aiming to overturn 34 felony convictions in the hush money and campaign finance cases. Trump’s attorneys argue that improper evidence was used to secure the guilty verdicts, citing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity. They claim that testimony involving “official acts” from Trump’s presidency tainted the trial and are pushing for both the convictions and original indictments to be dismissed. Judge Merchan’s decisions are important because they will be the first lower court judicial interpretations of the Supreme Court’s controversial decision. Even though Trump’s criminal activities were clearly not “official acts” of the presidency and, therefore, not immune. Trump’s attorneys claim that improper evidence of “official acts” was used to obtain the verdicts. The use of evidence of “official acts” cannot be used to buttress alleged violations of “unofficial acts,” according to the Supreme Court. Trump’s attorneys claim that testimony from witnesses like former presidential advisor Hope Hicks and others so tainted the trial that the verdicts cannot stand. Judge Merchan is expected to render his decisions by September 16 and Trump currently is scheduled to be sentenced on September 18.

    57 min

  6. AUG 13

    Judges vs. Journalists: Who Masters Objectivity?

    Judges are supposed to be unbiased and objective. So are journalists. Is that possible in 2024? Do our preconceived biases seep into our work? Is objectivity even possible? Every judge comes to the bench with his/her own life experiences, biases, and personality, yet the judge is expected to put all of that aside to objectively determine all issues. The same is true of journalists. In court, there is the necessity to hear both sides of a legal argument before the judge decides a case. Are journalists required to always hear out both sides before publishing an article or is it sufficient to just print what one side says…such as in a presidential rally? Is fact checking required before publication or after-the-fact? In today’s episode of Next Witness…Please we explore the actual neutrality of judges and how the objectivity required of judges is often like the objectivity aspired to by journalists. This discussion was prompted by the recent controversial turmoil caused by the National Association of Black Journalists inviting Donald Trump to speak to its annual convention in Chicago and Trump’s bombastic performance.

    55 min

  7. AUG 6

    Biden Proposes Massive Changes to Supreme Court

    After the presidential immunity decision and other precedent crushing opinions by the U.S. Supreme Court, President Joseph Biden is proposing significant changes to the court. He has proposed term limits for the justices and wants those to be imposed retroactively. Justices currently have lifetime appointments. Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito are the most senior justices on the court and instantly would be impacted by the retroactivity. President Biden also is asking for a mandate to have an enforceable code of ethics imposed on Supreme Court justices. The court adopted one this past year, but it is not enforceable and there are no consequences for violating it. Finally, President Biden is calling for a constitutional amendment to limit presidential immunity. This is proposed to counteract the sweeping immunity given to presidents in the Trump v. United States case on July 1. Next Witness…Please examines all these issues in depth. Listen, subscribe rate and review this WOUB produced podcast.

    2h 2m

  8. JUL 29

    U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Spark Concern for Democracy

    As the U.S. Supreme Court term ended, it issued a series of monumental decisions. One sharply curtailed the power of federal administrative agencies to interpret the laws they administer, overturning a precedent from 1984. Just three days later, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court granted the president almost complete immunity from any criminal prosecutions. In response to these decisions, Dr. Stephen Goldman, a psychiatrist, historian and author, joined “Next Witness…Please” to express his deep concern for the future of American democracy. Dr. Goldman brings decades of experience in academic and clinical medicine and public health. He has treated and worked with combat veterans and deeply studied the Civil War, Reconstruction, race and the impact of that war on America. His latest book, One More War to Fight: Union Veterans Battle for Equality Through Reconstruction, Jim Crow and the Lost Cause, delves into these themes. Dr. Goldman expressed his alarm over the Supreme Court’s recent trend of overturning longstanding precedents which he believes breeds uncertainty among the populace. He is particularly worried about the Supreme Court decision to overturn the Chevron precedent which allowed federal administrative agencies to interpret ambiguous laws. Now that the matters must go before judges, Dr. Goldman fears that science and scientific principles will not be fully utilized in making crucial decisions about Americans’ health and well-being. Additionally, Dr. Goldman is critical of the Supreme Court giving autocratic immunity to the president. He also voiced serious concerns about the implementation of Project 2025 and Schedule F if Donald Trump is re-elected, warning that both could severely damage American democracy. https://www.stephenagoldmanmd.com/

    1h 9m
See All (18)

Trailer

5
out of 5
9 Ratings

About

Ever found yourself lost in legal jargon? Fear not! Our mission is to decode complex legal concepts into everyday language, making them accessible to all. Meet your hosts, the dynamic duo known as the Judicial Twins! Retired judge Tom Hodson brings over 50 years of legal expertise as a trial judge, defense attorney, and former Judicial Fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States. Retired judge Gayle William-Byers, with more than two decades of public service as a prosecutor and judge, is now sharing her knowledge as a Judicial Fellow for The National Judicial College and a legal analyst. Join us as we embark on a quest to demystify the legal system and increase your understanding of its complexities. Tune in to "Next Witness... Please" for enlightening discussions, insightful perspectives, and a deeper understanding of the law. Don't miss out – subscribe now and let's unravel the mysteries of the legal world together!

Information

  • Creator
    WOUB Public Media
  • Years Active
    2K
  • Episodes
    18
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2024 WOUB Public Media
  • Show Website
    Next Witness...Please

To listen to explicit episodes, sign in.

Stay up to date with this show

Sign in or sign up to follow shows, save episodes, and get the latest updates.
Select a country or region

Africa, Middle East, and India

Asia Pacific

Europe

Latin America and the Caribbean

The United States and Canada