As the U.S. Supreme Court term ended, it issued a series of monumental decisions.

One sharply curtailed the power of federal administrative agencies to interpret the laws they administer, overturning a precedent from 1984.

Just three days later, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court granted the president almost complete immunity from any criminal prosecutions.

In response to these decisions, Dr. Stephen Goldman, a psychiatrist, historian and author, joined “Next Witness…Please” to express his deep concern for the future of American democracy.

Dr. Goldman brings decades of experience in academic and clinical medicine and public health. He has treated and worked with combat veterans and deeply studied the Civil War, Reconstruction, race and the impact of that war on America.

His latest book, One More War to Fight: Union Veterans Battle for Equality Through Reconstruction, Jim Crow and the Lost Cause, delves into these themes.

Dr. Goldman expressed his alarm over the Supreme Court’s recent trend of overturning longstanding precedents which he believes breeds uncertainty among the populace.

He is particularly worried about the Supreme Court decision to overturn the Chevron precedent which allowed federal administrative agencies to interpret ambiguous laws.

Now that the matters must go before judges, Dr. Goldman fears that science and scientific principles will not be fully utilized in making crucial decisions about Americans’ health and well-being.

Additionally, Dr. Goldman is critical of the Supreme Court giving autocratic immunity to the president.

He also voiced serious concerns about the implementation of Project 2025 and Schedule F if Donald Trump is re-elected, warning that both could severely damage American democracy.

https://www.stephenagoldmanmd.com/

Federal Judge Aileen Cannon, in Florida, issued a 93-page opinion on July 15 dismissing all 40 counts against Donald Trump of illegally retaining classified documents and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them.

Her ruling was based on outlier opinions that the appointment of Special Prosecutor was unconstitutional and that his office was being unconstitutionally funded by the U. S. Treasury.

Her decision is contrary to all other decisions regarding the office of Special Prosecutor even back to the days of Watergate.

She says that the Special Prosecutor could not be appointed without specific legislation from Congress authorizing the appointment and that any candidate for such office would need to be confirmed by the Senate.

She also found that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith had been funded by the Treasury Department without Congressional authority in violation of the Appointments Clause of the U. S. Constitution.

The Special Prosecutor’s office will appeal this ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

On this edition of “Next Witness…Please,” retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson delve into the guts of this decision, explore how unique the decision is and try to project what the “next steps” will be in this case.

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on presidential immunity raises as many questions as it answers.

It requires trial judges in Trump’s pending criminal cases to hold evidentiary hearings to determine if his actions fall outside official acts, which are not protected by immunity.

Trial courts must also assess what evidence can be used to support the remaining charges.

The Supreme Court has ruled that testimony or private records related to official acts cannot be used in trials for unofficial acts, adding further complexity.

This new process of evaluating actions leaves trial judges in a quandary without clear guidance from the Supreme Court.

In this episode of Next Witness…Please, the “Judicial Twins” (retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson) break down the challenges trial judges face under this confusing decision and explore potential outcomes for Trump’s current cases.

A week has passed since the U.S. Supreme Court's monumental ruling on presidential immunity, leaving everyone grappling with its implications.

· Did the Court grant presidents unchecked power to break laws under "official acts"?

· Has our democracy shifted towards a monarchy or autocracy where the president is above the law?

· Are lower court judges now tasked with the impossible job of distinguishing "official acts" from "unofficial acts" without considering presidential motives?

In this episode of "Next Witness...Please," retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson tackle these pressing questions.

They dissect the ruling, offering their insights and breaking down the opinion into four major parts for easy understanding.

Using clear examples, they explain:

· Absolute immunity

· Presumptive immunity

· Unofficial acts

· Evidentiary issues

Tune in to this episode for a straightforward guide to understanding the complexities of Trump v. United States.

The U. S. Supreme Court has hit an all-time low in public trust and confidence.

In this episode of "Next Witness...Please," retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson explore the reasons behind this decline and the immense power wielded by Supreme Court justices.

They delve into why the public sees the court as more political than judicial, eroding faith in the rule of law.

The episode also addresses shady financial dealings, unreported gifts, and questionable public actions and statements by justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

These issues raise serious ethical concerns and undermine the court's integrity, much to the consternation of many legal analysts and ethicists.

Tune in to "Next Witness...Please" as the judges discuss potential solutions to these ethical challenges and ways the Supreme Court can restore public trust.

After a guilty verdict and before sentencing of a criminal defendant, the judge usually orders the probation department to conduct a presentence investigation to help guide the judge in sentencing.

As in the New York cases against Donald Trump, the probation department will assemble information from numerous sources to prepare a written report for Judge Juan Merchan to use as he prepares to render Trump’s sentence on July 11.

The presentence report acts as a guide for a judge in decision making.

On this edition of “Next Witness…Please,” retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Tom Hodson break down the elements of a presentence investigation. They explain how the pieces fit together to form a presentence report that is helpful to a judge prior to sentencing.

They describe the elements of the investigation and which portions may be the most important to a judge in determining the appropriate sentence to give.

Presentence reports generally contain information provided by both the prosecution and the defense in addition to information collected in a defendant interview conducted by the probation officer crafting the report.

Presentence reports also may contain “victim impact statements” where a particular victim of the crime may explain to the judge the ramifications of the criminal activity.

Judges generally share the written report with the prosecution and the defense before a sentencing hearing so each side can prepare for the hearing. The presentence report, however, is not a public record and it is not available to the news media.

In this riveting episode of “Next Witness…Please,” retired judges Gayle Williams Byers and Tom Hodson take you on an eye-opening journey through the often-misunderstood world of jury instructions and deliberations.

Following Donald Trump’s conviction on 34 state felony counts in New York, the air is thick with rumors and conspiracy theories about Judge Juan Merchan’s jury instructions and the deliberation process.

Our hosts tackle these myths head-on, breaking down the intricacies of jury instructions in plain English. Discover how these critical guidelines are crafted by judges, delivered to juries, and tailored to fit the legal landscapes of different states.

The Judicial Twins delve into the pivotal role jury instructions play in shaping deliberations.

Though the inner workings of jury deliberations are shrouded in secrecy, Jude Gayle and Judge Tom pull back the curtain, sharing invaluable insights gleaned from decades of post-trial discussions with jurors.

Gain a unique perspective on the sanctity and secrecy of the jury process from two seasoned judges who have spent their careers in the courtroom trenches.

This episode is your backstage pass to understanding the vital yet often enigmatic role of jury instructions in our justice system. Don’t miss it!

This episode of “Next Witness…Please” dives into different kinds of motions filed by defendants in criminal cases and why they are so important.

Retired judges Tom Hodson and Gayle Williams-Byers guide you through the strategies behind filing “pre-trial” and “during trial” motions in a criminal case.

They talk about motions in limine, motions to suppress evidence, motions for mistrials and motions to acquit.

They also unfold some of the mysteries and strategies behind closing arguments for both the prosecution and the defense.

How important are closing arguments anyway? Do they really help guide juries to a verdict?

Are closing arguments just food for attorney egos or are they really critical to jury decision making? Listen and find out.