In this week’s episode, we discuss the recent efforts by Jill Stein and the Green Party to raise funds for Presidential recounts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Should you rush out and open your wallets to help raise funds for the Green Party?
“Breakin’ Down the Law” returns with a discussion on court structure. If you’re a little bit lost at all of Andrew’s talk of the “Second Circuit of This” and the “Federal District Court of That,” our segment should help clear all that up for you!
Finally, our listener question looks at a standard courtroom trope in TV and movies: is “circumstantial” evidence really just bad evidence? What does it mean, anyway? Listen to this episode, and you too can be pedantic the next time you’re watching Law & Order reruns.
And speaking of movies, remember that patrons will get special access to our 3-hour movie review of The Firm — the movie Andrew considers to be the worst legal movie of all time! So if you’d like to hear Andrew have an aneurysm trying to explain what attorney-client privilege is, or you want some of our other cool rewards, or you just want to support the show, please consider becoming a patron at the link below. Thank you!
Show Notes & Links
- This is a handy map of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal so you can find your circuit.
- Here is a link to the current Jill Stein disclaimer regarding recounts, which may or may not be the same as the one we read on the air.
- Here is a screenshot of the original disclaimer, which has since been edited.
- This is a link to MCL 168.862, which provides that a petitioner must be “aggrieved” by election official(s) to have standing to bring a recount.
- Holland v. U.S., 348 U.S. 121 (1954) is the Supreme Court decision that analyzes circumstantial evidence, holding that it is intrisinically no different than testimonial evidence.
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
And email us at firstname.lastname@example.org