In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Colorado v. Connelly.

A man walked up to a police officer who was minding his own business and announced that he wished to confess to a murder. The police repeatedly informed him of his rights, and he insisted upon making his statement. It turned out this man was experiencing acute symptoms of mental illness.

The question before the court: did taking FC’s statements and using them as evidence against him violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment?

#11 Colorado v. Connelly

Hi there fans of Relitigated. It’s been a while, but we have great news! Our podcast returns with season 2 on July 2nd; just in time for Independence Day. Be ready for more jurisprudence and, as always, shenanigans. We might even have some surprise guests joining us this season. We’ve been hard at work and we can’t wait for you to hear what we have in store for you next.

As always, we’d love to hear from you. You can find us on YouTube, Instagram, and BlueSky at the handle @relitigatedpodcast.

------

Research by Nikki
Audio mixing and producing by Jarret

Music Credits:
Risk by StudioKolomna (https://pixabay.com/users/studiokolom... [https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbmh6T0xweEliSGhvcFpZbWw0SFV3ZlB6M2FlQXxBQ3Jtc0trM1M4bkJJWExSZXdDdXlDRUhJQVI5bUFEd0pVOHFwa2pvNFV5V0N1RzdDSTFkVzhkZHgwanhUN29zOTNsUW5ERjRybzk0TGFTM2N5QjJjajRzOER1OWxXcjdMRkJlMTJhc1ByRzdqX2R6S213YnNJNA&q=https%3A%2F%2Fpixabay.com%2Fusers%2Fstudiokolomna-2073170%2F&v=_mkWq0LUj6g])

Season 2 Announcement from Relitigated

In this episode we step down from the U.S. Supreme Court to visit the Georgia Court of Appeals. Here, we re-argue the case Christy Brothers Circus v. Turnage.

An evening at the circus suddenly turned an unsuspecting audience member into part of the show.

The question before the court: can a victim collect damages for emotional distress without physical injury?

#10 Christy Bros. Circus v. Turnage

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case United States v. Causby.

A couple bought property, where they made their home and ran a chicken farm. Their property was less than half a mile away from an airfield, which the U.S. government began using. The family’s farm (and their nerves) were then destroyed by lots of large military aircraft flying less than 100 feet overhead day and night. They sued the government.

The question before the court: was their property taken by the government without just compensation, in violation of the 5th Amendment?

#9 United States v. Causby

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case North Carolina v. Alford.

HA was charged with First-Degree Murder, a capital offense in North Carolina. There was a lot of evidence against him, so his lawyer recommended he plead guilty. HA ultimately agreed to plead guilty to Second-Degree Murder, but when he went before the judge, HA testified he didn’t commit the crime and was only pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty. He was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison. He later appealed, stating that he had been coerced into the guilty plea because of the prospect of the death penalty.

The question before the court: is a guilty plea invalid when the defendant is also claiming innocence and is only pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty?

#8 North Carolina v. Alford

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Prince v. Massachusetts.

Massachusetts  has adopted child labor laws prohibiting children from selling  periodicals on the street, and prohibiting adults from making children  work illegally. SP is a Jehovah’s Witness who would distribute religious  literature on the street. Her children and her niece begged and cried  to join her. SP was confronted by authorities, charged, and ultimately  convicted of violating child labor laws. SP says that the government is  using inapplicable law to interfere with her parental rights, and her  and the child’s religious freedom.

The question before the court: do the state laws prohibiting child labor interfere with parental rights and religious freedoms?

#7 Prince v. Massachusetts

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States.

The U.S. is at war. CS took part in printing and mailing leaflets criticizing the war and the draft. The leaflets also encouraged young men to resist the draft. He was arrested and convicted of conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act.

The question before the court: did CS’s conviction for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech?

#6 Schenck v. United States

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case United States v. 95 Barrels, More or Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar, Douglas Packing Company, Claimant.

The Douglas Packing Company is selling a product that they have labeled as apple cider vinegar. However, the feds have an issue with the fact that sometimes the company presses fresh apples, and at other times they press dehydrated and rehydrated apples without informing consumers of the difference. Does this still count as “apple cider vinegar”? Neither the company, the feds, nor the lower courts can agree.

The question before the court: was the apple cider vinegar misbranded under the provisions of the Pure Food and Drug Act?

#5 United States v. 95 Barrels, More or Less, Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar, Douglas Packing Company, Claimant

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio.

One evening, police arrived at the home of DM and demanded to be let in to conduct a search. After calling her lawyer, DM declined to allow police to enter her home without a search warrant. Police eventually broke down her door and searched her home despite not having a search warrant. DM was later tried and convicted for possession of obscene material. She appealed her conviction.

The question before the court: are state courts subject to the same constitutional requirements as the federal courts?

This is episode 3 of a 3-part series on the development of the Exclusionary Rule.

#4 Mapp v. Ohio

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Wolf v. Colorado.

Police investigating illegal abortions searched a doctor’s office without a search warrant and took a log of patients. After interviewing his patients, police charged JW and others. The results of the search were used as evidence and JW was convicted. JW appealed his conviction.

The question before the court: do 4th Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures apply to criminal cases in state courts? Or do state courts get to make their own rules?

This is episode 2 of a 3-part series on the development of the Exclusionary Rule.

#3 Wolf. Colorado

Join hosts Jarret and Nikki as they re-argue a real Supreme Court case in front of 3 friends role-playing as "justices". Each episode includes an overview of the case, arguments from the hosts, deliberations and opinions issued by our panel of "justices", and finally a reveal of what the real Supreme Court ruled and how their decision impacts us today.

Also, we should mention no one on the show is a lawyer.

Our goal is to present the history and decisions of the Supreme Court in an engaging and accessible way. If you're not a lawyer, that's okay, we aren't either!