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.

The second murder trial of defendant Karen Read is underway just outside Boston and this case has taken on national prominence.
Read, 45, is accused, after a night of drinking with friends, of hitting her boyfriend, Boston Police officer John O’Keefe with her SUV on Jan. 29, 2022, and leaving him to die in a snow blizzard on the front lawn of another police officer. The two were allegedly arguing.
She is charged with second degree murder, leaving the scene of an accident and manslaughter while operating under the influence.
Her defense says she is being framed by police officers to cover a murder within the ranks.
Her first trial with 70 witnesses ended in a hung jury and a mistrial on July 1, 2024, after three days of jury deliberation.
At the first trial large groups of vocal protestors stayed outside the courthouse throughout the trial. They were predominately in favor of Read and were stirred up by a blogger called “Turtleboy.”
Her second trial began just recently and is in the process of jury selection. In the interim, the case has been the subject of a highly viewed five-part documentary on HBO/Max called “A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read.”
The second trial has some interesting changes. There is a new special prosecutor brought in to streamline the state’s case and make it clearer for the jury.
Meanwhile, the defense has added a new attorney, Victoria George. Surprisingly, she was an alternate juror at the first trial but never got to deliberate. This is unprecedented.
And while the trial is going on, an appeal has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court claiming double jeopardy on two of the charges. The defense has learned that the first jury had reached a unanimous verdict of “not guilty” on the murder charge and the leaving the scene accusation but when the jury reported they were deadlocked, the trial judge assumed they couldn’t decide all three cases.
Other twists include: “Turtleboy” is scheduled to be called as a witness even though he has now been charged with “intimidating witnesses” at the first trial. And Michael Proctor, the lead investigator on the case for the Massachusetts State Police, has been fired for sending degrading and somewhat sexual text messages to colleagues about Read during the investigation.
On this episode of Next Witness…Please, our retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson use the Read cases to decipher trial strategies for you and translate what’s happening with this second trial.

With mountains of litigation piling up against President Donald Trump’s many Executive Orders, it is important for the average citizen to understand the differences between civil law and criminal law.
A civil case is when one entity brings a legal action against another entity to correct some alleged wrongdoing.
The corrective action may be an injunction to stop something from happening or to make something happen or it may be a request for money damages to compensate the plaintiff for damages suffered.
The legal documents to begin a civil lawsuit are much different than a criminal case and so are the legal procedures followed to advance a case towards trial.
Civil cases often are highly complex with multiple parties suing each other in the same case.
Discovery of information, while a case is pending, also, is far more complicated in a civil case than a criminal matter.
On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judge co-hosts, Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson break down the typical discovery methods.
They talk about the production of documents and the importance that documents play in most civil matters.
They also explain the differences between written interrogatories and depositions, the taking of oral testimony, under oath, of a potential witness prior to trial.
If a civil matter reaches the trial stage, there are differences in the trial from a criminal case. Our co-hosts translate those differences into everyday terms for all to understand.
By the end of this podcast episode, you will have a greater understanding of civil litigation and civil procedures.

As President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to target his political foes with criminal indictments, the topic of vindictive prosecutions is making headlines.
Currently the judicial landscape is strewn with cases against former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Lettia James, former National Security Advisor John Bolton and others less well known.
Special grand juries are being formed to investigate former President Barrack Obama’s officials and other so-called “enemies” of President Trump.
Others on the “hit list” are former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Adam Schiff of California, former FBI Director Christopher Wray, Congressman Eric Swalwell and more. The list seems endless.
Normally successfully claiming “vindictive prosecution” is difficult because defendants must prove genuine animus against them by the prosecution.
However, in the case involving Comey, he is attacking the issue of vindictive prosecution at four levels. First, he is saying that his prosecutor Lindsey Halligan was not properly appointed and is holding her office illegally.
Secondly, he claims that there were grievous errors committed by current FBI agents in testifying before the grand jury and divulging privileged information.
Third, Comey claims that Trump literally ordered his prosecution through various social media posts that were made public by Trump. Therefore, Comey was targeted.
And finally, it has been discovered that newly appointed prosecutor Halligan never showed the final indictment to the entire grand jury which is required. She just had the foreperson sign the indictment in a rush to get charges filed before the statute of limitations ran out against Comey.
On this episode of the podcast Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson make the whole concept of vindictive prosecutions understandable.
They delve into what the various federal judges must consider in making their decisions and specifically look in-depth at the allegations of vindictiveness in the Comey case.

The Trump Administration is setting out on a constitutional collision course by impounding funds that Congress has already appropriated.
The question will be: Does the president have the power to halt, delay or not spend money that Congress has appropriated for specific projects or agencies?
Article 1 Sec. 9 Clause 7 gives Congress the power of the purse. Congress has the power to appropriate money. Presidents are to carry out the will of Congress regarding spending.
For clarification, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which provides the president with a mechanics to withhold funding but not cancel it.
However, before delaying or withholding funds, the president must send a “Special Message” to Congress stating the reasons for the impoundment along with an estimate of the fiscal, economic, and budgetary effects.
The bill also says that the president may not withhold Social Security or Medicare funding.
The U.S. Supreme Court also unanimously found in the 1975 Train v. City of New York case that presidents cannot unilaterally withhold or block federal funding.
Yet, with all of this, President Donald Trump, Elon Musk and DOGE are cutting federal funding from a myriad of agencies and projects without Congressional approval or notification.
This is setting up battles in several federal courts.
Tune in to this episode of Next Witness…Please to hear further insights into the Impoundment Control Act and the cases interpreting Trump’s actions so far.

It’s time for Criminal Law 101, a primer on how criminal law works within our American judicial system.
This episode of Next Witness…Please translates some of the intricacies of the criminal law process in terms that the average listener can understand.
We must start with the premise that there is a major difference between what may be considered immoral and what is criminal.
An act is not criminal unless a legislative body (Congress, state legislature, or city council) decides it is. Legislative bodies not only determine criminality, but they also decide the severity of a crime.
Retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson break down the differences between minor criminal offenses -- misdemeanors and major crimes -- felonies.
They also outline how misdemeanor cases are initiated and the system of criminal complaints.
Our hosts also delve deeply into how felony cases originate and how grand juries are conducted and function.
They discuss the differences between a grand jury empaneled to determine probable cause and a grand jury designed to investigate potential crimes.
The differences between arraignments and initial appearance in court are also described and our judges also explain the concept of setting bond on a criminal case. What considerations may a judge consider in determining what type of bond to set for a prisoner’s release prior to trial?
Finally, our hosts give insight into the various pleas available to a criminal defendant and why they almost always plead not guilty in felony cases.

Just a month into Donald Trump’s second term as president, some of his supporters are already pushing a constitutional amendment to allow him a third term in office.
Even Trump, himself, is talking about the possibility of a third term being mandated by his MAGA supporters.
The day after Trump’s inauguration, Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow Trump to run and be elected for a third term.
Currently, the 22nd Amendment which was ratified in 1951 prohibits a person from being elected more than twice as President.
The 22nd Amendment was passed after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) failed to complete his fourth term in office. He was elected four times from 1932-1944.
This episode of Next Witness…Please, examines how constitutional amendments are ratified and the dangers to our democracy that may appear on the horizon.
Retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson discuss the route for an amendment that starts with Congress, and they explain a second option in which the states call for a national Constitutional Convention.
They outline the processes to be followed to enact an amendment and how amending the federal constitution differs from amending most state constitutions.
Retired judges Byers and Hodson also discuss ways that Trump could grab a third presidential term without passing a constitutional amendment.
He could spawn a movement to repeal the 22nd Amendment; he could run for vice president and then have the titular president resign, or he could just
ignore the constitution altogether by refusing to leave office despite current constitutional language.

As President Donald Trump and his cohort Elon Musk target huge cuts in the federal bureaucracy, the public trusts bureaucrats more than politicians.

In an interesting 2024 survey by the Partnership for Public Service, 63 percent of Americans said they did not trust the federal government while only 31 percent said the federal government had a positive impact on the United States.

However, 91 percent believe competent civil servants are important to a strong democracy and 95 percent believe civil servants should be hired based upon merit rather than politics.

On this edition of Next Witness…Please, Dr. Stephen A. Goldman, psychiatrist, author, and historian, delves into the reasons for this dichotomy.

He discusses the importance of federal regulation and the non-partisan civil service in the wake of Trump’s executive orders targeting thousands of federal workers.

He explains the regulatory process in simple, understandable terms.

Dr. Goldman spent several years at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a medical product safety and risk management expert and regulator and speaks from first-hand knowledge about the importance of regulations.

He also explains the importance of the oath that federal workers take pledging their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and not to any one political leader. This independence is vital for the neutral functioning of government and has served our country well, he says.

Dr. Goldman warns that getting rid of a non-political civil service has been the target of authoritarians and fascists throughout history. He fears that, if left unprotected, ridding the government of so many trained professionals will do irreparable harm to the United States and the damage may be irreversible.

Amid President Donald Trump’s early slew of executive orders, at least four seek to eliminate Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives started as long ago as the presidency of Lyndon Johnson.

This edition of Next Witness…Please examines the concept of executive orders, charts some voluntary compliance and delves into current and upcoming litigations challenging the constitutionality of the orders.

The executive orders seek to eliminate DEI initiatives in government, the military, the private sector and higher education. There is a fourth one directed at K-12 education that was promulgated but that will be a subject of a separate Next Witness…Please episode.

Our retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson explain that an executive order can take steps that are withing the scope of constitutional authority of the Executive Branch of Government. An executive order cannot override existing federal laws or statutes passed by Congress.

On Jan. 20, Trump issued an order to eliminate all DEI hiring within the federal government under the title of “Restoring the Federal Hiring Process and Restoring Merit to Government Service.”

The next day he issued an order “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit Based Opportunity” calling DEI programs “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race and sex-based preferences.”

On Jan. 22, he signed an order, “Restoring America’s Fighting Force”, abolishing all DEI offices and initiatives in the military.

These orders have sparked voluntary compliance within the federal government and the private sector with many corporations and academic institutions announcing elimination of DEI initiatives.

On February 3, one lawsuit was filed in federal court in Maryland asking for a preliminary and permanent injunction against the all-encompassing order saying it is unconstitutional on multiple levels.

As the first weeks of President Donald J. Trump’s presidency devolve into chaos within the federal government, the Next Witness…Please podcast takes a retrospective look at Trump’s felony sentencing in New York and why it is still important.

Retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson talk about the reasoning used by Judge Juan Merchan for his sentence, the sentencing proceeding itself and the Supreme Court decision leading up to the sentencing.

Our hosts define, in understandable terms, what an “unconditional discharge” is and explain the importance of a “final appealable order” in the 34 felony convictions.

A sentencing of Trump had to take place before Trump’s legal team could appeal the case to the next level court of appeals in New York.

Our retired judges also examine the 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that allowed the sentencing to proceed just days before Trump’s inauguration.

The Court ruling against Trump was a surprise to many observers who expected the super conservative majority to side with President Trump.

Our hosts also discuss how President Trump cannot pardon himself for state committed felonies and why that matters.

Finally, they delve into how Trump, even at a state court level, got special treatment that other criminal defendants would never receive.

As TikTok, the video app, skyrockets in popularity, a legal battle rages to see if a Congressional ban to shut it down takes effect on Jan.19.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard 2.5 hours of oral arguments in a lawsuit filed by ByteDance, the parent company who owns TikTok, along with some creators, against legislation passed last April by Congress.

The Congressional action said that TikTok either had to cease operations in the United States by Sunday, Jan. 19 or sell ByteDance to an American owner.

The plaintiffs are trying to have the Court find the Congressional ban unconstitutional based upon the First Amendment.

Congress passed the ban based upon security concerns saying that ByteDance was controlled by the Chinese government and that TikTok has been gathering data on Americans and that process breaches national security.

The government has argued that this is not a First Amendment issue but an issue of national security that Congress has the right to protect.

As of Jan. 16, the Supreme Court has not yet issued its ruling. Meanwhile, President elect Donald Trump is trying to devise ways to halt the ban for 60 to 90 days to see if he can broker a deal between China and Congress.

On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Thomas Hodson and Gayle Williams-Byers explain the legal questions raised in the litigation and look at what other options might be available to save TikTok.

They also look ahead at what will happen is TikTok is shut down.

As we approach the inauguration of President Donald Trump, his only remaining active criminal cases are approaching conclusion.

Trump is scheduled to be sentenced on January 10 in a New York courtroom by Judge Juan Merchan for the 34 felonies for which a jury found Trump guilty.

Judge Merchan has indicated there would be no jail time and no official probation and that the cases would be “unconditionally discharged” – meaning no punishment.

However, leading up to the scheduled sentencing, there have been numerous motions filed by Trump’s defense team to dismiss the cases altogether

Recently, Judge Merchan has found that the U.S. Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision does not apply to these cases and even if it did, the other evidence presented by the prosecution was overwhelmingly in favor of guilt.

Merchan also stated that the defense waived their right to object to the verdicts based upon immunity.

Other motions are pending and are expected to be denied.

On this episode of Next Witness…Please, our hosts breakdown Judge Merchan’s decisions and explain them in understandable terms. They discuss the concept of “waiver” and “harmless error.”

Since the recording of this podcast, Trump’s defense team has asked the trial court to dismiss the case saying that presidential immunity applies to a president-elect.

Judge Merchan has denied that motion as has the appellate court in New York. Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene on his behalf and stay the sentencing.

A ruling is expected before Jan. 10.

Issues affecting transgendered people are hot legal topics in our highest courts and in our state legislatures across the country.

The U. S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments on a Tennessee law that bans gender affirming care for minors. Half of our states have similar bans.

The law prevents minors who claim their genders don’t align with their sex at birth from having access to puberty blockers and other medications needed to transition to the opposite sex.

Court observers say that, at oral argument, it was clear that at least five of the six conservatives on the court support the ban. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Bret Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett along with Chief Justice John Roberts were clearly in support.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the last court opinion supporting transgender employment right, was silent during the argument.

The Courts decision is expected to be issued before the end of June 2025.

Meanwhile, states are quite active in limiting transgender rights. Over 530 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced in State legislatures since the start of 2023.

Ohio, for example, just passed a new bathroom bill requiring K-12 public and private schools and all Ohio universities to prohibit non-gendered bathrooms and ban transgender students from using a bathroom that aligns with their sexual identity. Instead, students must use a restroom that coincides with their birth gender.

Ohio also is considering a “Don’t Say Gay” bill under the guise of calling it a Parents’ Bill of Rights. It says parents must be notified of and could pull their children from “sexuality” content in classroom settings.

The bill also contains a provision mandating that school counselors notify parents of a child’s discussion of sexuality. In short, a student can be outed to his/her parents by a school counselor.

The blanket pardon of Hunter Biden by his father President Joseph Biden has sparked widespread controversy and there will be more pardons to come before President Biden leaves office in January.

The broad pardoning of his son Hunter Biden for all “offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014, through December 1, 2024” has been criticized by Republicans, Democrats and the judiciary.

Many argue that the pardon was too sweeping while supporters claim that the broad language was necessary to keep incoming President Donald Trump from bringing additional charges against Hunter Biden.

U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi, the judge in Hunter Biden’s current criminal case, says that the pardon stands “in tension” with the case record and the president’s action “rewrites history.”

Judge Scarsi, however, will dismiss the case because presidential pardons are sanctioned by the U. S. Constitution and have been used by president’s since our country’s founding.

In this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Thomas Hodson and Gayle William-Byers unpack the controversy over the Hunter Biden pardon, compare this to past presidential pardons and look ahead at pardons yet to come.

They also discuss the possibility of President Biden preemptively pardoning former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, former Congresswoman Liz Cheney, Senator-elect from California Adam Schiff, and former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Our judges break down the legal terms: pardons, commutations, parole and preemptive pardons.

Also, they explain the differences between “presidential pardons” and “gubernatorial pardons.”

As Election Day 2025 is upon us, President Donald Trump is still calling for the elimination of mail-in ballots and early voting. He wants to limit voting to same-day, in-person voting only.
However, his opinion is contrary to the official position of the Republican Party. Instead, party officials having been trying to get Republicans to embrace early forms of voting.
As early as August, the President was threatening to issue an Executive Order eliminating early voting claiming it is “rigged.” However, most legal experts say he has no power to do so.
Experts agree that states are not mere agents of the federal government when it comes to elections. Instead, states have the power to control their own election processes.
In 2020 during COVID, nearly 70 percent of people who voted for President voted prior to election day. In 2024, the figure was 60 percent.
This year, California mailed 23 million ballots to its voters and over 4 million ballots –more than 18 percent were received two weeks before the election for the redistricting proposition.
In New York City, during the first week of early voting, more than 164,000 ballots were cast in the mayoral race between Democrat Zohran Mamdani, Andrew Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa.
In some states, mail-in ballots are the primary way of voting. That’s the case in Utah, Oregon and Washington.
Contrary to Trump, some Republican officials are urging GOP voters to promote early voting and to “work it” to up Republican turnout.
Presidential power to impact voting methods in states is the topic of this new episode of Next Witness Please.
Retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson also discuss Trump’s strategies of casting doubt on election results preceding the 2026 mid-term elections.

Rapper Young Thug pleaded guilty in Atlanta, in October, to gang, drug, and gun charges a year after his racketeering trial had begun.

He pleaded guilty to one gang charge, three drug charges, and two gun charges. He also pleaded no contest to another gang charge and racketeering conspiracy.

His story is one of a long a protracted legal proceeding with twists and turns that are material for a novel.

He had three different judges. One judge was removed during the trial. There were secret meetings between the judge and a witness. The prosecution’s investigator was accused of sexually harassing a witness. The defense attorney was found in contempt of court and a witness was arrested and held in jail as a “material witness.”

Also, the prosecution was using Young Thug’s rap lyrics as evidence against him which brought about First Amendment issues and concerns about artistic expression.

Jury selection started in January 2023 and took 10 months to complete. Opening statements began in November 2023 and the trial was in its eleventh month at the time of Young Thug’s plea.

Finally, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Paige Reese Whitaker sentenced Young Thug to 40 years in prison but the first five were commuted because he had already served 567 days in jail.

She then gave him 15 years of probation which includes a condition that he stay away from the Atlanta Metro area. There are numerous other conditions.

If he successfully completes his probation, another 20 years will be commuted from his sentence. If he fails, he goes to prison for 20 years.

Next Witness…Please starts a series of episodes about this case by carefully examining Young Thug’s sentence. Other episodes will focus on other various aspects of his trial.

As Donald Trump approaches his second term as President, he leaves a landscape cluttered with unresolved legal issues, both criminal and civil.

In this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges and co-hosts Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson give you a post-election update on Trump’s pending legal cases.

They delve into the status of the cases and predict what to expect next.

Most importantly, they translate the legal jargon and processes into understandable terms using examples that every person can understand.

They also talk about issues that both federal and state judges face in deciding next steps as Trump moves toward inauguration in January. They give you a judicial perspective.

Special Counsel’s Jack Smith’s options regarding the two federal cases against Trump are explained as our judges discuss different ways a case can be dismissed.

(This podcast was recorded at noon on Monday, November 26. That afternoon, Special Counsel Jack Smith dismissed the federal cases against Trump in just the ways discussed in this episode.)

Our co-hosts then foreshadow issues confronting state judges in criminal cases in Georgia and New York. They especially dissect the options facing Judge Juan Merchan in the cases where Trump has already been found guilty of 34 felonies by a New York jury.

Finally, our judges set the agenda for what might happen in Trump’s civil cases for fraud and for his actions against. E. Jean Carroll. Will the judgments against him stand and will he be forced to pay damages while President?

They also give a glimpse into what might be the fate of some of Trump’s civil actions against media, reporters, and authors. Will they continue, be put on hold, or dismissed?

With all the turmoil and finger pointing going on in the country and with the U.S. Supreme Court in a tizzy, it is sometimes good to look back and honor some positive role models we have had in our lives.

November is National Inspirational Role Model Month so Next Witness…Please cohosts and retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson share with you some people who have been their inspirations, especially in the law.

Judge Byers highlights Emmeline Parkhurst, known as the mother of women suffragettes fighting for women’s right to vote in the late 19th and 20th centuries. She was a British activist.

Henrietta Lacks, also named by Judge Byers. Lacks was a black woman for whom the world owes gratitude. She had her cancer cells collected, and it helped unlock the miracles of “He-La” cells or “immortal cells.” These cells have led to vaccines for HPV, polio, and treatments for AIDS, cancer, Parkinson’s disease and COVID-19. The cell line continues after seven decades.

Judge Byers also cites President Lyndon B. Johnson through his first term in office. He used his pressure and influence as President and former Senator to push through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Right Act of 1965. His initiatives led to prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin.

Both, Judge Byers and Judge Hodson talk of the amazing record of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to serve on the court.

Judge Hodson gives major inspirational credit to Chicago trial lawyer Clarence Darrow. In the early 20th Century, Darrow was a major labor attorney and criminal defense attorney. During his career, he represented the defendants in
the Leopold and Loeb case and a black physician Dr. Ossian Sweet in a murder case. He is most famous for his defense in the “Scopes Monkey Trial” in Tennessee where he defended the teaching of evolution. Also, Darrow worked diligently against the death penalty.

Finally, the parties agree to honor former Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor. She was the first woman to sit on the Supreme Court. She was known for her judicial scholarship but also for her commitment to promoting K-12 “civics education” upon her retirement.

The Menendez brothers, Lyle and Erik, have been in prison for 35 years after being convicted of the 1989 murders of their parents.

However, they are pursuing three different legal strategies to now be released from prison.

Originally, they were sentenced to two consecutive life sentences without parole. Their original trial defense was that the murders were in self-defense after Erik had long been sexually abused by his father. The State of California claimed they killed to obtain the estate of their parents.

Recently, a Netflix docudrama, “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story,” reignited the conversations about their trial and some new evidence has appeared as a result.

On this episode of Next Witness…Please, your co-hosts, retired judges Gayle William-Byers and Thomas Hodson delve into the three legal strategies at play to get the brothers released from custody.

On November 25, there is a habeas corpus petition hearing where new evidence will be presented to bolster Erik’s claim of being a victim of sexual abuse by his father. With that hearing, the judge could reverse the convictions and reopen the proceedings.

A second hearing is scheduled for Dec. 11. At that hearing, Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon seeks resentencing of the Menendez brothers. He wants to reduce their sentences to 50 years to life which would make the Menendez brothers eligible for parole at this point.

However, the brothers would need to go before the parole board that only grants 35 percent of the requests for release.

Finally, the brothers are requesting clemency or pardons from California Governor Gavin Newsom. Our hosts define clemency and pardons in understandable language.

All matters are expected to be resolved by Christmas.

Election 2024 is the most litigated election in history, say experts and we
have just seen the beginning.
In 2020, Donald Trump’s supporters filed 62 lawsuits post-election and lost
61 of them. This year, we already have had 130 lawsuits filed leading up to
the election and promises of hundreds more following Election Day.
Big time election lawyers are involved on both sides. Gineen Bresso is
heading the GOP “election integrity” efforts along with Trump campaign
counsel David Warrington. The Democrat’s team is head by Dana Remus
and one of the nation’s top election lawyers, Marc Elias.
Both teams are wargaming various scenarios and preparing legal
pleadings, in advance, so they can be filed quickly after the election.
In 2024, both sides have amassed war chests to challenge election results.
The Republican National Committee has reportedly raised $90 million to
support its efforts and the Democrats have raised $14.5 million.
Pre-election, the Republicans have targeted overseas voting, mail-in ballots
and purging election roles as targets. Post-election, the targets will likely be the counting of ballots, certification of results by the states and the
selection of electors from each state.
If Trump loses, his team may try to stall the results passed specified
deadlines to get the House of Representatives (controlled by Republicans)
to select him President by what is deemed a “contingent election” under the
12th Amendment to the constitution.
On this edition of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Thomas Hodson
and Gayle Williams-Byers discuss the litigation options and break them
down into understandable terms.

You may find more about election litigation at:
https://www.democracydocket.com/ and https://www.justsecurity.org/

The U.S. Supreme Court reconvened the first Monday in October for the new term after a summer recess. On the court’s docket are several high-profile cases with several more to be added.

Court observers are watching how the court will handle these key matters to determine if the Supreme Court will continue in its MAGA direction or will it right itself and become more centrist.

In this episode of the “Next Witness…Please” podcast, the “Judicial Twins,” retired judges Gayle Williams Byers and Thomas Hodson, delve into some of the key cases coming before the court in its 2024-2025 Term.

With keen analysis, insight and biting commentary, they discuss the core issues of critical cases and give you a preview of how the court may view upcoming arguments.

The most watched cases include matters concerning transgender rights of minors, ghost guns, payment of attorney fees in civil rights cases, a case involving people with disabilities, environmental cases and a case involving the FDA and e-cigarettes.

The Court started its new term with 30 cases on its docket giving it plenty of room to add cases concerning November’s presidential election and cases further defining presidential immunity.

It is expected that the January 6th case of election interference now before Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C. will go back before the Supreme Court for determining whether she properly applies the court’s most recent presidential immunity ruling.

The court normally hears arguments from October through April and all decisions of the court are expected by the end of June 2025.

Hundreds of election related cases are being filed across the country and most of these cases land in the laps of state trial judges.

They must wade through detailed legal arguments concerning voting rights and ballot counting while meeting tight deadlines for rendering their decisions. In many states early voting has already started.

This takes a judicial dexterity and a healthy dose of judicial independence.

On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle William-Byers and Thomas Hodson delve into the cases coming before state courts in Georgia, one of the seven swing states in the upcoming presidential election.

The Georgia cases are representative of many of the cases being filed by litigants across the country.

This episode was recorded on Wednesday, October 16 and already two major decisions were reached by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney this week.

One concerned local board of election certification of election results. Judge McBurney found that the local boards do not have investigative authority, and they must certify the results and turn over any suspicions of election fraud to their local prosecutor or state law enforcement authorities.

He said local boards are not free to play investigator, prosecutor, jury and judge on election fraud. That, he says, is the job of law enforcement.

In the second decision, Judge McBurney issued a preliminary injunction against a new Georgia State Election Board rule requiring county election workers to hand-count the number of ballots cast in each precinct. This rule would have greatly delayed certifying election results.

McBurney called the rule: “too much, too late.” He also noted there were no instructions on how to implement the rule.

Shortly after recording this episode, Fulton County Judge Thomas Cox agreed with Judge McBurney’s analysis and issued an 11-page opinion striking down all the new voting and vote county rules issued by the Trump dominated Georgia State Election Board.

He found them “illegal, unconstitutional, and void.”

Here is a link to Judge Cox’s decision: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25225391-101624-24cv011558-georgia-election-rules-eternal-vigilance-action-final-judgment

Sending the creation and administration of abortion laws and regulations back to the states is causing a patchwork of confusion and is putting the burden on local state courts to determine their constitutionality.
The draconian impact of some of these laws is also causing danger and death to innocent women.
In this episode of “Next Witness…Please,” retired judges Thomas Hodson and Gayle William-Byers focus on three states as examples of abortion chaos at the state level: Georgia, Louisiana and Ohio.
They examine state abortion legislation and state court trial decisions since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Most of the trial court decisions are currently subject to appeal through each state’s court system and may eventually work their way to the U.S. Supreme Court for the ultimate determination of constitutionality. But what appears until then?
During this presidential campaign, former president Donald Trump and his running mate J.D. Vance have said that the abortion issue is resolved because each state now has the right to pass its own laws.
This podcast finds the abortion issue is far from settled.
GEORGIA:
THE GEORGIA TRIAL COURT DECISION DISCUSSED IN THIS PODCAST HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY PUT ON HOLD UNTIL THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT HEARS THE CASE. THIS STATE SUPREME COURT “STAY” CAME AFTER THE RECORDING OF THIS EPISODE. IT PERMITTED THE GEORGIA ABORTION BAN TO REMAIN EFFECTIVE.
Recently, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert C.J. McBurney, a Republican appointee, declared Georgia’s Living Infant’s Fairness and Equality Act (LIFE) unconstitutional.
The LIFE legislation banned abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, usually around six weeks, absent a medical emergency.
Judge McBurney found that every life is worth protection, including the lives of the women and girls who are pregnant. He issued a 26-page opinion that many legal scholars claim destroys the Supreme Court’s reasoning espoused by Justice Samuel Alito.
Here is a copy of Judge McBurney’s opinion:

https://www.aclu.org/cases/sistersong-v-state-georgia?document=SisterSong-v-State-of-Georgia-Superior-Court-of-Fulton-County-Decision

Judge McBurney’s decision followed two well-publicized deaths of women in Georgia from complications of abortions by medicine.
Amber Thurman was a 28-year-old mother is a six-year-old who died in a Georgia hospital while doctors were waiting for her condition to become a “medical emergency.” They waited too long.
The second death was Candi Miller, 41, who died in her bed next to her 3 -year- old daughter.
LOUISIANA:
Two common drugs used in medication abortions have now become controlled substances in Louisiana and it is criminal to possess them without a prescription.
The drugs are mifepristone and misoprostol.
They are listed with drugs like fentanyl, heroin, cocaine and other drugs that lead to physical or psychological dependence.
Violators could be subject to a $5,000 fine and up to five years’ incarceration.
OHIO:
In 2023, Ohio voters passed a constitutional amendment to the state constitution allowing one to “make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions.” It passed by a 57 percent vote.
However, several pieces of legislation from a MAGA dominated state General Assembly have attempted to undercut the will of the people.
At the end of the summer, Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Alison Hatheway issued a preliminary injunction halting the enforcement of a law banning the use of telemedicine in medication abortions.
She also blocked another law prohibiting non-doctors including midwives, advance practice nurses, and physician assistants from prescribing the abortion pill mifepristone.
In making her decision, Judge Hatheway cited Ohio’s new amendment.
It is expected the Judge Hatheway’s decision will be appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court which, after this election, may have a 6-1 Republican majority.

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.

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/.

As a result of an aggressive law enforcement presence in Washington DC, over the past month, federal grand juries have refused to indict almost a dozen cases presented by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
They have found that the cases lack probable cause to bring indictments.
So, the DOJ lawyers have attempted a back door approach by taking rejected cases to a local grand jury to get indictments.
However, Judge Zia Faruqui, a federal magistrate judge, has refused to accept the new indictments saying that the federal attorneys are trying to perform an “end-run” around the usual processes for bringing cases.
Initially Judge Faruqui asked for briefs on this unusual procedure. Not only did the government file a fiery 18-page legal brief but it also requested an emergency hearing before Chief Judge James E. Boasberg. Judge Boasberg refused to interfere but chastised government attorneys for acting disrespectful to the court.
In its brief the government attorney, Jonathan R. Hornak, accused Judge Faruqui of ignoring the law and “bloviating” from the bench.
His highly political brief said: “Judge Faruqui’s bloviate first and consider the law later approach is just the latest example of his demonstrated prejudice against the U.S. Attorney and the Trump Administration.”
Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, called Farqui and activist judge and said that the judge should tend to his own cases and not interfere in DOJ’s actions.
This situation is just one example of government attorneys’ increasingly disrespectful behavior towards courts and judges.
This is the topic for the latest episode of “Next Witness…Please.” Retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson unwrap the issue of a growing breech in attorney decorum towards judges and the judicial system.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

Federal Judge Aileen Cannon, in Florida, issued a 93-page opinion on July 15 dismissing all 40 counts against Donald Trump of illegally retaining classified documents and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them.

Her ruling was based on outlier opinions that the appointment of Special Prosecutor was unconstitutional and that his office was being unconstitutionally funded by the U. S. Treasury.

Her decision is contrary to all other decisions regarding the office of Special Prosecutor even back to the days of Watergate.

She says that the Special Prosecutor could not be appointed without specific legislation from Congress authorizing the appointment and that any candidate for such office would need to be confirmed by the Senate.

She also found that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith had been funded by the Treasury Department without Congressional authority in violation of the Appointments Clause of the U. S. Constitution.

The Special Prosecutor’s office will appeal this ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

On this edition of “Next Witness…Please,” retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson delve into the guts of this decision, explore how unique the decision is and try to project what the “next steps” will be in this case.

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on presidential immunity raises as many questions as it answers.

It requires trial judges in Trump’s pending criminal cases to hold evidentiary hearings to determine if his actions fall outside official acts, which are not protected by immunity.

Trial courts must also assess what evidence can be used to support the remaining charges.

The Supreme Court has ruled that testimony or private records related to official acts cannot be used in trials for unofficial acts, adding further complexity.

This new process of evaluating actions leaves trial judges in a quandary without clear guidance from the Supreme Court.

In this episode of Next Witness…Please, the “Judicial Twins” (retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson) break down the challenges trial judges face under this confusing decision and explore potential outcomes for Trump’s current cases.

A week has passed since the U.S. Supreme Court's monumental ruling on presidential immunity, leaving everyone grappling with its implications.

· Did the Court grant presidents unchecked power to break laws under "official acts"?

· Has our democracy shifted towards a monarchy or autocracy where the president is above the law?

· Are lower court judges now tasked with the impossible job of distinguishing "official acts" from "unofficial acts" without considering presidential motives?

In this episode of "Next Witness...Please," retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson tackle these pressing questions.

They dissect the ruling, offering their insights and breaking down the opinion into four major parts for easy understanding.

Using clear examples, they explain:

· Absolute immunity

· Presumptive immunity

· Unofficial acts

· Evidentiary issues

Tune in to this episode for a straightforward guide to understanding the complexities of Trump v. United States.

The U. S. Supreme Court has hit an all-time low in public trust and confidence.

In this episode of "Next Witness...Please," retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson explore the reasons behind this decline and the immense power wielded by Supreme Court justices.

They delve into why the public sees the court as more political than judicial, eroding faith in the rule of law.

The episode also addresses shady financial dealings, unreported gifts, and questionable public actions and statements by justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

These issues raise serious ethical concerns and undermine the court's integrity, much to the consternation of many legal analysts and ethicists.

Tune in to "Next Witness...Please" as the judges discuss potential solutions to these ethical challenges and ways the Supreme Court can restore public trust.

Why does it take so long to resolve civil cases in both federal and state courts?
Even though approximately 95 to 97 percent of civil cases settle before trial, they still take a long time to get to that point of agreement.
The average federal civil case takes 2 years and 7 months before trial. In state courts the average time before trial is two years, with the time extending even longer for complex cases.
One of the reasons for long delays is the complicated nature of many of the lawsuits and the fact that multiple parties and multiple claims are usually packaged into one case to be unraveled by a judge or a jury.
The more complex the case, the longer it usually takes during the “Discovery” period. Discovery is the multi-pronged process by which parties to a civil suit try to gain information from the other parties prior to trial.
Discovery takes many forms but often starts with requests by both the plaintiff and defendant for production of documents in the possession of the other party. These are usually key records and sometimes can be a few pages but can be up to warehouses full of documents.
Then the parties usually swap “Interrogatories.” Those are written questions to be answered by a party, in writing and under oath. There may be multiple sets of interrogatories.
Civil cases also permit “Depositions” of the parties to the lawsuit or any witness who may testify. A deposition is the oral taking a witness’s testimony under oath prior to the trial.
Depositions can be used in lieu of testimony at a trial or can also just be done for pure discovery purposes. In most civil cases, there are multiple depositions done by both sides.
Although discovery usually aides in bringing about settlement of cases, it prolongs the time that a case is pending in court.
Join retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson as they explore why civil cases take so long on this new edition of Next Witness…Please.

After a guilty verdict and before sentencing of a criminal defendant, the judge usually orders the probation department to conduct a presentence investigation to help guide the judge in sentencing.

As in the New York cases against Donald Trump, the probation department will assemble information from numerous sources to prepare a written report for Judge Juan Merchan to use as he prepares to render Trump’s sentence on July 11.

The presentence report acts as a guide for a judge in decision making.

On this edition of “Next Witness…Please,” retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson break down the elements of a presentence investigation. They explain how the pieces fit together to form a presentence report that is helpful to a judge prior to sentencing.

They describe the elements of the investigation and which portions may be the most important to a judge in determining the appropriate sentence to give.

Presentence reports generally contain information provided by both the prosecution and the defense in addition to information collected in a defendant interview conducted by the probation officer crafting the report.

Presentence reports also may contain “victim impact statements” where a particular victim of the crime may explain to the judge the ramifications of the criminal activity.

Judges generally share the written report with the prosecution and the defense before a sentencing hearing so each side can prepare for the hearing. The presentence report, however, is not a public record and it is not available to the news media.

In this riveting episode of “Next Witness…Please,” retired judges Gayle Williams Byers and Tom Hodson take you on an eye-opening journey through the often-misunderstood world of jury instructions and deliberations.

Following Donald Trump’s conviction on 34 state felony counts in New York, the air is thick with rumors and conspiracy theories about Judge Juan Merchan’s jury instructions and the deliberation process.

Our hosts tackle these myths head-on, breaking down the intricacies of jury instructions in plain English. Discover how these critical guidelines are crafted by judges, delivered to juries, and tailored to fit the legal landscapes of different states.

The Judicial Twins delve into the pivotal role jury instructions play in shaping deliberations.

Though the inner workings of jury deliberations are shrouded in secrecy, Jude Gayle and Judge Tom pull back the curtain, sharing invaluable insights gleaned from decades of post-trial discussions with jurors.

Gain a unique perspective on the sanctity and secrecy of the jury process from two seasoned judges who have spent their careers in the courtroom trenches.

This episode is your backstage pass to understanding the vital yet often enigmatic role of jury instructions in our justice system. Don’t miss it!

This episode of “Next Witness…Please” dives into different kinds of motions filed by defendants in criminal cases and why they are so important.

Retired judges Tom Hodson and Gayle Williams-Byers guide you through the strategies behind filing “pre-trial” and “during trial” motions in a criminal case.

They talk about motions in limine, motions to suppress evidence, motions for mistrials and motions to acquit.

They also unfold some of the mysteries and strategies behind closing arguments for both the prosecution and the defense.

How important are closing arguments anyway? Do they really help guide juries to a verdict?

Are closing arguments just food for attorney egos or are they really critical to jury decision making? Listen and find out.

Join us as we unravel the complexities of burdens of proof and witness examination, guided by our seasoned experts - the "Judicial Twins."

With the New York trial of Donald Trump drawing to a close, it's prime time to explore the intricacies of criminal and civil cases, along with equity matters.

From the formidable standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" to the more straightforward "preponderance," we'll demystify it all with real-world examples.

Tune in as we navigate the terrain of "clear and convincing evidence" and "probable cause."

And don't miss our retired judges, Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson, as they illuminate the differences between direct examination, cross-examination, and re-direct, providing invaluable insights into crafting a trial's narrative.

Don't miss this enlightening episode! #NextWitness #LegalInsights #CourtroomExposé