In any criminal justice system, there is bound to be abuse. No system is perfect, not even close. But the case discussed in this episode is one of the most egregious top-to-bottom failures of law enforcement in New York history. Rights were violated, and at every turn where someone could have taken responsibility and ended the parade of injustice, they just doubled down.

Listen as colleague and law partner Robert Gottlieb joins Paul to discuss the 1989 case involving five boys aged 14-16 who would come to be known as the Central Park Five.

These five black and Latino boys were causing trouble in Central Park, in Manhattan, on the night of April 19, 1989. They were assaulting people, robbing them of their wallets and food, and generally carrying on. They were part of a larger group of between 20-30 kids total. They had all been arrested between 10 and 11 pm that evening for various low level offenses and were detained in the local police precinct.

A 28 year old white investment banker named Trisha Meili was jogging in the park between 9 and 10 pm that night. She was assaulted, dragged off the running path, brutally sexually assaulted and left for dead. She was in a coma for nearly 12 days. Hours later her unconscious body was found and the focus immediately shifted to the five boys already in custody.

Extreme and illegal police tactics were used to coerce confessions from four of the five boys. Interrogations of minors took place with no parent or attorney, they were denied food, water, and sleep over nearly 30 hours. In the end, four made videotaped confessions which would later become the only evidence in the trials against them.

Listen to the breakdown of how a media landscape contributed to the piling miscarriage of justice, how law enforcement failed the city it swore to protect, and how even when the truth came to light, it was over a decade before any small semblance of justice was attained.

Enjoy.

Hello Listeners and Friends,

In this installment of In Summation, we discuss the Doomsday Mom, Lori Vallow Daybell, a woman who serves as proof that religious extremism is exceptionally dangerous. These cases have it all, extramarital affairs, assassination attempts, mental disease, fanaticism, money, you name it. And you get TWO cases this time, isn't that grand?

Lori Daybell was married 5 times, but only accused of killing one ex-husband, and two of her kids, and her 5th husband's wife, and trying to kill her nephew-in-law, and stealing social security benefits...and possibly even her brother, though evidence linking her to that hasn't been established.

This episode is a complicated story of how twisted beliefs can be used to justify truly horrific behavior. Enjoy!

Welcome back! The wait for a new episode is over.

In a triumphant return, Paul breaks down the federal case against Sean "Diddy" Combs. Combs was charged with RICO, sex trafficking, and interstate transportation for the purposes of prostitution.

In this episode, we discuss what overcharging looks like, how fame affects criminal cases, and how to know when to put a case on as a defendant.

Sean Combs need no introduction, he has been a household name in the United States since the 1990s. We have witnessed the evolution of the man from an upstart rapper talking about his life on the streets and his impoverished childhood to becoming one of the most successful cross-industry entrepeneurs in the world.

But with all that fame, fortune, and money came vices. Combs notoriously hosted wild "freak off" sex parties, and some participants in those parties came forward to claim that they were not willing participants, that they were forced into commercial sex acts, and that Combs controlled them through a criminal organization using violence, coercion, financial malfeasance, and even arson.

Was Sean Combs a sex trafficking, criminal mastermind? Or was he simply an abusive boyfriend with ex-girlfriends trying to cash in on his status?

Listen and learn what the Sean Combs prosecution was about, and how the defense team kept the focus where it needed to be.

OJ Simpson's arrest and trial captivated the country. Dubbed the "trial of the century," the 1995 spectacle grabbed eyeballs with gavel to gavel coverage for approximately 10 months. The trial was packed with celebrity, DNA evidence, grusome crime scene photos, a massive fall from grace, racial tensions, devastating cross-examinations, jury field trips, and more.

Since I couldn't possibly cover this massive case all on my own, I bring in special guest and attorney friend Anna Gorisch to help parse through the issues and cultural import of the moment. Thanks Anna!

Enjoy!

Lawyers, like other professionals, tend to use a lot of industry terms which don't make sense to the average person. Sometimes, those terms pop up in artcles and media describing a case, without explanation (often because the journalists themselves do not fully understand what they mean).

Today, we discuss the term collateral estoppel, and what it means in a legal context.

Enjoy.

Welcome back. In this brief episode, Paul digs into the difference between the terms decriminalization and legalization. They are frequently used interchangeably by people who do not fully appreciate the difference.

At the end of this In Summation Explains episode, you will come away with a deeper understanding of just what it means when the government decriminalizes, or legalizes, certain behaviors.

Enjoy.

In the second installment of In Summation Explains, Paul explains what happens when someone undoes the wrong they caused before they get caught, and whether that is a defense to any potential liability after the fact.

If you like this new format, write in and make your voice heard. Paul hopes you enjoy it and write in with more questions to answer.

What does habeus corpus mean? how does it work? what does it actually do? In this new segment of In Summation, Paul explains specific legal terms and areas of law which confuse people. This is going be based mostly on listener feedback, so if you are curious about a legal latin phrase, or legal theory, write in and Paul may explain it for you.

Please leave feedback if you like this particular type of episode. Paul is trying to expand content and answer some listener questions and this seemed like the best way to accomplish both of those things. If you enjoy it, let us know.