Next Witness...Please

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

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

You may find more about election litigation at:

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.

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.

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:

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/.

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.