Nick and Jessa talk about a controversial defense theory.

It's half deep-dive, half policy episode as a conclusion to Andrea Yates.

Jessa and Nick talk about mental health courts, the reasonable woman standard, and all the grey areas that exist in the criminal justice system when it is tasked with dealing with grey matter.  Plus, we introduce our next case, voted on by listeners -- Andrea Yates.

This episode is proudly sponsored by Care/Of and HelloFresh.

Yeah, okay, the episode title pun was a stretch.  But this is the meat and potatoes discussion of the seriously important amicus brief the Michigan AG wrote in opposition to the constitutionality of Michigan's sex offender registration laws.

We're off to....Michigan?  (Jessa's home state!) Jessa and Nick start to discuss the incredible amicus brief written by the Michigan Attorney General regarding sex offender registration.  This is one of two parts, with the bulk of this episode explaining some legal concepts like the ex post facto clause, and then the very beginning of the substantive discussion of the brief.  Part two will come out Wednesday, and will conclude the substantive discussion of the brief and also captures what is slowly becoming "classic" Jessa ranting.

Nick and Jessa conclude their discussion of US v. Rahmen, including thoughts on the tension between proof beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial and "character of the offender" considerations at sentencing.

Jessa and Nick continue to discuss the Feras Rahmen case.

Nick and Jessa get caught with the fire bug and discuss a Wisconsin arson case.

What happens if someone is convicted of a crime but wants to erase their criminal history? Is that a thing?  Jessa and Nick talk about the confusing world (and semantics) of expungement.

Jessa and Nick conclude their discussion of the Troy Davis case.  Yes, Jessa suggested she would put a link to something in the show notes.  No, she does not currently remember what that thing was.