On this channel we explain legal topics and do analyses of current trials. My goal is to explain complex legal topics in ways that don't require you to have a Latin-to-English dictionary. Why? The law can be an astoundingly complex thing. For any question there are multiple possible answers. My job is to explain things in plain language. Importantly, this channel DOES NOT provide legal advice. It is a general description of the law based on 28 years of legal practice, hundreds of case, and lots of experiences. As a lawyer I have written a legal column for more than 25 years and am published in a wide variety of publications. I have several books published both in hardback and in Kindle format.
DO NOT RELY ON THE VIDEOS HERE. CONSULT A LAWYER IN YOUR JURISDICTION.
When comments are turned off on a video, I can be contacted off-line at aldewitt7@gmail.com. Your comments are welcome on here but please keep them clean.
@@barbaragoddard8769 when he went to the woman’s house, he was looking for things to steal. One of the things that he stole was the laptop. He put it in the trunk, and took it home. Then he sold it to someone else. That’s what the police found and that’s what the police proved at Trial
I would be interested in knowing when this person testified. Was it at the original trial? I rather doubt it. Because William could have told his lawyer to go talk to that guy, and have him up here at Trial. My guess is that this person testified at the hearing to overturn the conviction. And of course he can do that, because they already have the person who committed the murder convicted. Even if they tied the laptop to the second person, they likely couldn’t convict him, because the jury had already spoken. So this guy can come in and do what he can to get his buddy out of the slammer, and that’s just sometimes how these things work.
The absence of DNA evidence on the knife does not make this guy innocent. Has anyone ever heard of gloves? 2 people testified he confessed the crime to them, and he had possession of both the purse and laptop. No explanation about how these things came into his possession was credible. Of course, you hear none of these things from the innocence project OR Mr. Bell, STL county prosecutor.
This is the best explanation I have seen yet of this SovCit idiocy. Let's hope it finally convinces some people just how absurd is the idea that they don't have to obey certain laws.
Thank you very much sir ? This information is so helpful to me as I am about to prepare for my mom's estate which my older brother represented us as the Fiduciary and he did us filthy.
Before i watch the rest of the video id like to point out!! Hundreds of cases have exhausted all their options where there was little to no evidence of that person committing the crime. Two perfect examples would be Cameron Todd Willingham and Steven Avery! Cameron was executed even though there was evidence he played no roll in the fire that caused the childrens deaths! In fact the evidence used to convict him was junk science! Steven Avery case doesn't add up! The time line doesn't add up. Theres not a single piece of evidence linking Steven to the murder! Theres no doubt she was murdered. But how, where, when and by whom has never been determined! There's only guesses! Honestly how does a fat, out of shape man with a 80IQ and a teenager with a 78IQ pull off a brutally bloody murderer and rape and leave no evidence of the crime! I even offered people from the discussion groups i was in $10k for a single piece of direct evidence and not a single person of the thousands could list 1. Yet Steven still sits in jail. Brandon was actually adjudicated and set to be released before it was overturned Those are just two of the dozens of known cases where theres no physical evidence the people convicted committed the crime!! Hopefully the evidence you say is strong actually is.
Governments and their agents HAVE no rights - only privileges. Only a living flesh and blood man has rights. No such thing as a sovereign citizen either. It is a fully derogatory term and does not exist. The term is an oxymoron. 2A ALLOWS concealed carry. The 2A does not have the word except in it. 4A does protect PLACES. Scotus keeps ruling unconstitutionally.
I am lucky I have never been the victim (family or friend ) of a crime . I have served on 3 juries and did A BIG FED MOCK JURY TRIAL. I am semi-retired now, and what I KNOW IS .... OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM SUCKS ..... victims are never done being revictimized ...criminals have more rights than everyone ....it is a never-ending retrial appeal ect . And at this point juries and the public buy more BS than ever before. Sorry, just my rant for the day.
An interesting thought about the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard: Hypothetically, if the 8-year-old actually did do it, that's something that would be so wild and outrageous that it would be completely reasonable to not believe it even if it's true. Under those circumstances, if that were the only doubt people could have, it wouldn't be a reasonable one and conviction would be appropriate. Assuming no procedural errors or issues, that would mean the conviction was properly reached, and the conviction ought not be overturned. This would be true even if, in this wild hypothetical, the defendant was factually innocent. In other words, it would be legally appropriate to put someone in prison for life because something wildly improbable happened to them, so improbable that it would be entirely unreasonable to hold a doubt based on its probability. Kind of unfortunate for that person.
Whether it would be reasonable to disbelieve in an unusual event that actually happened would depend on how much evidence there is for it. I might not reasonably think an 8-year-old committed a murder on the lawyer's word alone, but if they have DNA evidence or security camera video of the event or something else that points to the 8-year-old, it's a lot more reasonable to think they did.
reasonable would be calling 911 IF the daughter did it ......Laurie is a wicked woman who got her daughter to lie on the stand and while at it.......tried to throw JAY under the bus because he did not want her ....she is exactly where she belongs
5:38 the opening statement you made during your segment -Why the prosecutor filed a motion to vacate- was basically Because he’s the Democrat nominee and doesn’t believe in capital punishment👌. You MAGA guys aren’t very incognito are ya?
This is the most obvious false conviction of my lifetime and it’s clearly being upheld solely for political ends by fanatical Republican officials. That’s corruption. That demands action by the federal government against the state of Missouri if necessary.
Wow! She’s worse than I thought. Her third husband must be really grateful he is still walking around. She’s awful. Thank you so much for your breakdown of this. The defense had nothing to work with.
Laurie had her hair colored and styled the night before Jay testified ......... I believed him .....she had it bad for him ..and really got pissed when he would not leave his wife ...her payback was to put him at the murder scene and as the last shooter ...she change the date of the murder to put him in her life at the time ...vengeful woman
She manipulated her daughter into thinking she killed her own father and also framed her ex because he rebuffed her. What a horrid person! Jereme was a GREAT witness for the State. Attorney Wiggs only aided in his credibility.
There is no legal definition of "sovereign citizen" by law. it's a malarkey term and even referring to others as "sovereign citizens" is evidence that you don't know what you are talking about... even as an attorney. One cannot be "sovereign" and a "citizen" at the same time.
JD, all traffic 'laws' are not laws. They are administrative CODES. Codes are not laws. ORDERS are not laws either. The information you read was posted by an idiot. FYI Mr JD, I sent in my formal withdraw consent to be governed to the State I dwell in. No more back tax collections, current tax collections and no future tax collections. We have the inalienable right to withdraw our consent to be governed and that is fully secured by the 9th amendment with the 14th making it applicable to all states. Mr JD, go to blacksite32 and actually LEARN what all this is about. You show your own ignorance over this issue of licensing. You are a lawyer and part of the BRITISH Accredited Registry. Right to travel unhindered falls under the 9th amendment. There is NO right for any government to create, revoke, limit, tax, etc any rights, claimed or otherwise. A license does not denote squat. It does not make one a safer operator vs an unlicensed. You still play their game with all those court decisions. Writ of Quo Warranto and challenge their jurisdiction. Nice thing is that they can NOT prove jurisdiction. You have to file the right paperwork well ahead of time to not need a license to use your personal conveyance on a public road.
The “if you’re innocent, why did you run” arguments is a pathetically weak argument people have been using for decades that presumes guilt and falsely asserts humans do not have a natural inclination of self preservation. There are some legitimate questions about the handling of the evidence and the incentives of witnesses, all of whom would benefit either financially or legally by placing the blame on Williams. However, I do agree the evidence against him is concerning.
I appreciate your reply. First one ever, and was intended to be inflammatory as a means of answer. I agree, the internet gurus only used an opinion attached to Schware to make a false argument. But, in the Sims case, a very good argument is made that the Law is open to all or it is not the Law. I study property tax cases in excruciating detail, and concur that, " The word "privilege," as applied to occupations, is limited to those which are subject to police regulation. 27 Ark. 629; 43 Ark. 82. A common-law right is not the creature of a license law. 61 Ark. 486. A license implying a privilege cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is right, free and open to all. 49 L.R.A. (Ill.) 412. See also 107 U.S. 365." Essentially, the practice of law is a privilege, and illegal to do so otherwise? So there is no common right to the Law? (License: "a grant by a competent authority to do that which would otherwise be illegal.) I hope you do see the implications, and not just in respect to the practice of Law, but of the unlawful 'Ad Valorem taxes' put upon the Private Property owners, as Private Property, protected by all the Constitutions, cannot be subjected to the same Ad Valorem tax that is rightfully applied to a calling that is licensed by the State and engaging in commerce. We have all been defrauded into feeding the enormity of local Govt.s, whom themselves are only Corporate creatures of the State. Again, I thank you for your reply, and my level of respect towards you has risen greatly. Have a good day sir. I also note that no argument was made concerning the latter part of my argument, for to us all, it is self-evident.
I think the big issue here is that in all honesty , just because a jury , a bunch of random people off the streets effectively, say he’s guilty , doesn’t mean he’s guilty . As you mentioned, you don’t get your legal advise from some dude on a beach, but why not, we get some dude from the beach or factory or the shopping centre to decide on someone’s life using the information a lawyer with multiple years of law study and experience gives them expecting them to understand it. And an obvious point to most people outside America looking in, your justice system is absolutely ridiculous. Your judges , as high IQ as they probably do have , they are seemingly mostly very biased based on their religious and political allegiances, and so out of touch with the real world it grates me every time I watch a court case on screen. You also have a proven record and shameful reputation on wrongful convictions, many executed and proved innocent after they’ve already been murdered. Your police a globally recognised as the most unprofessional , corrupt and badly trained, trigger happy racists flood your police population, making evidence fit the story they want to convict whoever it suits without critical thinking and due diligence when investigating crimes , so closed minded . Even if there is probability someone is likely guilty (not guilty just because some hillbilly Christian bible bashes judge or jury says so) if there is even a slight chance or one question of someone’s guilt it is at the very least ludicrous and unsafe to execute someone. People should lead by example , you don’t teach a bully how not to be a bully by bullying them. You don’t teach someone , especially a child , how how to treat someone by not treating them how they should be treated , you shouldn’t lower yourself to someone’s level. Murdering someone because they murdered someone , or you think they murdered someone doesn’t make the point you should be making . It’s quite disgusting the whole process. Medi evil practices in current day America , but with more corruption , political and religious based nonsense influencing decisions .
Also you have single-handedly convicted 12 people of being religious zealots and bigots without so much as presenting the single piece of evidence to prove it.
If I’d been the wife of a husband who had buried his previous wife under the cement, I might not have asked either, as 1. I wouldn’t have assumed he knew of a body there, it might have been a previous tenant’s actions, OR 2. I knew in my heart that my husband had done this. Now that he knows she killed her husband I wonder what he really thinks of her now. He could have been next.
What’s your reasoning on why Charlie Adelson waited until the eve of the trial to do this? And could the judge have prevented this by disqualifying Dan Rashbaum as Donna’s defense attorney?
I would like to think he thought he had the conflict waiver as a done deal and then the appellate lawyer sprung this on him. But here is my guess. He thought all along that Charlie was going to stand on the Fifth Amendment and say nothing, which meant he wouldn't have to cross-examine him. He found out that wasn't the case, and he had to withdraw. Or, the other rational thought is, this is all about delay. The judge should never have allowed this lawyer to represent both. It is a clear conflict, and even with a waiver you still have to deal, post trial, with an "ineffective assistance of counsel" defense by Donna's appellate lawyers.
Moral of the story: don’t steal or kill. If Williams wasn’t stealing, he wouldn’t have been in a position to be convicted based on “he said, she said”. It takes a sick person to steal from a murder victim. Only God & the people present know what really happened. Prayers for the victim’s family🙏🏾
@@mirandaajames You got that right. Did she really expect that? The jury was going to believe that somebody just dug up the ground through a body in there and she knew nothing about it? I don’t know how that lawyer made these presentations with a straight face, but I give him high marks for client loyalty.
@@j.d.-alawyerexplains5064 and the fact that she had zero reaction to the LE informing her they found "human remains" on her property...SMH bring on the cuffs and orange jumpsuit!
For someone used to the Australian an UK systems this is surprising. You do get comments from the police about a case, but only the initial process where someone is charged. Lawyers don’t discuss the cases in the press, because that isn’t their job. The press need to see the trial, and then to accurately report it, without making their own comments about guilt or innocence.
Our press know so little about the criminal justice system that they always screw up the reporting. I had a criminal case in Kansas City and when I read the coverage of the first day of the trial in the KC Star I was laughing out loud at what they said.
@@j.d.-alawyerexplains5064 Thank you, will the lawyer possibly sue me? or will I have to testify in state bar court? Even though Its not a very serious malpractice or misconduct I believe.
@@bard9888 I just downloaded it. It is quite a piece of work. Not only criminal sex trafficking but RICO and civil asset forfeiture. I will try to find a way to do a video on this without running afoul of RU-vid.
Good thing they didn't have this kind of law at the time of the Boston Massacre. We wouldn't have that marvelous pair of cases in which John Adams successfully defended the British soldiers who fired on the crowd, and then successfully defended the officer who commanded them. It was absolutely assumed that nobody could do both; that the only way to defend either one was to put the blame on the other. Adams took a different route and got both of them acquitted -- but there's no way those cases would've passed muster under the modern conflict of interest laws.
@@j.d.-alawyerexplains5064 Oh, I know. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with conflict of interest laws; they're obviously necessary in most cases. I'm just grateful that we happened to have a different setup back then... because that pair of defenses is one of my favorite stories in American legal history. 😊
This is so interesting.❤ I'm watching the Sarah Boone case, and a lot of people are wondering if her new lawyer Owens hasn't gone too far in his media interviews. ❤ I realize it's different because he's the lawyer for the defense, but wow! 😮
Thank you for explaining this whole mess !! Absolutely shocking and an embarrassment for Dan rashbaum in my opinion…. Are you going to follow the Sarah Boone trial that’s coming up very soon? Would be very interesting to hear your legal opinion on it!
A lot of their ideology comes not a misinterpretation of the US constitution, but from the articles of confederation. Because there was no strong central government the states all sort of acted like independent countries, with separate currencies and laws for “ traveling”. Somehow it gets into their mindset that the articles of confederation supersedes the constitution instead of the other way around.
I’m shocked. I am not a lawyer and know little law. However when I first heard the prosecutor at beginning to the Morphew case I was sure she would convict him. Convinced. But now that I know what she did was unethical and caused her disbarment I’m going to step back and take another look at Barry. I think he did it but because of her actions we might never know. It seems she thought her 5 minutes of fame was more important than a fair trial. I want people convicted fairly, not railroaded.
Thank you so much for your level headed approach to the law. In this time in our society where very many things are not making sense, it is so refreshing to listen to someone who consistently makes sense. Keep up the good work.
J.D. Would you be so kind as to show us all this nebulous and amorphous License to practice Law? This is so inimical to justice, I feel I must point out that "Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State." Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) "The practice of law is an occupation of common right." Every time I ask, the presenter either ignores, or runs away. I personally am sick of the Lie. Attorns: "One who takes from one to give to another." is a Judicially run Certification Board that investigates itself. In short, a monopoly Union issuing a BAR card signifying Dues Paid. Much like the Police, they investigate themselves and find no evidence of wrong doing. This is inimical to fair, equitable, or just outcomes, and in direct contravention to the 'Common Law'. All miseries suffered by Mankind in the modern day and as well as historically can be laid at the feet of Attorns. They are litigators, legislators, judges, and politicians... every form of tyranny has always come directly from the pens of Attorns. How say you?
The cases cited do not contain the phrases you cited. In fact, in Schware, the Court hold: "A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." This means that, as long as Due Process is upheld, the State can and will exlude people from said practice.
@@formosushabemuspapam4409 I appreciate your reply. First one ever, and was intended to be inflammatory as a means of answer. I agree, the internet gurus only used an opinion attached to Schware to make a false argument. But, in the Sims case, a very good argument is made that the Law is open to all or it is not the Law. I study property tax cases in excruciating detail, and concur that, " The word "privilege," as applied to occupations, is limited to those which are subject to police regulation. 27 Ark. 629; 43 Ark. 82. A common-law right is not the creature of a license law. 61 Ark. 486. A license implying a privilege cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is right, free and open to all. 49 L.R.A. (Ill.) 412. See also 107 U.S. 365." I hope you do see the implications, and not just in respect to the practice of Law, but of the unlawful 'Ad Valorem taxes' put upon the Private Property owners, as Private Property, protected by all the Constitutions, cannot be subjected to the Ad Valorem tax applied to a calling that is licensed by the State in commercial endeavors. We have all been defrauded into feeding the enormity of local Govt.s, whom themselves are only Corporate creatures of the State. Again, I thank you for your reply, and my level of respect towards you has risen greatly. Have a good day sir.
it is 2024. i dont appreciafe you minimizing the aspect of dna evidence. you didnt broadly lay out the performance, the findings, or the results of that aspect of this murder crime. it would be nice to understand that, too, in your defensive sense of finality with the circumstances presented.
If you want you can find the opinion by the trial judge in the civil case and read it. In short, because he was convicted and has exhausted all of his appeal options, his only way out was a civil case filed by the prosecutor. The prosecutor filed one, but he had a high burden. He had to prove actual innocence, not some nebulous doubt about the integrity of the conviction. If you read the appellate opinion you understand why the DNA was not important. The knife was the victims' knife from her kitchen. It might have had other DNA on it, but it did not prove he was innocent, and it never could have. The DNA gambit was just a delay gambit that worked.
I can understand flapping her mouth too much by mistake, since she's inexperienced in her position. But *interviewing the judge's ex-wife?!?* Good grief.
With the rate at which these kinds of prosecutorial misconduct incidents keep happening I wonder if law schools are going to have to start implementing courses on Media Relations and Ethical Public Relations. I've always heard it said that law school teaches you the law, but not necessarily how to be a lawyer. It might be time for that to change.
It clearly doesn't teach the latter. I had to get out and make mistakes to learn what not to do. What not to do is more important than what to do in this profession.
Can you even imagine the heartbreak involved in not only having a partner you loved be murdered, but being blamed for the crime when you didn't do it? Ouch. 😢
I can't. I'm not sure he's innocent, but the cops have no way to explain a serial predator's DNA in the victim's car, so my presumption is he is innocent.
@@j.d.-alawyerexplains5064 I'm not sure he's innocent either. I was just commenting because even if this isn't the case in which it's true, there are certainly *some* cases in which it happens, and this isn't the first time I've thought about them. Because the partner so often really does turn out to have committed the crime, police often treat them not only as the first person of interest, but as presumed guilty unless proven innocent. For the scattering of those who didn't actually do it, it must add overwhelming stress to an already devastating time in their lives.
