Next Witness...Please – Details, episodes & analysis

One often hears the term “sentencing guidelines” when following a federal criminal case. But what are they and how do they work?
The guidelines are for federal judges to use in sentencing defendants convicted of federal crimes so there is some consistency from court to court across the country, says John R. Mitchell, award-winning attorney in the Taft Law Firm’s Compliance, Investigations, White-Collar Defense and Commercial litigation practices.
The guidelines are established by the U.S. Sentencing Commission consisting of lawyers, judges, and legal scholars. The guidelines also are reviewed periodically by the commission to see if any of the guidelines need to be changed.
The guidelines are intended to provide fairness and consistency, to reduce disparities by preventing arbitrary or biased sentencing, to provide transparency for the public, and to give judges some structure in fashioning the right sentence.
The guidelines originally were mandatory but since 1987 they have become advisory to judges. This flexibility allows judges some discretion in sentencing convicted individuals.
Attorney Mitchell explains, in depth, on this edition of Next Witness…Please the key components of the guidelines. A judge must first consider the seriousness of the offense considering the nature of the crime, whether a weapon was used, and the harm to the victim.
Secondly, a judge must consider the defendant’s criminal history – whether the defendant has a past criminal record.
Finally, a judge must look at a Sentencing Table or Sentencing Grid. This table takes into consideration the offense level and the criminal history of the defendant to arrive at a recommended sentence of prison, fines, or probation.
The use of sentencing guidelines by the prosecution and the defense, often creates incentives for a negotiated guilty plea in a matter – with sentencing recommendations to the judge. That often avoids a trial Mitchell says.
Some states have sentencing guidelines for state crimes but not all.

Judges, both federal and state, are increasingly under attack and are becoming targets of abuse and even violence from citizens and politicians alike.
Sometimes, state legislatures target judges for punishment for First Amendment speech. One such case is happening in Ohio.
On Oct. 21, two members of the Ohio House filed a joint resolution demanding that a Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Municipal Court judge resign immediately or be brought before the General Assembly for impeachment proceedings.
Judge Ted N. Berry is being targeted for his social media comments after the death of conservative leader Charlie Kirk. Judge Berry is the son of the first African American Mayor of Cincinnati.
Adam Mathews (R-Lebanon) and DJ Swearingen (R-Huron) claim that Judge Berry made inappropriate comments. They site three.: First, “So, a white guy killed him! Color it KARMA.” Second, “Rest in Hatred & Division!” and finally “How’s he feel about gun violence and gun control in Hell, now?”
Matthews and Swearingen claim that these statements show a clear “personal bias or prejudice” and therefore, Judge Berry should be removed from the bench.
This legislative action bypasses the usual disciplinary processes conducted and managed by the Ohio Supreme Court and makes this whole free speech issue political.
Sponsor testimony was given to the resolution in the House General Government Committee on Nov. 4, but no further action has been taken.
Some observers see this resolution as a political stunt to silence judges since Judge Berry’s term of office ends on Jan. 4, 2026.
This edition of Next Witness…Please examines this legislative action and other attempts to curtail the free speech rights of judges and to target them if they do not follow the conservative path.

After two trials and months of gripping testimony, a Massachusetts jury has acquitted Karen Read of second-degree murder and manslaughter in the death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe.
In a case that drew national attention—fueled in part by a Netflix documentary—Read was found guilty only of driving under the influence. Her sentence: one year of probation.
Prosecutors argued that after a night of heavy drinking, Read struck O’Keefe with the rear of her SUV outside a friend’s home, then left him injured in a blizzard, where he died from exposure.
But Read’s defense told a very different story—one of police missteps, flawed forensics, and a possible coverup. They raised the specter O’Keefe was harmed inside the house and that fellow officers framed Read to protect one of their own.
Jurors told Boston media the prosecution simply failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
This was Read’s second trial. The first ended in a hung jury last summer.
On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson break down the legal complexities behind the verdict.
They explore why prosecutors retry cases after hung juries, who gains the advantage in a second trial, and how each side handled its courtroom strategy.
The judges also examine how the not-guilty verdicts may impact a pending civil wrongful death suit filed by O’Keefe’s family—and they explain the crucial differences between criminal and civil standards of proof.
Finally, Byers and Hodson consider whether Read might turn the tables by filing her own civil claims against police for a botched investigation—or even against prosecutors for malicious prosecution.

For decades, federal health regulation has been a cornerstone of America’s public well-being.
Agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have long been trusted to uphold safety standards, push the boundaries of science, conduct vital research, and operate with transparency.
But that trust is now under strain.
On this week’s episode of Next Witness…Please, guest Dr. Stephen A. Goldman issues a clear warning: a major shakeup at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) could put public health at serious risk.
Seventeen members of ACIP were abruptly removed by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., replaced with individuals reportedly aligned with his controversial views on vaccines.
Dr. Goldman, a psychiatrist, author, historian and veteran of the FDA, explores how these sweeping replacements could upend national vaccination policy, particularly amid resurgent diseases and falling immunization rates.
He also discusses a growing internal backlash within the scientific community. A group of NIH employees recently published The Bethesda Declaration: A Call for NIH and HHS Leadership to Deliver on Promises of Academic Freedom and Scientific Excellence, criticizing what they see as politicization and erosion of scientific integrity at the federal level.
The American Medical Association echoed those concerns in a forceful public statement, calling the ACIP overhaul “a blow to public trust.” It warned:
“With an ongoing measles outbreak and routine child vaccination rates declining, this move will further fuel the spread of vaccine-preventable illnesses.”
Dr. Goldman’s concerns don’t end there. He also critiques a recent announcement from the FDA, which, facing a 2,000-person staffing shortfall, plans to lean heavily on artificial intelligence to accelerate approvals of drugs and medical devices. While framed as an efficiency boost, he argues this strategy could compromise critical safety reviews and open the door to hasty, under-scrutinized decisions.

Music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs is on trial in federal court in New York, facing two sex trafficking charges, two counts of transporting individuals across state lines for sex work, and one count of racketeering conspiracy.
Testimony began May 12, with witnesses detailing wild, days-long sex parties dubbed “Freak Offs.” These allegedly took place in multiple states and involved Combs’ girlfriends, escorts, and others.
Sex trafficking charges hinge on whether force, fraud, or coercion was used to compel someone into commercial sex acts. At the heart of this trial: did Combs cross that legal line?
On the latest episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson break down exactly what prosecutors must prove — and how “force” and “coercion” play out in court.
They explain these legal terms with real-world clarity and offer vivid examples to make the law understandable.
The judges also dig into the racketeering charge under RICO — a complex law requiring proof of crimes like kidnapping, bribery, fraud, or extortion as part of a criminal enterprise.
They also analyze a recent defense motion for mistrial, claiming the prosecution knowingly allowed perjured testimony. Byers and Hodson explain how they'd rule — and why.
And in a tense courtroom moment, the judge warned Combs to stop making facial reactions during testimony — or risk being barred from his own trial.

Over the last five years, we have witnessed an uptick in attorneys being disciplined for lying to courts in addition to filing frivolous lawsuits. Some have even faced criminal charges
Now, lying to the court seems to be the new normal for some U.S. Justice Department attorneys. Is this something that is expected by President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi or something that should be disciplined by the courts and bar associations?
Over the election hubbub of 2020, several noted attorneys received strict discipline.
John Eastman was disbarred in California for making false statements about the election. Rudy Guiliani was disbarred in New York and Washington D.C.
Other attorneys received disciplinary actions including Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, and Jeffrey Clark and several lawyers were indicted in Georgia for their alleged attempts to overthrow the election.
Fast-forward to 2025. In the past Justice Department attorneys had a trust factor with judges. Now, that is being squandered and erased.
According to an article in Politico, in March, four different judges challenged the veracity of government lawyers. Attorneys were chastised by judges for not speaking the truth.
In April, the situation between judges and attorneys got worse. In describing government attorney statements, judges used words like “pretextual,” “muddying the waters” and “unsubstantiated”, according to Politico.
Judges have called government attorneys unreliable and dishonest.
Besides eroding the stature of the Justice Department, will these actions bring about contempt citations against the attorneys and possibly further disciplinary actions?
Attorney honesty in court and possible disciplinary sanctions for lying are the topics of this new episode of Next Witness…Please. Retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson discuss current cases and explain the importance of attorney discipline for all to understand.

Defending white-collar crime defendants is more than just going to trial and winning. It is far more complex and complicated.
Defending is really a combination of three skills that law firms can offer to keep corporations and corporate executives safe, according to John R. Mitchell, a partner in the Taft law firm and one of the nation’s top white-collar criminal defense attorneys.
First, law firms, that specialize in defending white-collar crime, offer their clients “compliance” advice. They make sure that their clients’ policies and procedures are in accordance with voluminous state and federal laws to limit possible infractions.
Secondly, white collar crime lawyers often are called upon by corporations or corporate executives to do internal investigations if wrongdoing is suspected from other employees. This often proceeds any law enforcement investigation.
Thirdly, the lawyers defend clients who are charged in either state or federal courts with violating statutes. This can be a long and arduous process. Some of these cases take months or even years from the beginning of an investigation until a grand jury would bring an indictment and then on to trial.
White-collar defense counsel often negotiates cooperation agreements with federal agents from the inception of the investigation to gather needed evidence but also, to limit the scope of overly broad inquiries, according to Mitchell.
About 90 percent of white-collar crime cases are resolved prior to trial, but that last 10 percent mandate unique trial skills and tactics from defense counsel.
Mitchell is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers (top one percent from any state) and has been recognized as Lawyer of the Year for Criminal Defense: White-Collar by Best Lawyers in America.
He visits with retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson on this edition of Next Witness…Please and shares the ins and outs of defending white-collar crime charges from their inception up through unique aspects of trial work.
Join us on this fascinating journey.

As the Sean “Diddy” Combs trial opens this week in New York and other trials like the murder trial of Karen Read continue outside Boston, it is vital to understand the importance of opening statements and closing arguments in a trial.
Opening statements are stage-setters for what evidence the jury will receive during the trial. Some experts call them roadmaps to follow while evidence is being presented.
Some say they are like movie trailers, letting the jury know what to expect as the trial unfolds.
Opening statements are also a time for the prosecution and defense attorneys to try to build rapport with the jurors – building a trust factor for later trial stages.
Closing arguments are the final time that both the prosecution and the defense get to speak to the jury and summarize their cases.
The Prosecution reviews the evidence that was presented and tries to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty of each element of each crime.
The defense does just the opposite by pointing our flaws in the prosecution’s case and trying to convince the jury that there is “reasonable doubt” whether the defendant is guilty.
Both the prosecution and defense face the same challenge – how to make their statements and arguments engaging and attention grabbing for a jury. The average adult American attention span varies between 8 and 40 seconds, according to recent studies.
On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson give insights into the world of opening statements and closing arguments. They give you’re a prosecutor’s perspective, a defense
attorney’s view, and explain problems that may confront a judge in a contentious trial.
They explain the process using concrete, understandable examples spiced with a bit of humor.

The federal government has started arresting state trial judges who are not cooperating in the federal government’s roundup of alleged undocumented immigrants in state courthouses.
Is this a message from federal agents that no one is above the law or are these actions an assault on the judiciary? That is the question currently being debated by legal scholars.
Recently, Wisconsin state trial judge, Hannah Dugan, was arrested by the FBI for obstruction or impeding federal immigration officers and concealing an individual to prohibit his arrest.
The incident arose out of a situation where undocumented immigrant Eduardo Flores Ruiz was appearing before Judge Dugan for assault charges when six federal agents showed up to arrest him.
It is alleged that Judge Dugan deterred the federal agents and then provided Ruiz and his attorney a private way to leave her courtroom to avoid the federal agents.
Ruiz was apprehended shortly thereafter.
The next day, Judge Dugan was confronted in the court’s parking lot and arrested by federal agents.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi says the arrest sends a strong message to other judges who do not help the Trump Administration.
FBI Director, Kash Patel released, on the social platform X, a picture of Judge Dugan in handcuffs saying the “No one is above the law.”
The facts of the case, however, are not as clear-cut as the federal government alleges and Judge Dugan may have several valid defenses to her actions.
Meanwhile, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended Judge Dugan from her judicial position, while her case is pending.
Hear more on this edition of Next Witness…Please with retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson.

Court orders are piling up against President Donald Trump and his Executive Orders and the administration seems to be setting a course of not following them. What happens next?
Judges don’t like people not following their orders and there are many options available to judges if they feel a party is flaunting non-compliance.
If a judge feels her/his order is legitimately confusing or vague, the judge may alter the original order to clarify it for the parties or the judge may also impose a stricter order than the first.
However, if the original order is clear, then the judge has the option of finding the non-complying parties in either civil or criminal contempt. If a party is found in civil contempt after a hearing, the party may be fined and put in jail until compliance with the order.
This would not apply to Trump given his immune status issued by the United States Supreme Court, but it may apply to the Attorney General or other agency heads embroiled in the non-compliance.
Civil contempt is handled through the court. Criminal contempt is initiated by a prosecutor. In Trump’s cases, the Department of Justice (DOJ) would not bring criminal charges against itself or one of Trump’s cabinet members.
Instead, the judge would need to have a special counsel investigate and perhaps prosecute the case. This is unlikely.
If someone is found in federal criminal contempt, that person is eligible for a presidential pardon. However, that is not the case with civil contempt.
However, the enforcement relies on the U. S. Marshal’s office which is under the control of the DOJ.
The judge also has the option of sanctioning the attorneys for the non-complying party and bringing disciplinary action against them putting their law licenses in peril.
Finally, a non-complying party may be subject to a criminal charge of obstruction of justice.
This episode of “Next Witness…Please” dives deeply into a judge’s options if someone does not comply with a court order.