The wait is over and In Summation - The Final Word is back.

At the request of a listener (thanks Ben!), in this episode we tackle a case which has really become THE case that people bring up when discussing how litigious American people are. We've all heard the story of the woman who spilled McDonald's hot coffee on herself and sued the company for millions.

But as you'll see, the narrative of what really happened to Stella Liebeck, the plaintiff in that suit, has dramatically changed over time. She has gone from being the victim to a greedy opporuntist who manipulated a broken court system for her own personal gains.

Before you make any judgments, listen to what really happened, and how Liebeck's life changed as a result of this case.

As this is a civil case and I do not frequently litigate in the civil courts, Paul asks for a bit of understanding if you have additional questions. He will, as always, respond, but if it requires additional research on his end it may not be as quick as listeners are accustomed to.

Sit back and enjoy.

Hello Loyal Listeners,

In Summation returns with a thorough explanation of one of the most truly absurd cases to take place in recent memory. Rapper/Hip Hop artist Young Thug burst into the music industry around 2013 and quickly became one of the most fresh and innovate voices in the genre. He did several collaborations with world famous talent and his star was rising. After his first studio album went platinum, it seemed as though he was solidying himself with serious potential for a long career.

He had his own Atlanta based rap label, "YSL," which also showcased several of his friends and associates who also rapped and produced albums and mixtapes. YSL expanded to create and promote a very popular clothing line in the fashion industry. Young Thug went from growing up in abject poverty, to being wildly successful.

But not everyone believed this meteoric rise to fame and prominence was done within the confines of the law. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and the Atlanta PD accused YSL of being a violent street gang, and claim Young Thug is the leader. He was arrested in May 2022 and, as of September 2024, is still in custody.

Listen as Paul describes the absolute farce of a trial put on in Fulton County. This episode contains a thorough explanation of RICO, ethics, misconduct, overtrying a case, and the intersection of free speech and expression, specifically in the music industry, with criminal prosecutions.

There are times when no hollywood screenwriter could ever capture the absurdity of real life, and the trial of Jeffery Williams is one of those times. Strap in and get ready, you will not believe what is happening in Georgia.

At this point, it's become difficult to keep track of all the different places that former (and possibly future) President Donald Trump has been indicted. To recap: he has been indicted in New York County by District Attorney Alvin Bragg. That case has already gone to trial and he was convicted of nearly three dozen counts of falsifying business records in an attempt to cover up another crime. That is NOT the case we discuss today.

He's also been indicted in Fulton County, Georgia, on state RICO charges. That office appears to be in a bit of a shamble as 7 months into a different RICO trial, against Young Thug, the wheels have fallen off, 2 judges have been on-and-off the case, and a mistrial seems pretty likely at this point. This is also NOT the case covered by today's episode.

There is also the case in the Middle District of Florida Federal Court regarding Trump's possession of, and refusal to return, certain classified documents. That case was recently dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon. That is also NOT the case we are discussing.

Today's case concern's allegations that Donald Trump attempted to use various unlawful means to subvert the election, prevent the peaceful transfer of power, and deprive ordinary citizens in several states of their right to make their voice heard in our government through voting.

Chances are you are at least somewhat familiar with this indictment, but do you really know what Trump is accused of doing? In this episode, Paul breaks down the indictment so you can understand what the Government has claimed Trump actually did to break the law, and Paul also discusses the recent decision on Presidential Immunity from the Supreme Court, as neither Trump, nor the Government, got the decision they wanted. But if Trump lost in that hearing, why are so many commentators losing their mind over the decision? Listen and find out.

This will be part 1, as there was a lot to cover and the case is now set to go to trial, so stay tuned as (maybe) a trial episode will be coming later on!

Hope you enjoy.

Hello everyone, I've missed you.

Due to a confluence of factors which I won't waste time or energy going into here, we had a slightly longer hiatus than I expected, but we are back and I expect the content to be a little more regular going forward.

This episode is meaningful for a number of reasons. First, I bring on my law partner, Bob Gottlieb of Robert C. Gottlieb and Associates, to discuss the issues surrounding the Crumbley case. Second, while we agree on some of the guideline principles, we do not see perfectly eye to eye on this prosecution. You asked for more viewpoint diversity and variety. I deliver. Third, this is truly a fascinating case because it revisits some of the topics we've discussed in previous episodes, but in a new way.

In late November 2021, James and Jennifer Crumbley bought their 15 year old son, Ethan, a Sig Sauer pistol as an early Christmas present. In Oxford, Michigan, where they lived, this was not uncommon or out of the ordinary. Ethan took the requisite safety courses, went to the gun range with his mother, had no history of violence, and was not a problem at school.

Regardless, a few days after the pistol was given to him as a gift (though still supposed to be locked in a safe by his parents), Ethan brought both the gun and ammunition to his high school, and killed four people.

Ethan pleaded guilty in October 2022 to all the charges and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole as a 16 year old.

But the county prosecutor went on and charged his parents, Jennifer and James Crumbley with manslaughter for their role in facilitating the shooting. The prosecution argued that the parents knew, or at least should have known, that giving their mentally disturbed 15 year old a gun would result in a school shooting.

We tackle the question of when a parent can be liable for the acts of their child, especially if the child has already been found fully liable for those acts themselves, and to what degree a parent needs to be fully aware of what is going on their child's life. When does negligent parenting become accessory to homicide?

Paul and Bob hope you enjoy the conversation.

Welcome Back Listeners!

In this episode of In Summation, Paul discusses a horror movie turned real life. Inspired by the 1996 horror classic, Scream, Brian Draper and Torey Adamcik donned ghostface masks, black robes, and hunting knives to murder their high school classmate and friend, Cassie Jo Stoddart. Not only did they stab her 30 times while she was alone, house sitting for relatives, but they filmed themselves talking about the act before, and after, the crime.

We look how two teenagers can sink to such moral depravity. We talk through interrogation techniques, and how good investigators narrow their focus on leads and ask the right questions. We discuss how and when a judge might decide to hold two trials, trying each defendant separately, instead of at the same time. And we answer one of the most common, and difficult, questions about being a defense attorney, "how can you defend awful people who have done such awful things?"

Strap in Slasher Flick fans, because this installment shows how real life puts Hollywood to shame. Enjoy!

Remember Full House? Remember how wholesome and family-friendly it was? Remember Aunt Becky? She was married to Uncle Jesse. She was part of that wave of television which instilled good family values and strong moral character while still being funny and entertaining...life before the OC.

But despite Lori Loughlin's fairly robust acting career, she found herself on the wrong side of the law. In this episode, Paul breaks down the largest college admissions scandal in US history. The "Varsity Blues" case showcased everything wrong with how rich, entitled people could manipulate and cheat the system to get their kids into the higher education programs of their choice.

There was no trial here, everyone in the case pleaded guilty, so this episode is a little different. But most cases don't go to trial, the vast majority of prosecutions end up in guilty pleas. Without getting into the weeds on whether that, in and of itself, is an issue we need to remedy, this case presents a look at the common situation of what you do when you have one legal argument to make, and it doesn't work. When a defense lawyer sees one avenue to getting a case dismissed, and the judge disagrees, sometimes the best advice you can give to a client is, know when to take a deal and reduce your punishment.

This case is also interesting because of the unique nature of the deal that Loughlin got.

Listen and enjoy!

The 1990's were filled with high profile criminal trials for some of the most famous entertainers in the world. Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson headlined a list of extremely public trials, mostly centered in California.

One case which seems to be getting lost amidst this glut of criminal prosecutions is the murder charge brought against a young up-and-coming gangster rap artist named Calvin Broadus, who adopted the stage name Snoop Doggy Dogg.

A few months prior to the release of his first studio album, Broadus was arrested for the murder of rival gang member Philip Woldemariam. He, along with his bodyguard Malik Lee, argued that Woldemariam was shot and killed in self-defense during an altercation in a public park in Los Angeles.

In this episode we discuss affirmative defenses, stand your ground laws, and what happens when a jury deadlocks on only some charges, but arrives at a verdict on others.

Paul hopes you enjoy this throwback!

Hello again friends and family,

Bucking a recent trend of recent cases, today we head back roughly 140 years to Chicago in the 1880s. This is another case where a person or group's personal ideology was put on trial instead of the men and their individual actions themselves. It's a cautionary tale on what our justice system could become if we aren't vigilant in preventing it.

Chicago during the industrial revolution was a tense time. The working class was always looking for more from the captains of industry who owned the factories they worked in. Sometimes, if they felt that the pay or benefits they received was so substandard they couldn't take it anymore, they would go on strike.

This case tells the story of one such strike. A group of socialist anarchists were asked to come in and give speeches to rally the striking workers. When they did so, a minor clash ensued between the striking men and the replacement labor the owners had brought in to try to break the strike. During the skirmish, police opened fire on the strikers, killing several men. The following day a protest was organized to shed light on the brutality of the Chicago PD. At the very conclusion of the protest, despite its peaceful nature, the police descended on the men and ordered them to disperse. At that point, a bomb was thrown at the line of police officers, killing one man. Chaos and a riot ensued with the police opening fire and many men getting killed.

In response, the police arrested the organizers of the event, despite no evidence they threw the bomb or even advocated for any violence that day. This is the story of their show trial, and why it's so important to make sure we uphold the rights of people with whom we disagree.

Enjoy!