Next Witness...Please

As a result of an aggressive law enforcement presence in Washington DC, over the past month, federal grand juries have refused to indict almost a dozen cases presented by the Department of Justice (DOJ). They have found that the cases lack probable cause to bring indictments. So, the DOJ lawyers have attempted a back door approach by taking rejected cases to a local grand jury to get indictments. However, Judge Zia Faruqui, a federal magistrate judge, has refused to accept the new indictments saying that the federal attorneys are trying to perform an “end-run” around the usual processes for bringing cases. Initially Judge Faruqui asked for briefs on this unusual procedure. Not only did the government file a fiery 18-page legal brief but it also requested an emergency hearing before Chief Judge James E. Boasberg. Judge Boasberg refused to interfere but chastised government attorneys for acting disrespectful to the court. In its brief the government attorney, Jonathan R. Hornak, accused Judge Faruqui of ignoring the law and “bloviating” from the bench. His highly political brief said: “Judge Faruqui’s bloviate first and consider the law later approach is just the latest example of his demonstrated prejudice against the U.S. Attorney and the Trump Administration.” Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, called Farqui and activist judge and said that the judge should tend to his own cases and not interfere in DOJ’s actions. This situation is just one example of government attorneys’ increasingly disrespectful behavior towards courts and judges. This is the topic for the latest episode of “Next Witness…Please.” Retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson unwrap the issue of a growing breech in attorney decorum towards judges and the judicial system.

Why does it take so long to resolve civil cases in both federal and state courts? Even though approximately 95 to 97 percent of civil cases settle before trial, they still take a long time to get to that point of agreement. The average federal civil case takes 2 years and 7 months before trial. In state courts the average time before trial is two years, with the time extending even longer for complex cases. One of the reasons for long delays is the complicated nature of many of the lawsuits and the fact that multiple parties and multiple claims are usually packaged into one case to be unraveled by a judge or a jury. The more complex the case, the longer it usually takes during the “Discovery” period. Discovery is the multi-pronged process by which parties to a civil suit try to gain information from the other parties prior to trial. Discovery takes many forms but often starts with requests by both the plaintiff and defendant for production of documents in the possession of the other party. These are usually key records and sometimes can be a few pages but can be up to warehouses full of documents. Then the parties usually swap “Interrogatories.” Those are written questions to be answered by a party, in writing and under oath. There may be multiple sets of interrogatories. Civil cases also permit “Depositions” of the parties to the lawsuit or any witness who may testify. A deposition is the oral taking a witness’s testimony under oath prior to the trial. Depositions can be used in lieu of testimony at a trial or can also just be done for pure discovery purposes. In most civil cases, there are multiple depositions done by both sides. Although discovery usually aides in bringing about settlement of cases, it prolongs the time that a case is pending in court. Join retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson as they explore why civil cases take so long on this new edition of Next Witness…Please.

President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order trying to eliminate cashless bail in Washington D.C. and in other parts of the country with alleged high crime rates. However, many states have had a cashless bail option that has worked well over decades. States set their own criteria for what judges may consider in ordering a bond and what kind of bail may be set by a court. There are significant questions of whether Trump has the power to do so since bonds are determined by individual judges based on individual defendants and set criteria that must be considered. The concept of bail and bond for people arrested for a criminal charge is often controversial and many people do not understand how judges decide what form of bond to use and the total costs of being released from custody prior to trial. It is predominant in both federal and state jurisdictions that bond should not be a pretrial punishment because defendants, under the U.S. Constitution, are presumed innocent until they may be proven guilty in court. Instead, bond is designed to protect the public and to assure the defendant’s presence at each stage of the judicial proceeding. Both state and federal judges must consider certain guidelines in determining the kind and amount of bond to set. Several of the considerations include the past record of the defendant, the defendant’s propensity for violence and whether the defendant is a flight risk. Notably some defendants have been held in jail either without bond or with high bonds because it is feared that they would flee the jurisdiction of the court. Such is the case with music mogul Sean Diddy Combs on his sex trafficking and prostitution charges. Defendants may also be held if the court fears that they might intimidate possible witnesses prior to trial. In this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson examine considerations a judge must consider in setting a pretrial bond. They also outline some of the various forms of bond from cash bond to cashless bail. They also discuss property bonds, bonding companies, and the concept of house arrest as a form of bond.

As President Donald Trump fends off critics of his administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking of minors’ case, new attention is swirling around Epstein’s co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted as a conspirator in 2022. She has been interrogated for a day and a half by Trump’s former defense attorney and now Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. She has been subpoenaed to testify before the House Oversight Committee. She has filed a sudden appeal of her conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, and she has been transferred to a minimum-security federal prison camp in Texas as she serves her 20-year sentence for sex trafficking of minors. At the center of this Maxwell maelstrom are legal terms that many people do not understand such as “immunity,” “limited immunity,” “absolute immunity,” “clemency,” “pardon” and “commutation.” What do these terms mean, in everyday language? For example, Maxwell was given “limited immunity” to talk with Deputy Attorney General Blanche. Her defense attorney has demanded that she receive “immunity” before she testifies before Congress. And Maxwell’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court concerns whether she was immune from prosecution by an earlier Epstein agreement with the federal authorities. Meanwhile, her attorney has said that she would cooperate fully with the government if she received “clemency” from President Trump in the form of either a “pardon” or a “commutation” of her sentence. Retired judges Gayle Williams Byers and Thomas Hodson break down these terms into understandable bites on this episode of their podcast Next Witness…Please. They delve into legal strategies in play and talk about what might happen as this legal drama continues to unfold.

President Donald Trump has asked Senate leadership to forego the Senate’s traditional August recess and “long weekends” to push through a series of his appointments to key federal positions. One such nomination that is hanging in the balance is the appointment of ultra controversial Trump loyalist Emil Bove to a seat on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. That court spawned conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Bove’s nomination highlights the ongoing battle between Trump’s administration and the federal courts. Bove currently is the Principal Associate Attorney General and is a longtime Trump attorney who represented Trump in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case and was part of Trump’s defense team when the president was convicted of a felony. As part of the Department of Justice, Bove has been accused of ignoring federal court orders, providing misinformation to federal judges and telling federal attorneys that they should consider saying “F… You” to the courts. He has been accused of personally ordering three plane loads of prisoners to be deposited at the CECOT prison in El Salvador after federal judge James Boasberg ordered the planes to turn around and return to America. Bove has reportedly advocated for policies promoting racial profiling and undermining due process rights of immigrants. Bove also was instrumental in the Justice Department’s move to dismiss corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. He is a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York where his management style and temper were challenged by colleagues and opponents alike. Bove has no judicial experience whatsoever but is rumored to be on a fast track for the next nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. He also is not an experienced litigator in federal appellate courts. On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams Byers and Thomas Hodson unveil the judicial appointment process and dig deep into Bove’s controversial nomination.

“Next Witness…Please” examines the bill that could turn abortion into homicide—and voters into bystanders. You might have thought that abortion rights were safe in Ohio after the Ohio Reproductive Freedom amendment to the Ohio Constitution was passed by 57 percent of the vote in 2023. But think again. In mid-June, House Bill 370, the Ohio Prenatal Equal Protection Act was introduced in the Ohio General Assembly. Its intent is to “entirely abolish abortion in this state.” It does so by establishing that when a woman’s egg is fertilized that it then becomes a “pre-born person” entitled to all the federal constitutional protections provided a person once born. The bill’s supporters say that Fourteenth Amendment protections of the U.S. Constitution would wipe out the Ohio Constitutional amendment legalizing abortion. In short, an abortion would be considered a homicide by the mother, the doctor who performed the abortion, and anyone who advised the mother to be to get an abortion. The proposed bill outlaws all abortion, even in the cases of rape or incest. There are only two exceptions: a spontaneous miscarriage and a life-saving emergency of the mother. On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Thomas Hodson and Gayle-Williams Byers dive deeply into this bill and examine its potential ramifications – not only for Ohio but for the nation. They also discuss the impact this bill, if passed, would have on democracy – given the recent overwhelming passage of the Reproductive Freedom Amendment in Ohio. Additionally, they examine hypotheticals about how far ranging this proposed statute might be.

After two trials and months of gripping testimony, a Massachusetts jury has acquitted Karen Read of second-degree murder and manslaughter in the death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe. In a case that drew national attention—fueled in part by a Netflix documentary—Read was found guilty only of driving under the influence. Her sentence: one year of probation. Prosecutors argued that after a night of heavy drinking, Read struck O’Keefe with the rear of her SUV outside a friend’s home, then left him injured in a blizzard, where he died from exposure. But Read’s defense told a very different story—one of police missteps, flawed forensics, and a possible coverup. They raised the specter O’Keefe was harmed inside the house and that fellow officers framed Read to protect one of their own. Jurors told Boston media the prosecution simply failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This was Read’s second trial. The first ended in a hung jury last summer. On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson break down the legal complexities behind the verdict. They explore why prosecutors retry cases after hung juries, who gains the advantage in a second trial, and how each side handled its courtroom strategy. The judges also examine how the not-guilty verdicts may impact a pending civil wrongful death suit filed by O’Keefe’s family—and they explain the crucial differences between criminal and civil standards of proof. Finally, Byers and Hodson consider whether Read might turn the tables by filing her own civil claims against police for a botched investigation—or even against prosecutors for malicious prosecution.

For decades, federal health regulation has been a cornerstone of America’s public well-being. Agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have long been trusted to uphold safety standards, push the boundaries of science, conduct vital research, and operate with transparency. But that trust is now under strain. On this week’s episode of Next Witness…Please, guest Dr. Stephen A. Goldman issues a clear warning: a major shakeup at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) could put public health at serious risk. Seventeen members of ACIP were abruptly removed by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., replaced with individuals reportedly aligned with his controversial views on vaccines. Dr. Goldman, a psychiatrist, author, historian and veteran of the FDA, explores how these sweeping replacements could upend national vaccination policy, particularly amid resurgent diseases and falling immunization rates. He also discusses a growing internal backlash within the scientific community. A group of NIH employees recently published The Bethesda Declaration: A Call for NIH and HHS Leadership to Deliver on Promises of Academic Freedom and Scientific Excellence, criticizing what they see as politicization and erosion of scientific integrity at the federal level. The American Medical Association echoed those concerns in a forceful public statement, calling the ACIP overhaul “a blow to public trust.” It warned: “With an ongoing measles outbreak and routine child vaccination rates declining, this move will further fuel the spread of vaccine-preventable illnesses.” Dr. Goldman’s concerns don’t end there. He also critiques a recent announcement from the FDA, which, facing a 2,000-person staffing shortfall, plans to lean heavily on artificial intelligence to accelerate approvals of drugs and medical devices. While framed as an efficiency boost, he argues this strategy could compromise critical safety reviews and open the door to hasty, under-scrutinized decisions.

Music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs is on trial in federal court in New York, facing two sex trafficking charges, two counts of transporting individuals across state lines for sex work, and one count of racketeering conspiracy. Testimony began May 12, with witnesses detailing wild, days-long sex parties dubbed “Freak Offs.” These allegedly took place in multiple states and involved Combs’ girlfriends, escorts, and others. Sex trafficking charges hinge on whether force, fraud, or coercion was used to compel someone into commercial sex acts. At the heart of this trial: did Combs cross that legal line? On the latest episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson break down exactly what prosecutors must prove — and how “force” and “coercion” play out in court. They explain these legal terms with real-world clarity and offer vivid examples to make the law understandable. The judges also dig into the racketeering charge under RICO — a complex law requiring proof of crimes like kidnapping, bribery, fraud, or extortion as part of a criminal enterprise. They also analyze a recent defense motion for mistrial, claiming the prosecution knowingly allowed perjured testimony. Byers and Hodson explain how they'd rule — and why. And in a tense courtroom moment, the judge warned Combs to stop making facial reactions during testimony — or risk being barred from his own trial.

Over the last five years, we have witnessed an uptick in attorneys being disciplined for lying to courts in addition to filing frivolous lawsuits. Some have even faced criminal charges Now, lying to the court seems to be the new normal for some U.S. Justice Department attorneys. Is this something that is expected by President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi or something that should be disciplined by the courts and bar associations? Over the election hubbub of 2020, several noted attorneys received strict discipline. John Eastman was disbarred in California for making false statements about the election. Rudy Guiliani was disbarred in New York and Washington D.C. Other attorneys received disciplinary actions including Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, and Jeffrey Clark and several lawyers were indicted in Georgia for their alleged attempts to overthrow the election. Fast-forward to 2025. In the past Justice Department attorneys had a trust factor with judges. Now, that is being squandered and erased. According to an article in Politico, in March, four different judges challenged the veracity of government lawyers. Attorneys were chastised by judges for not speaking the truth. In April, the situation between judges and attorneys got worse. In describing government attorney statements, judges used words like “pretextual,” “muddying the waters” and “unsubstantiated”, according to Politico. Judges have called government attorneys unreliable and dishonest. Besides eroding the stature of the Justice Department, will these actions bring about contempt citations against the attorneys and possibly further disciplinary actions? Attorney honesty in court and possible disciplinary sanctions for lying are the topics of this new episode of Next Witness…Please. Retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson discuss current cases and explain the importance of attorney discipline for all to understand.

Defending white-collar crime defendants is more than just going to trial and winning. It is far more complex and complicated. Defending is really a combination of three skills that law firms can offer to keep corporations and corporate executives safe, according to John R. Mitchell, a partner in the Taft law firm and one of the nation’s top white-collar criminal defense attorneys. First, law firms, that specialize in defending white-collar crime, offer their clients “compliance” advice. They make sure that their clients’ policies and procedures are in accordance with voluminous state and federal laws to limit possible infractions. Secondly, white collar crime lawyers often are called upon by corporations or corporate executives to do internal investigations if wrongdoing is suspected from other employees. This often proceeds any law enforcement investigation. Thirdly, the lawyers defend clients who are charged in either state or federal courts with violating statutes. This can be a long and arduous process. Some of these cases take months or even years from the beginning of an investigation until a grand jury would bring an indictment and then on to trial. White-collar defense counsel often negotiates cooperation agreements with federal agents from the inception of the investigation to gather needed evidence but also, to limit the scope of overly broad inquiries, according to Mitchell. About 90 percent of white-collar crime cases are resolved prior to trial, but that last 10 percent mandate unique trial skills and tactics from defense counsel. Mitchell is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers (top one percent from any state) and has been recognized as Lawyer of the Year for Criminal Defense: White-Collar by Best Lawyers in America. He visits with retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson on this edition of Next Witness…Please and shares the ins and outs of defending white-collar crime charges from their inception up through unique aspects of trial work. Join us on this fascinating journey.

As the Sean “Diddy” Combs trial opens this week in New York and other trials like the murder trial of Karen Read continue outside Boston, it is vital to understand the importance of opening statements and closing arguments in a trial. Opening statements are stage-setters for what evidence the jury will receive during the trial. Some experts call them roadmaps to follow while evidence is being presented. Some say they are like movie trailers, letting the jury know what to expect as the trial unfolds. Opening statements are also a time for the prosecution and defense attorneys to try to build rapport with the jurors – building a trust factor for later trial stages. Closing arguments are the final time that both the prosecution and the defense get to speak to the jury and summarize their cases. The Prosecution reviews the evidence that was presented and tries to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty of each element of each crime. The defense does just the opposite by pointing our flaws in the prosecution’s case and trying to convince the jury that there is “reasonable doubt” whether the defendant is guilty. Both the prosecution and defense face the same challenge – how to make their statements and arguments engaging and attention grabbing for a jury. The average adult American attention span varies between 8 and 40 seconds, according to recent studies. On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson give insights into the world of opening statements and closing arguments. They give you’re a prosecutor’s perspective, a defense attorney’s view, and explain problems that may confront a judge in a contentious trial. They explain the process using concrete, understandable examples spiced with a bit of humor.

The federal government has started arresting state trial judges who are not cooperating in the federal government’s roundup of alleged undocumented immigrants in state courthouses. Is this a message from federal agents that no one is above the law or are these actions an assault on the judiciary? That is the question currently being debated by legal scholars. Recently, Wisconsin state trial judge, Hannah Dugan, was arrested by the FBI for obstruction or impeding federal immigration officers and concealing an individual to prohibit his arrest. The incident arose out of a situation where undocumented immigrant Eduardo Flores Ruiz was appearing before Judge Dugan for assault charges when six federal agents showed up to arrest him. It is alleged that Judge Dugan deterred the federal agents and then provided Ruiz and his attorney a private way to leave her courtroom to avoid the federal agents. Ruiz was apprehended shortly thereafter. The next day, Judge Dugan was confronted in the court’s parking lot and arrested by federal agents. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi says the arrest sends a strong message to other judges who do not help the Trump Administration. FBI Director, Kash Patel released, on the social platform X, a picture of Judge Dugan in handcuffs saying the “No one is above the law.” The facts of the case, however, are not as clear-cut as the federal government alleges and Judge Dugan may have several valid defenses to her actions. Meanwhile, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended Judge Dugan from her judicial position, while her case is pending. Hear more on this edition of Next Witness…Please with retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson.

Court orders are piling up against President Donald Trump and his Executive Orders and the administration seems to be setting a course of not following them. What happens next? Judges don’t like people not following their orders and there are many options available to judges if they feel a party is flaunting non-compliance. If a judge feels her/his order is legitimately confusing or vague, the judge may alter the original order to clarify it for the parties or the judge may also impose a stricter order than the first. However, if the original order is clear, then the judge has the option of finding the non-complying parties in either civil or criminal contempt. If a party is found in civil contempt after a hearing, the party may be fined and put in jail until compliance with the order. This would not apply to Trump given his immune status issued by the United States Supreme Court, but it may apply to the Attorney General or other agency heads embroiled in the non-compliance. Civil contempt is handled through the court. Criminal contempt is initiated by a prosecutor. In Trump’s cases, the Department of Justice (DOJ) would not bring criminal charges against itself or one of Trump’s cabinet members. Instead, the judge would need to have a special counsel investigate and perhaps prosecute the case. This is unlikely. If someone is found in federal criminal contempt, that person is eligible for a presidential pardon. However, that is not the case with civil contempt. However, the enforcement relies on the U. S. Marshal’s office which is under the control of the DOJ. The judge also has the option of sanctioning the attorneys for the non-complying party and bringing disciplinary action against them putting their law licenses in peril. Finally, a non-complying party may be subject to a criminal charge of obstruction of justice. This episode of “Next Witness…Please” dives deeply into a judge’s options if someone does not comply with a court order.

The second murder trial of defendant Karen Read is underway just outside Boston and this case has taken on national prominence. Read, 45, is accused, after a night of drinking with friends, of hitting her boyfriend, Boston Police officer John O’Keefe with her SUV on Jan. 29, 2022, and leaving him to die in a snow blizzard on the front lawn of another police officer. The two were allegedly arguing. She is charged with second degree murder, leaving the scene of an accident and manslaughter while operating under the influence. Her defense says she is being framed by police officers to cover a murder within the ranks. Her first trial with 70 witnesses ended in a hung jury and a mistrial on July 1, 2024, after three days of jury deliberation. At the first trial large groups of vocal protestors stayed outside the courthouse throughout the trial. They were predominately in favor of Read and were stirred up by a blogger called “Turtleboy.” Her second trial began just recently and is in the process of jury selection. In the interim, the case has been the subject of a highly viewed five-part documentary on HBO/Max called “A Body in the Snow: The Trial of Karen Read.” The second trial has some interesting changes. There is a new special prosecutor brought in to streamline the state’s case and make it clearer for the jury. Meanwhile, the defense has added a new attorney, Victoria George. Surprisingly, she was an alternate juror at the first trial but never got to deliberate. This is unprecedented. And while the trial is going on, an appeal has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court claiming double jeopardy on two of the charges. The defense has learned that the first jury had reached a unanimous verdict of “not guilty” on the murder charge and the leaving the scene accusation but when the jury reported they were deadlocked, the trial judge assumed they couldn’t decide all three cases. Other twists include: “Turtleboy” is scheduled to be called as a witness even though he has now been charged with “intimidating witnesses” at the first trial. And Michael Proctor, the lead investigator on the case for the Massachusetts State Police, has been fired for sending degrading and somewhat sexual text messages to colleagues about Read during the investigation. On this episode of Next Witness…Please, our retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson use the Read cases to decipher trial strategies for you and translate what’s happening with this second trial.

With mountains of litigation piling up against President Donald Trump’s many Executive Orders, it is important for the average citizen to understand the differences between civil law and criminal law. A civil case is when one entity brings a legal action against another entity to correct some alleged wrongdoing. The corrective action may be an injunction to stop something from happening or to make something happen or it may be a request for money damages to compensate the plaintiff for damages suffered. The legal documents to begin a civil lawsuit are much different than a criminal case and so are the legal procedures followed to advance a case towards trial. Civil cases often are highly complex with multiple parties suing each other in the same case. Discovery of information, while a case is pending, also, is far more complicated in a civil case than a criminal matter. On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judge co-hosts, Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson break down the typical discovery methods. They talk about the production of documents and the importance that documents play in most civil matters. They also explain the differences between written interrogatories and depositions, the taking of oral testimony, under oath, of a potential witness prior to trial. If a civil matter reaches the trial stage, there are differences in the trial from a criminal case. Our co-hosts translate those differences into everyday terms for all to understand. By the end of this podcast episode, you will have a greater understanding of civil litigation and civil procedures.

The Trump Administration is setting out on a constitutional collision course by impounding funds that Congress has already appropriated. The question will be: Does the president have the power to halt, delay or not spend money that Congress has appropriated for specific projects or agencies? Article 1 Sec. 9 Clause 7 gives Congress the power of the purse. Congress has the power to appropriate money. Presidents are to carry out the will of Congress regarding spending. For clarification, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 which provides the president with a mechanics to withhold funding but not cancel it. However, before delaying or withholding funds, the president must send a “Special Message” to Congress stating the reasons for the impoundment along with an estimate of the fiscal, economic, and budgetary effects. The bill also says that the president may not withhold Social Security or Medicare funding. The U.S. Supreme Court also unanimously found in the 1975 Train v. City of New York case that presidents cannot unilaterally withhold or block federal funding. Yet, with all of this, President Donald Trump, Elon Musk and DOGE are cutting federal funding from a myriad of agencies and projects without Congressional approval or notification. This is setting up battles in several federal courts. Tune in to this episode of Next Witness…Please to hear further insights into the Impoundment Control Act and the cases interpreting Trump’s actions so far.

It’s time for Criminal Law 101, a primer on how criminal law works within our American judicial system. This episode of Next Witness…Please translates some of the intricacies of the criminal law process in terms that the average listener can understand. We must start with the premise that there is a major difference between what may be considered immoral and what is criminal. An act is not criminal unless a legislative body (Congress, state legislature, or city council) decides it is. Legislative bodies not only determine criminality, but they also decide the severity of a crime. Retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson break down the differences between minor criminal offenses -- misdemeanors and major crimes -- felonies. They also outline how misdemeanor cases are initiated and the system of criminal complaints. Our hosts also delve deeply into how felony cases originate and how grand juries are conducted and function. They discuss the differences between a grand jury empaneled to determine probable cause and a grand jury designed to investigate potential crimes. The differences between arraignments and initial appearance in court are also described and our judges also explain the concept of setting bond on a criminal case. What considerations may a judge consider in determining what type of bond to set for a prisoner’s release prior to trial? Finally, our hosts give insight into the various pleas available to a criminal defendant and why they almost always plead not guilty in felony cases.

Just a month into Donald Trump’s second term as president, some of his supporters are already pushing a constitutional amendment to allow him a third term in office. Even Trump, himself, is talking about the possibility of a third term being mandated by his MAGA supporters. The day after Trump’s inauguration, Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow Trump to run and be elected for a third term. Currently, the 22nd Amendment which was ratified in 1951 prohibits a person from being elected more than twice as President. The 22nd Amendment was passed after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) failed to complete his fourth term in office. He was elected four times from 1932-1944. This episode of Next Witness…Please, examines how constitutional amendments are ratified and the dangers to our democracy that may appear on the horizon. Retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson discuss the route for an amendment that starts with Congress, and they explain a second option in which the states call for a national Constitutional Convention. They outline the processes to be followed to enact an amendment and how amending the federal constitution differs from amending most state constitutions. Retired judges Byers and Hodson also discuss ways that Trump could grab a third presidential term without passing a constitutional amendment. He could spawn a movement to repeal the 22nd Amendment; he could run for vice president and then have the titular president resign, or he could just ignore the constitution altogether by refusing to leave office despite current constitutional language.

As President Donald Trump and his cohort Elon Musk target huge cuts in the federal bureaucracy, the public trusts bureaucrats more than politicians. In an interesting 2024 survey by the Partnership for Public Service, 63 percent of Americans said they did not trust the federal government while only 31 percent said the federal government had a positive impact on the United States. However, 91 percent believe competent civil servants are important to a strong democracy and 95 percent believe civil servants should be hired based upon merit rather than politics. On this edition of Next Witness…Please, Dr. Stephen A. Goldman, psychiatrist, author, and historian, delves into the reasons for this dichotomy. He discusses the importance of federal regulation and the non-partisan civil service in the wake of Trump’s executive orders targeting thousands of federal workers. He explains the regulatory process in simple, understandable terms. Dr. Goldman spent several years at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a medical product safety and risk management expert and regulator and speaks from first-hand knowledge about the importance of regulations. He also explains the importance of the oath that federal workers take pledging their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and not to any one political leader. This independence is vital for the neutral functioning of government and has served our country well, he says. Dr. Goldman warns that getting rid of a non-political civil service has been the target of authoritarians and fascists throughout history. He fears that, if left unprotected, ridding the government of so many trained professionals will do irreparable harm to the United States and the damage may be irreversible.