Relitigated

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case North Carolina v. Alford.

HA was charged with First-Degree Murder, a capital offense in North Carolina. There was a lot of evidence against him, so his lawyer recommended he plead guilty. HA ultimately agreed to plead guilty to Second-Degree Murder, but when he went before the judge, HA testified he didn’t commit the crime and was only pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty. He was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison. He later appealed, stating that he had been coerced into the guilty plea because of the prospect of the death penalty.

The question before the court: is a guilty plea invalid when the defendant is also claiming innocence and is only pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Prince v. Massachusetts.

Massachusetts  has adopted child labor laws prohibiting children from selling  periodicals on the street, and prohibiting adults from making children  work illegally. SP is a Jehovah’s Witness who would distribute religious  literature on the street. Her children and her niece begged and cried  to join her. SP was confronted by authorities, charged, and ultimately  convicted of violating child labor laws. SP says that the government is  using inapplicable law to interfere with her parental rights, and her  and the child’s religious freedom.

The question before the court: do the state laws prohibiting child labor interfere with parental rights and religious freedoms?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States.

The U.S. is at war. CS took part in printing and mailing leaflets criticizing the war and the draft. The leaflets also encouraged young men to resist the draft. He was arrested and convicted of conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act.

The question before the court: did CS’s conviction for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case United States v. 95 Barrels, More or Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar, Douglas Packing Company, Claimant.

The Douglas Packing Company is selling a product that they have labeled as apple cider vinegar. However, the feds have an issue with the fact that sometimes the company presses fresh apples, and at other times they press dehydrated and rehydrated apples without informing consumers of the difference. Does this still count as “apple cider vinegar”? Neither the company, the feds, nor the lower courts can agree.

The question before the court: was the apple cider vinegar misbranded under the provisions of the Pure Food and Drug Act?

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio.

One evening, police arrived at the home of DM and demanded to be let in to conduct a search. After calling her lawyer, DM declined to allow police to enter her home without a search warrant. Police eventually broke down her door and searched her home despite not having a search warrant. DM was later tried and convicted for possession of obscene material. She appealed her conviction.

The question before the court: are state courts subject to the same constitutional requirements as the federal courts?

This is episode 3 of a 3-part series on the development of the Exclusionary Rule.

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Wolf v. Colorado.

Police investigating illegal abortions searched a doctor’s office without a search warrant and took a log of patients. After interviewing his patients, police charged JW and others. The results of the search were used as evidence and JW was convicted. JW appealed his conviction.

The question before the court: do 4th Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures apply to criminal cases in state courts? Or do state courts get to make their own rules?

This is episode 2 of a 3-part series on the development of the Exclusionary Rule.

In this episode we re-argue the landmark case Weeks v. United States.

Local law enforcement entered and searched FW’s home without a search warrant. At the same time, other officers arrested FW at work. Afterward, a federal marshal conducted a second search of FW’s home without a warrant. Using the evidence from the search, the prosecution secured a conviction against FW, who appealed his conviction.

The question before the court: under the 4th and 5th Amendments, can the feds use evidence obtained without a search warrant (and in violation of an individual’s civil rights) at federal trials?

This is episode 1 of a 3-part series on the development of the Exclusionary Rule.

In the pilot episode of the Relitigated Podcast, hosts Jarret and Nikki invite 3 friends on and re-argue Deshaney v Winnebago County DSS.

TRIGGER WARNING: discussions of child abuse.

As this is our first episode, we are still working through tuning our equipment and our delivery. There's some roughness here we sanded down in subsequent episodes, so we encourage you to stick around. That said, we are still proud of this first episode, and we hope you enjoy it and come back to see how much we improve in the next episode, too.

------

Relitigated is a podcast made by non-lawyers for the entertainment and education of anyone interested in law. Each episode we select one real case, usually from the Supreme Court, and bring it to our invited guests to rule on as justices. We start with recounting the facts of the case before the hosts take turns presenting the arguments for each side. When the arguments are complete, the justices discuss and present their own opinions. Once we have a ruling from our justices, we present the actual results of the case and discuss how the case impacts us today.

None of the participants in this episode are lawyers and nothing we say should be taken as legal advice.