Swear on the Stand

This episode discusses a federal appellate court opinion affirming the criminal convictions of Miguel Angel Delgado, Jr., a former U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer. The court determined that there was sufficient evidence to prove Delgado violated the civil rights of two individuals through the use of excessive force during separate border encounters. The records detail how Delgado physically assaulted travelers who were not resisting and subsequently falsified official reports to conceal his misconduct. Testimony from expert witnesses and supervisors highlighted that his aggressive actions were objectively unreasonable and directly contradicted his professional training. Ultimately, the court upheld his 24-month prison sentence, rejecting his challenge to the trial's verdict.

This episode discusses a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision for the affirmation of Andrew Ducksworth’s conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court rejected Ducksworth’s argument that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated during a traffic stop, ruling that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a protective pat-down. This suspicion was based on the discovery of a weapon on the driver, the high-crime nature of the area, and the defendant's own movements. Additionally, the court dismissed Second Amendment challenges to the federal statute, noting that the defendant’s status as a parolee at the time of the arrest disqualified his claims. Finally, the judges held that Ducksworth’s legal stipulation to his prior felony status was sufficient evidence to support his conviction.

This espiode discusses an opinion from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addressing whether a defendant must knowingly transport an unaccompanied minor to receive a harsher sentence for human smuggling. The appellant, Luis Francisco Corona-Montano, challenged a specific sentencing enhancement by arguing he was unaware that one of his passengers was a child traveling alone. However, the court determined that the relevant Sentencing Guidelines contain no requirement for intent or knowledge, meaning the rule operates under strict liability. The judges reasoned that because other legal provisions explicitly mention mens rea, the absence of such language in this section was a deliberate choice by lawmakers. Ultimately, the court affirmed the original 71-month sentence, emphasizing that traffickers are responsible for the actual circumstances of their crimes regardless of their personal awareness.

This episode details a ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that upholds the FDA’s regulatory framework for electronic nicotine delivery systems. Several small-business manufacturers challenged the Final PMTA Rule, arguing that the agency failed to properly assess the economic burden on minor entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The court determined that the FDA acted reasonably by attributing major compliance costs to a previous 2016 mandate rather than the newer procedural updates. Furthermore, the judges found that the agency appropriately considered regulatory alternatives while maintaining strict statutory requirements for public health protection. Ultimately, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, confirming that the FDA met its procedural obligations in regulating the vapor industry.

This episode explores the evolving intersection of artificial intelligence and legal practice, emphasizing that technology should augment rather than replace human judgment. While AI offers massive gains in administrative speed and data processing, the author warns of significant cognitive traps like automation bias, deskilling, and the high frequency of fabricated legal citations. To maintain professional standards, lawyers must implement rigorous verification protocols and intentionally retain the high-level analytical tasks that machines cannot replicate. The source argues that as routine work becomes automated, the value of a lawyer shifts toward irreplaceable human skills like strategic reasoning, empathy, and ethical evaluation. Ultimately, the source guide for this episode provides a strategic framework for organizations to integrate AI without sacrificing the critical thinking and accountability that define the legal profession.

This episode looks to a legal opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressing the sentencing appeal of David Lopez, Jr., who was convicted of crimes related to child pornography. The court examined two specific sentencing enhancements that increased his total prison term to 360 months. The judges upheld a five-level increase for distribution, ruling that participating in online chatrooms requiring the sharing of illicit material constitutes an implicit agreement to exchange valuable consideration. However, the court found a procedural error regarding a second enhancement for a pattern of sexual abuse, as the government failed to prove the necessary number of qualifying prior incidents. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the original sentence and ordered the district court to conduct a resentencing using the corrected guidelines.

This episode details a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding the sentencing of Keisha Lyn Swarner for crimes involving the sexual exploitation of minors on a federal enclave. Although Swarner was convicted under the Assimilative Crimes Act, which incorporates Texas state law into the federal system, the court focused on whether her supervised release term was calculated correctly. The district court originally imposed thirty years of supervision by applying a specific enhancement intended for enumerated federal sex offenses. However, the appellate court ruled that because Swarner’s specific offense was not explicitly listed in that federal statute, the statutory maximum for her supervised release must be limited to five years. Consequently, the court vacated the original supervision sentence and remanded the case for resentencing within the legal limits of the general federal guidelines.

This episode investigates how local prosecutors influence public health outcomes, specifically focusing on community mortality rates between 2010 and 2019. By analyzing closely contested elections, the authors find that electing a Republican prosecutor leads to a 6.6% reduction in deaths among men aged 20–29. This decline is primarily driven by a significant decrease in firearm-related homicides, suicides, and accidents. While increased prison incapacitation explains some of the effect for Black men, the broader driver across racial groups is an increase in criminal convictions. These convictions trigger federal and state legal restrictions on gun ownership, effectively reducing firearm access for individuals at a higher risk of violence. Ultimately, the study suggests that prosecutorial discretion and the enforcement of conviction-based firearm prohibitions serve as critical, yet underappreciated, levers for improving public safety and health.

In the 2026 decision Bowe v. United States, the Supreme Court clarified the procedural hurdles federal prisoners face when seeking postconviction relief. The Court ruled that federal inmates are not barred from seeking certiorari review by the Supreme Court after an appellate panel denies them permission to file a successive motion. This distinguishes them from state prisoners, for whom such denials are legally final and unreviewable by the high court. Furthermore, the Court held that a specific statutory "old-claim bar," which requires the dismissal of repetitive claims previously raised, applies only to state prisoners and not to federal ones. Writing for the majority, Justice Sotomayor emphasized that while the law cross-references certain procedures, it does not strip the Court of its jurisdiction over federal cases. The ruling effectively resolves a circuit split, ensuring that federal prisoners can continue to litigate claims based on new legal developments even if they were previously presented. However, the dissent argued that the majority ignored the plain text of the law, which aimed to limit repetitive litigation and promote finality for all inmates.

In Case v. Montana, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously affirmed that police may enter a home without a warrant to provide emergency aid if they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe someone is in danger. The case arose after officers entered the residence of William Case following a report that he was suicidal, leading to a confrontation where Case was shot and subsequently charged with assault. The Court rejected Case’s argument that officers must meet a higher probable cause standard, noting that such a requirement is specific to criminal investigations rather than emergency assistance. Writing for the Court, Justice Kagan clarified that the Fourth Amendment does not require a "probable-cause spin" on existing emergency aid doctrines. While the Court upheld the entry, Justice Sotomayor authored a concurrence emphasizing that police should prioritize de-escalation during mental health crises to avoid unnecessary violence. Justice Gorsuch also concurred, arguing that this legal exception is firmly rooted in common-law principles regarding the protection of human life.