Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Next Witness...Please
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Next Witness...Please
Next Witness...Please episodes
- Before Today’s Political Retribution, There Was Jane Fonda
Retribution and weaponization of governmental agencies against political foes are on the rise but the motivations behind them are not new. To see them in action in our recent history, we only need turn back to Jane. Fonda, 89, who has been the target of the government for decades.
A new biography about Fonda spotlights years of her activism but also focuses on her being a frequent target of government abuses. The book is written by award-winning biographer Marilyn Greenwald, professor emerita at the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism at Ohio University. It’s titled Jane Fonda: There is a Great Deal to Say, and it’s published by Rutgers University Press.
In the book, Greenwald chronicles Fonda’s social activism for almost 60 years and describes how it has evolved. Fonda has often said that activism is her major goal and acting is her “side gig.” Greenwald also details how Fonda was targeted for harassment by the federal government.
Fonda was on President Richard M. Nixon’s “Enemies List” and was a favorite target of then FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. She was harassed by the Federal Bureau of Identification (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the White House. She was falsely arrested in Cleveland for allegedly possessing drugs, which turned out to be vitamins, and then accused of a “cover-up” when the case was dismissed. Additionally, the CIA intercepted her mail even though the CIA was not to be involved in domestic investigations.Greenwald discusses the book on this edition of Next Witness…Please with hosts retired judges Thomas Hodson and Gayle Williams-Byers. They focus on the concept of political weaponization of federal agencies by presidents and high-level governmental officials.
1 hr 3 min - America’s True Crime Fix: Why We Can’t Look Away from Real-Life Tragedy
We live in an era where our dinner conversations are often dominated by the darkest corners of the human psyche, as society remains endlessly gripped by the world’s most chilling true crime cases.
Why are we so occupied with reality television and the popularity of true crime shows when our current news headlines are full of real-life and real-time legal dramas of national proportion?Next Witness…Please decided to explore this question with one of the leading producers of true crime/reality television.
Jack Cole is an executive producer, documentary filmmaker and write behind some of the most popular reality and true crime series, including Suddenly Amish on HBO’s Max and The Curious Case Of… series on Prime.He breaks down for our audience, how cases are found to portray, and walks us through his thought processes in editing reality and true crime programming. Many critics say that reality television is staged and acted pursuant to scripts. However, Cole assures us there are no scripts and that “reality tv is more real than not.”
Cole also discusses why, we as a culture are so “uniquely at home” with stories of tragedy and strife. Why are we innately curious? He compares our reactions as being the same as when we “rubberneck” to see the details of a vehicular accident we may pass on the highway. We want to see the destruction and sometimes the carnage. We also are intrigued with other people’s travails and tragedies. He says we, as individuals, can either identify with a person in trauma or be thankful that we are not experiencing the same in our lives or both. Cole does not see the popularity of true crime or reality shows abating any time soon.
Most people’s lives are tough, and we are often looking for a way to escape into someone else’s trauma, he says.
56 min - Trump’s Civil Service Shakeup Reaches a Breaking Point
President Donald Trump’s attack on federal civil service workers continues and is about to hit a new crescendo. For two terms Trump has been targeting some federal civil service workers trying to take them out of civil service protections and make them employees “at will.” This allows for political appointees, patronage, and quick hiring and firing of top-ranking federal workers without civil service procedures. It also makes the federal workforce totally loyal to one person, Trump, its leader.
Trump did this by Executive Order in 2020, but that order was repealed by President Joseph Biden in 2021. On Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2025, Trump reissued his original order from 2020. Trump’s federal Office of Personnel Management, then in Feb. 2026, issued a final order titled “Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service” which formerly reclassifies nearly 50,000 workers out of the civil service on March 8. Dr. Stephen Goldman, psychiatrist, author, and historian along with being a person who spent years as a product safety and risk management expert and regulator for the Food and Drug Administration, joins Next Witness…Please to critique this new development.
Dr. Goldman argues that the federal government has relied on a robust civil service since the 19th century. He fears that true federal experts, who are not politically aligned, will now be stripped of civil service protections and replaced by less qualified political appointees. Dr. Goldman also joins retired judges Gayle Williams Byers and Thomas Hodson to discuss the numerous federal lawsuits that have been filed to stop this transition.
They also examine the parallel case of Trump v. Cook that awaits a Supreme Court decision this spring. That case, although not directly on point, will give politicians and legal experts a precedent for how much authority the President has to fire “inferior officers without traditional civil service protections.”57 min - Federal Sentencing Guidelines Explained: What They Are and How Judges Use Them
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.55 min - Ohio Lawmakers Target Judge Over Social Media Posts, Raising Judicial Free Speech Concerns
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.40 min - The Hit List: Trump’s DOJ Accused of Political Retribution
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.59 min - Early Voting Divide: Trump Rejects It — Republicans Urge Voters to “Work It”
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.1 hr 2 min - Judges Clash with DOJ Over ‘End-Run’ Tactics in D.C. Courts
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.1 hr 5 min - Civil Justice on Hold: Why America’s Lawsuits Move at a Snail’s Pace
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.1 hr - Cashless Bail Explained: How Trump’s Push to End It Collides with State Law
President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order trying to eliminate cashless bail in Washington D.C. and in other parts of the country with alleged high crime rates.
However, many states have had a cashless bail option that has worked well over decades. States set their own criteria for what judges may consider in ordering a bond and what kind of bail may be set by a court.
There are significant questions of whether Trump has the power to do so since bonds are determined by individual judges based on individual defendants and set criteria that must be considered.
The concept of bail and bond for people arrested for a criminal charge is often controversial and many people do not understand how judges decide what form of bond to use and the total costs of being released from custody prior to trial.
It is predominant in both federal and state jurisdictions that bond should not be a pretrial punishment because defendants, under the U.S. Constitution, are presumed innocent until they may be proven guilty in court.
Instead, bond is designed to protect the public and to assure the defendant’s presence at each stage of the judicial proceeding.
Both state and federal judges must consider certain guidelines in determining the kind and amount of bond to set.
Several of the considerations include the past record of the defendant, the defendant’s propensity for violence and whether the defendant is a flight risk.
Notably some defendants have been held in jail either without bond or with high bonds because it is feared that they would flee the jurisdiction of the court. Such is the case with music mogul Sean Diddy Combs on his sex trafficking and prostitution charges.
Defendants may also be held if the court fears that they might intimidate possible witnesses prior to trial.
In this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson examine considerations a judge must consider in setting a pretrial bond.
They also outline some of the various forms of bond from cash bond to cashless bail. They also discuss property bonds, bonding companies, and the concept of house arrest as a form of bond.1 hr 3 min
About Next Witness...Please
From the publisher's feed
Ever found yourself lost in legal jargon? Fear not! Our mission is to decode complex legal concepts into everyday language, making them accessible to all.
Meet your hosts, the dynamic duo known as the Judicial Twins!
Retired judge Tom Hodson brings over 50 years of legal expertise as a trial judge, defense attorney, and former Judicial Fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States.
Retired judge Gayle William-Byers, with more than two decades of public service as a prosecutor and judge, is now sharing her knowledge as a Judicial Fellow for The National Judicial College and a legal analyst.
Join us as we embark on a quest to demystify the legal system and increase your understanding of its complexities.
Tune in to "Next Witness... Please" for enlightening discussions, insightful perspectives, and a deeper understanding of the law. Don't miss out – subscribe now and let's unravel the mysteries of the legal world together!
More shows like Next Witness...Please
The Daily
111,863 Listeners
Up First from NPR
56,401 Listeners