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.

In this episode, recurring guest Adam Uris and I discuss the recent New York prosecution of Daniel Penny, the 24 year old marine corps veteran who killed Jordan Neely on the subway after Neely was aggressive and threatening to other passengers.

Was this done in defense of subway riders? Did Penny go too far? Was the homicide justified or criminal? Adam and Paul discuss the culteral and legal aspects of the case and trade ideas on whether this case ever should've been brought, how the missteps of certain parties affected the outcome, and why the jury ultimately came to the decision they did.

Hello All,

At the end of October there was a whirlwind of activity in the Young Thug trial down in Fulton County Georgia. All of a sudden, in the span of one week, multiple defendants opted to take a plea after nearly two years at trial.

Listen to the breakdown of how the circus put on by the Fulton County DA came to an end, the contours of the plea, and make the decision for yourself whether it was the right way for Jeffery Williams to end his involvement in this proceeding.

Since the recording of the episode, the remaining two defendants still on trial finally got their verdicts. One was convicted of a single crime, the other was acquitted. Paul still holds to the belief that Williams would have been convicted of at least something, which would likely have landed him with some additional jail time.

Paul hopes this brings some clarity to a commonly misunderstood area of criminal practice.

The wait is over and In Summation - The Final Word is back.

At the request of a listener (thanks Ben!), in this episode we tackle a case which has really become THE case that people bring up when discussing how litigious American people are. We've all heard the story of the woman who spilled McDonald's hot coffee on herself and sued the company for millions.

But as you'll see, the narrative of what really happened to Stella Liebeck, the plaintiff in that suit, has dramatically changed over time. She has gone from being the victim to a greedy opporuntist who manipulated a broken court system for her own personal gains.

Before you make any judgments, listen to what really happened, and how Liebeck's life changed as a result of this case.

As this is a civil case and I do not frequently litigate in the civil courts, Paul asks for a bit of understanding if you have additional questions. He will, as always, respond, but if it requires additional research on his end it may not be as quick as listeners are accustomed to.

Sit back and enjoy.