the anthony john, esq. podcast

I said there was nothing left to talk about on the Cornell case. I googled it to make sure. I was wrong. Since we last recorded, one of the accused men's lawyers has moved to disqualify New York AG Letitia James over posts she made before she was appointed. Jane Doe was swatted. More of her text messages have been published. And Bill Maher wants to do away with Greek life entirely. Sarah Schmeiser and I are both criminal defense lawyers. We disagree about the recusal, we disagree about how much the new texts tell us, and we spend a good while on something neither of us has resolved: whether anonymity for accusers makes sense if it isn't also extended to the accused. This episode discusses sexual assault. Listener discretion advised. Chapters 0:00 Cold open 0:28 Nothing left to say about Cornell? Turns out, plenty 1:15 The motion to disqualify AG Letitia James 4:28 Judges, prosecutors, and different standards for recusal 8:50 "If someone asks you to step aside" 11:25 Vigilantism, and then the swatting 12:27 CLIP: CNN, Kaitlan Collins with Jane Doe's lawyer 13:37 Nobody can defend swatting 16:15 Who knows who Jane Doe is? 17:19 #IAmJaneDoe, and why I'd represent either side 19:20 Checking myself on victim anonymity 20:23 False accusers and the anonymity tension 21:52 Protect the accused, too 24:25 Arrest charges aren't charging decisions 26:45 The new text messages, read in full 28:52 What the texts do and don't tell us 30:04 Memory, hangovers, and the recorded phone calls 31:28 CLIP: ABC News on the recorded phone calls 33:24 Consent in the moment vs. what you learn later 34:59 The prostitution analogy 36:11 Bill Maher on what a gentleman is 37:03 CLIP: Bill Maher, "a gentleman" 38:07 Is that too much to ask of 20-year-olds? 40:08 Maher: ban Greek life 40:48 CLIP: Bill Maher on Cornell and Greek life 41:49 Hierarchy, single-sex structures, and abuse 44:57 Freedom of association vs. who pays for frat row 45:53 CLIP: Bill Maher on hazing 46:39 Peer pressure and calling out your own 47:40 Wrap-up Clips used for commentary and criticism:

• CNN, "Inside 'Shocking' Swatting Incident and Death Threats Against Jane Doe in Cornell Rape Case"

• ABC News, "Newly obtained phone calls between Jane Doe and two fraternity brothers"

• Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO), "New Rule: Greek Out"

• Avengers: Endgame (Marvel Studios), "Women Assemble" scene, 3 seconds, muted

www.anthonyjohn.esq

Sarah Schmeiser and I pick up the Cornell case where we left off. New York's governor pulled the case from the local DA and handed it to Attorney General Letitia James. Megyn Kelly said she'd name Jane Doe if her identity came out. And Jane Doe's lawyer says she's being threatened to drop her suit. We talk about who gets to prosecute when a DA says no, including Wisconsin's private-complaint statute and State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court, a case Sarah was a party to before she was a lawyer. We also cover why "believe all women" doesn't help victims in a courtroom, how New York and Wisconsin differ on intoxication and consent, and why the mob is running the same play against both the accused and the accuser. This episode discusses sexual assault. Listener discretion advised. Chapters 00:00 Since we last recorded 00:21 Welcome back, Sarah 01:13 Wisconsin's private-prosecution statute and the Kalal case 10:43 The governor takes the case: oversight or politics? 13:39 Why "believe all women" fails victims in court 15:18 Victims' wishes, Marsy's Law, and prosecutorial discretion 22:52 Intoxication and consent: New York vs. Wisconsin 23:56 The ceiling-tile brief 28:28 Affirmative consent, "word or deed" 30:51 Vigilantism: threats, confrontations, and vandalism 33:30 Megyn Kelly says she'll name Jane Doe 38:25 Jonathan Ross, and checking ourselves 40:28 Flip the story: empathy before outrage 43:20 Next time: sexual ethics and double standards Part one:    • Cornell, Consent, and the Culture War: Wha...   anthonyjohn.esq

Sarah Schmeiser and I come back to the Cornell case after a week that moved fast: Gov. Kathy Hochul removed the Tompkins County DA and named Attorney General Letitia James special prosecutor, Megyn Kelly said she'd publish Jane Doe's name if it came out, and Jane Doe's lawyer says she's been threatened to drop her lawsuit.

In this episode:

• How Wisconsin lets a private citizen ask a judge for a criminal complaint when the DA won't act, and the case that made that law famous, State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court, 2004 WI 58. Sarah was one of the complainants.

• Why "believe all women" is the wrong standard for a courtroom, and why it hurts the victims it's meant to protect.

• New York's "voluntary intoxication" gap vs. Wisconsin's knowledge-based statute, and the ceiling-tile hypothetical from my 2018 brief to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

• Vigilantism against the accused and the accuser, and checking our own outrage.

Clarification: New York treats a person who is unconscious, or "physically unable to communicate unwillingness," as incapable of consent however she got that way. The gap is for someone conscious but impaired by substances she took herself. (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 130.00, 130.05.)

This episode discusses sexual assault.

Sources

• State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court, 2004 WI 58

• N.Y. Penal Law § 130.00

• N.Y. Penal Law § 130.05

• Megyn Kelly: "If her identity is revealed, I am going to name her" (Media Matters)

• Cornell accuser faces threats demanding she drop her lawsuit (NBC News)

• Timeline of the case (ABC News)

Watch on YouTube · Part one: Cornell, Consent, and the Culture War

Sarah Schmeiser and I are both criminal defense lawyers who've tried sexual assault cases, represented victims under Marsy's Law, and handled Title IX matters. This week we dig into the Cornell fraternity case: what's actually alleged, what the Title IX process is (and isn't), what ketamine does to consent, and why coverage on both the left and the right has turned it into a culture-war proxy. Along the way: where our ideas about sexual morality come from, how to talk with kids about sex, false reports and the presumption of innocence, and why having a conversation about a case is different from deciding it. This episode discusses sexual assault. Listener discretion advised.

Two days after Corey Ruiz was shot and killed by a Madison police officer, AJ (a criminal defense attorney) and Adrian Alan (a 20-year law enforcement veteran and use-of-force expert) sat down to do what mainstream media hasn't: watch the video slowly, read the record completely, and follow the analysis wherever it goes.

Full disclosure up front: Adrian is my friend. I've trained with him, I've done a ride-along with him, and we disagree about plenty — including, on past episodes, whether an officer should be charged with murder. That's the point of this show.

What we cover: what the video actually shows • why the tasers failed, and the physics of why distance matters • "why not shoot him in the leg" — answered honestly • the three shots, and how fast a human brain actually works • Ruiz's public court record: dozens of Dane County cases since 2007, what he was sentenced to, and what truth-in-sentencing actually means • mental health, competency, and NGI, explained by someone who argues them for a living • race and sentencing — the real disparities and the bad arguments on both sides • the body-camera history Madison doesn't talk about • and what could actually prevent the next one: crisis response, training, and intervention that happens before the last fifteen seconds.

All record information discussed comes from public court records (CCAP) and courthouse documents. Nothing in this episode is legal advice. Strong language throughout. Contains footage of the shooting. Viewer discretion advised.

After the assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, a careful look at when political violence has historically been held to be justified — through the Declaration of Independence and Paul Johnson's account of how Hitler dismantled Weimar — and why we're closer to that line than we should be, but not yet across it. I do not condone political violence. I condemn it. This episode is about why that condemnation is harder to make honestly than it used to be.

Sarah Isgur's Last Branch Standing is the most accessible Supreme Court book we've come across — and would recommend it for every voter. Full marks. The title of this episode comes from the disposition that makes the book so good. Whether that same disposition is also its one blind spot is a question we take seriously — and answer carefully.

A post-mortem on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, a deep dive into Wisconsin Voter Alliance v. Secord, and an uncomfortable truth: the fraud might be real — we're just not allowed to look for it.

Episode 3 of 3 in a series that looks at what it means to be a Christian American: A patriot, and a follower of Jesus. In this episode, we bring the history home — taking seriously those who claim that the gospel blesses their demands for political power, and examining what scripture actually requires. We ask the questions that Christian faith, honestly applied, will not let us avoid.

Episode 2 of 3 in a series that looks at what it means to be a Christian American: A patriot, and a follower of Jesus. In this episode, we trace the history of the Church, particularly in its engagement with government and power, examining the moments and movements that set it on its current course.

Episode 1 of 3 in a series that looks at what it means to be a Christian American: A patriot, and a follower of Jesus. In this episode, we look at what Jesus said and did--and importantly, what he did not do--in the context of the time he was born into: A world that was waiting for a very different kind of Messiah.