Swear on the Stand

Daniel W. Swear

Researched and Produced by Daniel W. Swear—graduate of the FBI National Academy (Session 285)—this podcast explores law, government, leadership, conflict resolution, and organizational management through the lens of real-world experience. Drawing on a career that spans service as a Police Officer, Deputy Sheriff, Detective, Legal Counsel for a law enforcement agency, and Assistant District Attorney in Louisiana, each episode delivers practical insight, thoughtful analysis, and lessons learned from nearly every facet of the criminal justice system.

  1. 2H AGO

    United States v. Swarner: Limits on Assimilated Supervised Release

    This episode details a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding the sentencing of Keisha Lyn Swarner for crimes involving the sexual exploitation of minors on a federal enclave. Although Swarner was convicted under the Assimilative Crimes Act, which incorporates Texas state law into the federal system, the court focused on whether her supervised release term was calculated correctly. The district court originally imposed thirty years of supervision by applying a specific enhancement intended for enumerated federal sex offenses. However, the appellate court ruled that because Swarner’s specific offense was not explicitly listed in that federal statute, the statutory maximum for her supervised release must be limited to five years. Consequently, the court vacated the original supervision sentence and remanded the case for resentencing within the legal limits of the general federal guidelines.

    40 min

  2. 1D AGO

    Prosecutorial Politics and the Mortality of Young Men

    This episode investigates how local prosecutors influence public health outcomes, specifically focusing on community mortality rates between 2010 and 2019. By analyzing closely contested elections, the authors find that electing a Republican prosecutor leads to a 6.6% reduction in deaths among men aged 20–29. This decline is primarily driven by a significant decrease in firearm-related homicides, suicides, and accidents. While increased prison incapacitation explains some of the effect for Black men, the broader driver across racial groups is an increase in criminal convictions. These convictions trigger federal and state legal restrictions on gun ownership, effectively reducing firearm access for individuals at a higher risk of violence. Ultimately, the study suggests that prosecutorial discretion and the enforcement of conviction-based firearm prohibitions serve as critical, yet underappreciated, levers for improving public safety and health.

    27 min

  3. 2D AGO

    Bowe v. United States: Jurisdiction over Federal Successive Habeas Motions

    In the 2026 decision Bowe v. United States, the Supreme Court clarified the procedural hurdles federal prisoners face when seeking postconviction relief. The Court ruled that federal inmates are not barred from seeking certiorari review by the Supreme Court after an appellate panel denies them permission to file a successive motion. This distinguishes them from state prisoners, for whom such denials are legally final and unreviewable by the high court. Furthermore, the Court held that a specific statutory "old-claim bar," which requires the dismissal of repetitive claims previously raised, applies only to state prisoners and not to federal ones. Writing for the majority, Justice Sotomayor emphasized that while the law cross-references certain procedures, it does not strip the Court of its jurisdiction over federal cases. The ruling effectively resolves a circuit split, ensuring that federal prisoners can continue to litigate claims based on new legal developments even if they were previously presented. However, the dissent argued that the majority ignored the plain text of the law, which aimed to limit repetitive litigation and promote finality for all inmates.

    30 min

  4. 3D AGO

    Case v. Montana: Standard for Emergency Aid Entries

    In Case v. Montana, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously affirmed that police may enter a home without a warrant to provide emergency aid if they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe someone is in danger. The case arose after officers entered the residence of William Case following a report that he was suicidal, leading to a confrontation where Case was shot and subsequently charged with assault. The Court rejected Case’s argument that officers must meet a higher probable cause standard, noting that such a requirement is specific to criminal investigations rather than emergency assistance. Writing for the Court, Justice Kagan clarified that the Fourth Amendment does not require a "probable-cause spin" on existing emergency aid doctrines. While the Court upheld the entry, Justice Sotomayor authored a concurrence emphasizing that police should prioritize de-escalation during mental health crises to avoid unnecessary violence. Justice Gorsuch also concurred, arguing that this legal exception is firmly rooted in common-law principles regarding the protection of human life.

    28 min

  5. 4D AGO

    Barrett v. United States: Limits on Duplicate Firearms Convictions

    In the legal opinion Barrett v. United States, the Supreme Court addresses whether a defendant can be convicted twice for a single act that violates two overlapping firearm provisions. The case centers on 18 U.S.C. §924(c), which criminalizes using a gun during a violent crime, and §924(j), which adds penalties if that same act causes a death. Applying the Blockburger test, the Court determined that these provisions constitute the same offense because one is a lesser included version of the other. The Court concluded that Congress did not clearly authorize multiple convictions for this conduct, effectively reversing a lower court decision that allowed for separate punishments. Justice Jackson’s opinion emphasizes that without explicit statutory language to the contrary, the law presumes a single offense should yield only one conviction. While the Court focused on statutory construction, a concurring opinion by Justice Gorsuch suggests the Double Jeopardy Clause should more broadly prohibit such repetitive convictions regardless of legislative intent.

    41 min

  6. 5D AGO

    Supreme Court Opinion: Klein v. Martin

    In the case of Klein v. Martin, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a per curiam opinion reversing a lower court's decision to grant a new trial to Charles Brandon Martin. Martin was originally convicted as an accessory to attempted murder, but he later argued that the state had suppressed a forensic computer report that could have impeached a key witness. While the Fourth Circuit believed this nondisclosure violated due process, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower court failed to show the required deference to state court findings under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The Justices concluded that because of the overwhelming circumstantial and DNA evidence—including a modified Gatorade bottle used as a silencer—the missing report was not material enough to have likely changed the trial's outcome. Ultimately, the Court emphasized that federal judges cannot overturn state rulings simply because they disagree with the opinion-writing style or nuances of the original decision.

    43 min

  7. 6D AGO

    Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump: Limits of Executive Tariff Power

    In the legal case Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Supreme Court examined whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) grants the President authority to impose tariffs during national emergencies. The majority opinion held that the power to regulate importation does not implicitly include the power to tax, requiring instead a clear statement of congressional authorization for such a major economic action. Justice Gorsuch concurred, arguing that this "major questions doctrine" is a traditional rule of statutory interpretation rooted in separation of powers and the nondelegation doctrine. Conversely, Justice Thomas dissented, suggesting that because importing is a privilege rather than a core right, Congress may delegate such trade powers more freely. Justice Kavanaugh also dissented, contending that historical practice and the needs of foreign affairs justify a broader reading of executive discretion. Ultimately, the Court restricted the executive branch from unilaterally levying duties without explicit legislative permission.

    26 min

  8. FEB 25

    Ellingburg v. United States: Restitution as Criminal Punishment

    In Ellingburg v. United States, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) constitutes criminal punishment rather than a civil remedy. Writing for the Court, Justice Kavanaugh determined that because the MVRA labels restitution as a penalty, imposes it at sentencing, and mandates its use following a criminal conviction, it is subject to the Ex Post Facto Clause. This decision reverses an appellate ruling, confirming that the government cannot retroactively apply the Act's heightened requirements to crimes committed before its passage. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, concurred to argue for a broader historical interpretation of what qualifies as punishment. He suggested that the Court should focus on whether a law redresses a public wrong through sovereign enforcement rather than relying on modern multifactor tests. Ultimately, the sources clarify that statutory labels cannot exempt punitive financial obligations from constitutional protections against retroactive legislation.

    38 min
See All (91)

About

Researched and Produced by Daniel W. Swear—graduate of the FBI National Academy (Session 285)—this podcast explores law, government, leadership, conflict resolution, and organizational management through the lens of real-world experience. Drawing on a career that spans service as a Police Officer, Deputy Sheriff, Detective, Legal Counsel for a law enforcement agency, and Assistant District Attorney in Louisiana, each episode delivers practical insight, thoughtful analysis, and lessons learned from nearly every facet of the criminal justice system.

Information

  • Creator
    Daniel W. Swear
  • Years Active
    2024 - 2026
  • Episodes
    91
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Daniel W. Swear
  • Show Website
    Swear on the Stand