In our latest podcast episode, we get into the legal ethics and the often-overlooked responsibilities of prosecutors in disclosing exculpatory evidence. This evidence can be pivotal in ensuring a fair trial and just outcomes.

The discussion kicks off with an overview of the landmark case Brady v Maryland, which established the prosecutor's duty to disclose any evidence that might exonerate the defendant. This duty, however, is not always straightforward.

Prosecutors must not only disclose the evidence they have but also actively seek out any exculpatory information that might be in the possession of the police or other government entities. This affirmative duty is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the legal process.

We then move on to real-life examples. The case highlights the dire consequences when prosecutors fail to disclose exculpatory evidence. The discussion reveals that the prosecutor's duty extends beyond their own files and includes any information the State might possess. This often leads to tension and challenges in the courtroom, especially when such evidence is discovered late in the trial process.

One of the most intriguing parts of the episode is the exploration of Conviction Integrity Units (CIUs). These units, which exist in only a handful of counties, are designed to review cases and ensure that justice is served. These units are like internal affairs departments within the prosecutor's office, tasked with scrutinizing past convictions for potential errors or misconduct.

The episode discusses how CIUs can uncover crucial evidence that was previously overlooked or withheld, potentially leading to exonerations and the correction of wrongful convictions.

Prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and police officers are all prone to mistakes. The adversarial nature of the legal system is designed to bring these mistakes to light, but it requires diligence and integrity from all parties involved. The episode concludes with a call for more widespread adoption of CIUs and other measures to ensure that justice is not only pursued but achieved.

Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.

Recorded at Channel 511.

Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.

Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.

He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.

Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.

For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense.

Copyright 2024 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

We go with a fascinating question from listener Kathy about the concept of "fighting words" and their legal implications.

This episode gets into into the complexities of free speech, examining how certain words can be deemed so offensive that they might justify legal action, even in a country that cherishes the First Amendment.

Steve begins by exploring the historical context of "fighting words," referencing the landmark Supreme Court case Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire from the 1940s. This case was one of the first to address whether certain offensive words could be criminalized.

The Supreme Court upheld the New Hampshire statute, marking a significant moment in the legal history of free speech. However, Steve notes that this decision has been gradually eroded over the years, particularly during the Vietnam era, when cases involving anti-government protests and insults directed at police officers were often ruled as protected speech under the First Amendment.

One of the key takeaways from this episode is the nuanced nature of the "fighting words" doctrine. While the Supreme Court has allowed for some limitations on free speech, these instances are rare and often contentious.

Steve explains that most speech, no matter how offensive, is still protected, emphasizing the importance of the First Amendment in safeguarding our freedom of expression.

The episode also touches on the rights of juveniles in public schools, referencing another significant case, Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District. This case involved a student who wore a black armband to protest the Vietnam War, leading to a landmark ruling that students do not lose their constitutional rights when they enter a public school.

Steve highlights this case to illustrate that free speech protections extend to all individuals, regardless of age, and that schools cannot arbitrarily limit these rights.

Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!

Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.

Recorded at Channel 511.

Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.

Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.

He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.

Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.

For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense.

Copyright 2024 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

In this episode of Lawyer Talk, Steve Palmer delves into the intricacies of legal pleas using the recent Hunter Biden case as a backdrop. Discover the differences between Alford and no contest pleas, their implications, and why defendants might choose them. Steve breaks down complex legal jargon into simple terms, making it accessible for everyone.

(00:00) Lawyer talk podcast breaks down dozens of legal topics

(00:36) Hunter Biden tried to plead no contest to tax fraud charges

(05:19) Bill Clinton: Alfred plea was used in civil rights cases back in 1963

(08:53) Steve Palmer: Judges have ultimate authority to accept or reject guilty pleas

Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.

Recorded at Channel 511.

Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.

Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.

He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.

Steve has unique experience handling numerous high publicity cases that have garnered national attention.

For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense.

Copyright 2024 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law