We clear the docket while enjoying some listener-provided coffee. Topics include coffee roasting, listener feedback, the Oral Argument roadshow, and a recent decision on the taxation of egg donors.

This show’s links:

Leave your company, take your ideas, and go to jail. Ok, maybe it’s not always that extreme, but we talk with Orly Lobel, author of Talent Wants to Be Free, about the laws that govern the minds and ideas of employees. From noncompete agreements, to trade secrets, to the illegal talent cartels of Silicon Valley, Orly helps us understand the field she calls “human capital law.” But we start, of course, with woodchippers, North Dakota, and seat recliners.

This show’s links:

Special Guest: Orly Lobel.

After beginning with, let’s face it, nonsense, we respond to listener feedback (beginning at 8:30) on, among other topics, speed traps, Serial, and Judge Edwards’ critique of legal scholarship. We wind up discussing reasonable doubt and probability (beginning at about 30:00).

This show’s links:

The Serial podcast, about the 1999 murder of Hae Min Lee and subsequent conviction of Adnan Syed, has become the most popular podcast ever. In our first anniversary show — which, sure, we could have broken into two parts but consider this super-sized show our gift to you for the holidays — we talk with listeners and past guests about their own reactions to the show and to the case. We discuss reasonable doubt, race, procedure, evidence, voyeurism, what we think, what others think, and the inherent (but vastly improvable) tragedy of criminal justice. Guests: Hunt Wofford, Nathan, Anthony Kreis, Jasmine Guillory, Mehrsa Baradaran, and Dahlia Lithwick. (Several of our guests responded to a call to listeners that we posted on our Facebook and Twitter feeds. Follow us to be in on such things in the future.)

This show’s links:

Special Guests: Anthony Kreis, Dahlia Lithwick, and Mehrsa Baradaran.

We’re back. Speed traps, the police, and Judge Edwards’ renewed attack on modern legal scholarship.

This show’s links:

When should the police be able to search your phone, your computer, your email, or your dropbox? Orin Kerr thinks that over time, and in the face of changing technology and social practices, courts maintain a relatively consistent balance between privacy and the state’s interest in criminal investigation. The legal changes that maintain that consistency seem to be acceptable to originalists, pragmatists, and living constitutionalists alike. From cell phones to horses and buggies to automobiles and confidential informants. It’s the search episode. And then … yep, speed traps. Joe and Orin make a spiritual connection as non-warners.

This show’s links:

Special Guest: Orin Kerr.

Robots. What are they? Just a new sort of tool, qualitatively different kinds of tools that do things we neither expect nor intend, new kinds of beings? With the incipient explosion of complex robots, we may need to re-examine the way law uses and understands intention, responsibility, causation, and other basic concepts. We’re joined by Ryan Calo, who has achieved the outrageously awesome feat of earning a living thinking about robots. (It’s pronounced Kay-low. So Joe got this one right.) We discuss flying drones, chess computers, driverless cars, antilock brakes, and computer-conceived barbecue sauce.

This show’s links:

Special Guest: Ryan Calo.

This is the week the circuits split. We discuss Judge Sutton’s opinion for a panel of the Sixth Circuit upholding bans on gay marriage in several states. Although Joe and Christian mainly agree about this case, Joe finds plenty of other things Christian says and does to be irritating, especially during our first eighteen minutes when we discuss feedback.

This show’s links:

It’s our ebola episode. You know, I think that’s description enough.

This show’s links:

Special Guest: Fazal Khan.

Steve Vladeck joins us to dive further into federal courts and federal rights. After getting Steve’s take on our discussion concerning federal courts of appeals and gay marriage last week with Michael Dorf, we discuss the issues raised by what Steve thinks could be a major new case in the Supreme Court this term: Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center. How and when can you enforce a federal statute or the Constitution against state officials? Simple question, right?

This show’s links:

Special Guest: Steve Vladeck.