In Summation - The Final Word

26/09/2023

A new episode of In Summation - The Final Word is live.

In this installment, we examine the curious case of the Haymarket 8. These were 8 men accused of murder when a bomb was mysteriously thrown at a line of policemen coming to break up a rally supporting striking workers in Chicago's Haymarket Square in 1886.

The 8 men were arrested and tried with murder. However, there was no evidence ever presented that any of them actually had or threw the bomb. This case deals with the very real problem of what happens when the public pressure to do *something* collides with a group of people whose personal ideologies society is afraid of and reviles. The result can be the dismantling of the civil rights we take for granted as American citizens.

Listen and enjoy!

‎Show In Summation - The Final Word, Ep Illinois v. August Spies, Albert Parsons, et al. (The Haymarket 8) - Sep 25, 2023

27/01/2023

🚨New Episode of In Summation is live🚨

In this episode, the show covers the largest health care fraud ever allegedly committed in the US. We go into what happens when the government is the victim, and why it may take those types of cases more seriously.

We look at the nature of fraud, how it operates and how it perpetuates. In this case, we specifically examine Philip Esformes, who ran a nursing home scandal that billed Medicare and Medicaid for exorbitant amounts of money while allegedly providing either no services, or incredibly expensive services which were not medically necessary.

After his conviction, Esformes had his sentence commuted by then-President Donald Trump. We will look into the difference between a presidential pardon and a commutation, and what that means for the Department of Justice bringing charges again when the original jury was hung on some of the counts.

It's a fascinating case with a lot of moving parts. I hope you enjoy.

‎Show In Summation - The Final Word, Ep United States v. Philip Esformes - 27 Jan 2023

19/10/2022

We just published a new episode!
This time, we look at the (ongoing) case of Keith Davis, Jr. Davis has been tried 4 times for the same murder in Baltimore, Maryland. Twice his case resulted in hung juries, twice his case was overturned on appeal due to significant issues with the way prosecutors handled the matter. Check out our latest episode ASAP! Link in bio.

14/10/2022

Dear Friends of In Summation - The Final Word,

We just published a new episode.

This time, we look at the (ongoing) case of Keith Davis, Jr. Davis has been tried 4 times for the same murder in Baltimore, Maryland. Twice his case resulted in hung juries, twice his case was overturned on appeal due to significant issues with the way prosecutors handled the matter.

The facts are crazy, the legal issues are outrageous, and the fact that Davis has been living a nightmare since 2015 should have received national attention. But it hasn't.

While the world holds their breath wondering whether Harry and Meghan will ever be invited to William and Kate's castles, real atrocities and miscarriages of justices take place every day here in America. It's time we start to shine a light on them.

‎Show In Summation - The Final Word, Ep Maryland v. Keith Davis, Jr. - 14 Oct 2022

14/10/2022

Dear Facebook,

In Summation - The Final Word just published a new episode.

This time, we look at the (ongoing) case of Keith Davis, Jr. Davis has been tried 4 times for the same murder in Baltimore, Maryland. Twice his case resulted in hung juries, twice his case was overturned on appeal due to significant issues with the way prosecutors handled the matter.

The facts are crazy, the legal issues are outrageous, and the fact that Davis has been living a nightmare since 2015 should have received national attention. But it hasn't.

While the world holds their breath wondering whether Harry and Meghan will ever be invited to William and Kate's castles, real atrocities and miscarriages of justices take place every day here in America. It's time we start to shine a light on them.

‎Show In Summation - The Final Word, Ep Maryland v. Keith Davis, Jr. - 14 Oct 2022

12/10/2022

New Episode Alert!

Hello all,

Adam Uris returns to In Summation - The Final Word to discuss a case he specifically requested that we cover, the Preppy Murder.

The 1986 killing of Jennifer Levin in Central Park immediately garnered national attention. This horrific act provided a window into a community most people just gaped at from afar. The upper east side of Manhattan was a bubble that few people could really get to know from the outside. But when Levin's body was found dead showing signs of s*xual activity and strangulation, the lives of the privileged youths occupying New York City's elite circles were, all of sudden, splashed on newspapers and across news stations all over the country.

The investigation quickly settled on a recent grad from a posh high school named Robert Chambers, who was arrested and charged with murdering Levin. The spectacle that followed Chambers' arrest became the trial of the century, not supplanted until the OJ Simpson case.

Listen as Adam and I break down the prosecution and defense strategies, the weaponization of the media, how perception becomes reality, and how a few questionable judicial rulings can change the trajectory of a trial. It's a fascinating look at the intersection of wealth, power, s*x, murder, and true sociopathy.

‎Show In Summation - The Final Word, Ep New York v. Robert Chambers (The Preppy Murder) - 28 Sept 2022

30/08/2022

https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/united-states-v-michael-avenatti/id1541506497?i=1000577614429

Hi Facebook Community,

A new episode of In Summation - The Final Word is out.

In this installment, we breakdown a bit of the intricacies around what specific obligations an attorney takes on when he or she agrees to assume representation of a client. At what point is the lawyer breaching the duty they owe to their client, and where is that line.

In addition, we explore the difference between blustering through a tough negotiation and extortion. Where is the line between taking an aggressive position and the illegal coercion of a monetary transfer?

We look at these through perhaps one of the best public examples of extortionate behavior in the last decade. Michael Avenatti. This is a lawyer who consistently held the spotlight for years during the Trump presidency. He earned a reputation as a fierce and fearless advocate, unafraid to take on any person or corporation. But sometimes too much success can cause recklessness, and Avenatti fell into the trap of believing that he was untouchable. The result was a serious of charges, the most significant of which being that he used confidential information obtained from a client to attempt to extort Nike into a huge personal payday, at the expense of his actual client.

Listen in to hear the background, the arguments, and make up your own mind as to whether Avenatti's defense had merit or whether he was truly guilty.

‎Show In Summation - The Final Word, Ep United States v. Michael Avenatti - 28 Aug 2022

29/08/2022

Check out the new episode of In Summation, where we discuss the epic rise and fall of Michael Avenatti. Find out what led to one of the county’s most famous lawyers getting charged with attempting to extort Nike for $25 million and selling out his own client. Link in bio!

27/07/2022

After a long hiatus due to a murder trial in New York, In Summation is back and breaking down one of the recent Supreme Court Decisions.

This case deals with Double Jeopardy. It's a concept a lot of people have a basic understanding of, but in the Denezpi v. United States decision, the majority opinion launches into a complex analysis of statutory construction, dual-sovereignty, and Native American tribal codes v. federal criminal laws. Is this all legalese nonsense in order to justify the Court's preferred outcome regardless of what the Constitution actually says? Or does the Double Jeopardy clause have strict limits which permit, in many instances, putting a person back on trial a second time for the same allegedly criminal action?

Listen to the episode (link in bio) and send me your feedback!

27/07/2022

Hello Friends of the Show!

After a long hiatus due to a murder trial in New York, In Summation is back and breaking down one of the recent Supreme Court Decisions.

I want to first say thank you to everyone who reached out about the Debs/Free Speech episode. I was pleasantly surprised by how many listeners feel as strongly about supporting free speech as I do. In a culture where so many have strong feelings about shutting down discussion and debate, I'm glad to see a growing community of people who feel that open dialogue is the best path forward, regardless of how odious the ideas people want to present.

On to this episode! In this installment we discuss with Double Jeopardy. It's a concept a lot of people have a basic understanding of, but in the Denezpi v. United States decision, the majority opinion launches into a complex analysis of statutory construction, dual-sovereignty, and Native American tribal codes v. federal criminal laws. Is this all legalese nonsense in order to justify the Court's preferred outcome regardless of what the Constitution actually says? Or does the Double Jeopardy clause have strict limits which permit, in many instances, putting a person back on trial a second time for the same allegedly criminal action?

Listen to the episode and send me your feedback!

https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/merle-denezpi-v-united-states-double-jeopardy/id1541506497?i=1000571227426

‎Show In Summation - The Final Word, Ep Merle Denezpi v. United States (Double Jeopardy) - 26 July 2022

21/07/2022

Check out my latest article published on ! https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-criminal-defendants-depose-20220721-n2clxttamrhankfwewdkbnrybi-story.html

23/05/2022

Your favorite legal podcast has released a new episode! This time we are talking free speech.

In 1917, the United States passed the Espionage Act in an effort to discourage public statements critical of the WWI draft and war effort in general. The most prominent socialist of the day, Eugene Debs, gave a speech at a socialist convention in which he tried to conform his remarks to what he perceived to be within the purview of the new law.

Federal agents were in attendance at the convention and disagreed with his position that he stayed within the lines. Debs was arrested for peacefully expressing his opinions.

In the breakdown, we discuss not only the contours of the 1917 Espionage Act, but why the prosecution of Debs was so fundamentally anti-American. Free speech means defending the rights of people to say things that sometimes make us uncomfortable, because the peaceful expression of ideas is a constitutionally protected practice.

I hope you enjoy the story of Debs and the implication of his case on all of us. As always, please share any feedback or comments.

https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/united-states-v-eugene-debs/id1541506497?i=1000563277342

‎Show In Summation - The Final Word, Ep United States v. Eugene Debs - 23 May 2022

04/05/2022

R&B superstar R. Kelly was accused both in a 2019 Netflix documentary, Surviving R. Kelly, and in Brooklyn Federal Court of horrific and serious acts of s*xual abuse. Over the past 2 years, he has been in the news with relative frequency with stories of the domination and control he is alleged to have exercised over these (often very young) women.

But a lot of people aren't aware that R. Kelly wasn't charged with s*xual abuse or s*xual violence, at least not directly. He was hit with a federal RICO charge. Prosecutors alleged that R. Kelly's entourage was actually a criminal organization created for the purpose of grooming and abusing young women.

Listen as former s*x crimes prosecutor, all-star defense/human rights attorney (and my wife) Sarena Townsend and I break down both the allegations and the substantive charges and then discuss the merits of the prosecution and defense arguments. At the end, decide for yourself whether the important thing is that an abuser went to prison or whether the government overstepped by bringing a RICO charge here.

I hope you enjoy.

https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/united-states-v-robert-kelly-r-kelly/id1541506497?i=1000559529322

‎Show In Summation - The Final Word, Ep United States v. Robert Kelly (R. Kelly) - 3 May 2022

21/04/2022

Hello again devoted followers of your favorite down to earth accessible legal podcast. Another episode has posted and is ready to be dissected and analyzed. As always I welcome your feedback!

In this episode, I bring on my friend, former colleague and my wife's current law partner, Adam Is, to tackle a very controversial case which recently came out of Kentucky. We are talking the Breonna Taylor search warrant ex*****on which tragically cost Taylor her life.

To be clear, we are not discussing the actual killing of Taylor, as that officer, Miles Cosgrove, was not indicted by the Kentucky Grand Jury. However, another officer involved in the raid, Brett Hankison, was indicted when, after the initial volley of shots back and forth between the officers and Taylors boyfriend who was inside the apartment, Hankison went around the side of the apartment and began discharging his pistol (blindly some might say) into Taylors living room.

Hankison's bullets went through Taylors apartment into the apartment next door, where a couple was fast asleep with their young child. Overall, 10 gunshots fired from Hankison cut right through the neighbor's apartment, and a Grand Jury felt that this may have constituted wanton and reckless endangerment.

Listen as Adam and I discuss what constitutes a valid search warrant, the trial strategy of a one-issue case, and why, sometimes, less is more when it comes to delivering a powerful summation.

I hope you enjoy it and don't forget to check out the show's website, www.insummation.com. Thanks!

https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/kentucky-v-brett-hankison-breonna-taylor-raid/id1541506497?i=1000557875866

14/04/2022

Attention NY attorneys, law students or anyone who wants to learn about the law: if you care for an extra dose of your favorite podcast host tune in to my CLE course on Expungement, Background Checks, and Sealing: A Guide to Post-Conviction Relief in the State of New York. It takes place on April 29th and you can sign up here: https://lawpracticecle.com/courses/expungement-background-checks-and-sealing-a-guide-to-post-conviction-relief-in-the-state-of-new-york/

Hope to see you all there!

07/04/2022

Hello Facebook,

A new episode of your favorite legal podcast is out!

https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/florida-v-tommie-lee-andrews-first-dna-case-in-united-states/id1541506497?i=1000556132160

In this installment, we discuss the curious case of Tommie Lee Andrews, who terrorized women in the Orlando, Florida area in the mid 1980's. What makes Andrews' case particularly interesting is that the prosecutor on the case, Jeff Ashton (of Casey Anthony prosecution fame), had Andrews fingerprints and a positive identification from the victim of his s*xual assault - but decided to go further.

Ashton hatched the brilliant idea to co-opt an upstate New York chemistry lab which was conducting paternity tests for the family court system using DNA comparisons and decided to apply that same science to comparing biological materials left at crime scenes to samples taken from suspects. This had never been done in the United States before.

But there are standards for expert opinion evidence which must be met in order for it to admissible in the courtroom. Listen to how the arguments were made for, and against, introduction of this evidence and how the legal maneuvering which was necessary before it finally took its place in law enforcement's tool kit.

Please also visit the show's website, www.insummation.com and send me any feedback!

Welcome to In Summation – The Final Word Attorney, host and creator Paul Townsend examines some of the most famous and infamous – and often misunderstood – court cases to make headlines across America. In doing so, he provides listeners with a true and unbiased understanding of the underlying ...

04/04/2022

New episode out now!!

This episode takes a close look at the first prosecution in American history where the prosecutor used DNA evidence.  It turns out this was a fascinating case which took place in Florida (of course it did)  involving the same prosecutor who tried the Casey Anthony case, and the defense attorney was actually involved in the George Zimmerman trial, so there is a lot of crossover.

We are looking at serial ra**st Tommie Lee Andrews, who terrorized women around the Orlando area in 1986.  Andrews left his biological material at approximately 20 different r**e or attempted s*xual assault scenes.  The trial we focus on today concerns his first victim, where Andrews was a little sloppy, leaving a fingerprint and not thinking to wear a mask in addition to leaving his DNA behind.

What follows is a creative prosecutor who serendipitously sees a magazine advertisement for a lab-conducted paternity test, and wonders whether that technology could be applied to comparing evidence samples.  Enjoy! https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/florida-v-tommie-lee-andrews-first-dna-case-in-united-states/id1541506497?i=1000556132160

31/03/2022

Listen to me discuss the importance of preserving appellant issues in the Jussie Smollett case

21/03/2022

Can words kill? And what is the role of free will if a person's commands are considered so obligatory that they result in criminal liability if followed? Take a listen to this weeks episode, the Text Message Manslaughter case, to find out!

21/03/2022

🚨New Episode is out!

In this episode, we look at whether words can kill someone in a very literal sense. 17 year old Michelle Carter encouraged her 18 year old boyfriend, Conrad Roy, to kill himself. When Roy's body was discovered in his truck filled with toxic fumes, the investigation uncovered that Carter had been pushing Roy to kill himself for weeks, and was ordering Roy to end his own life as he was potentially changing his mind about doing so.

But Carter was nowhere near Roy when this happened. She was 35 miles away, speaking to him on the phone. So the question in this case, when it finally crystalized, was whether Carter committed involuntary manslaughter by advocating for Roy to commit su***de, knowing that he was suicidal and had already attempted to kill himself before.

This case made national headlines in 2014 and sparked a lot of controversy over whether instructing someone to do something means that the person caused it to happen. What is role of free will if a person's commands are considered so obligatory as to result in criminal liability if they're followed?

Listen as we break down the arguments for and against imposing liability, explain the role of precedent and how judges rely on past cases, and give some thoughts on whether the outcome of this case was actually justice. If you enjoy the show, subscribe, and check out our website at www.insummation.com.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/massachusetts-v-michelle-carter/id1541506497?i=1000554664132

Welcome to In Summation – The Final Word Attorney, host and creator Paul Townsend examines some of the most famous and infamous – and often misunderstood – court cases to make headlines across America. In doing so, he provides listeners with a true and unbiased understanding of the underlying ...

07/03/2022

New episode is now live!

In America, before any law enforcement officer can conduct a custodial interrogation of a suspect, whether that person is under arrest or not, they are required to inform that individual of these rights and secure a voluntary waiver, indicating that the individual understands his or her rights and is willing to speak to law enforcement under the current conditions.

Chances are you have heard some variation of the following: "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can - and will - be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, once will be provided to you at no cost." 



But have you ever stopped to think about why law enforcement is required to affirmatively tell you about the rights you have? It's actually quite counter-intuitive. The police or the FBI is required to tell you that you can refuse to answer any questions before they are permitted to ask you anything.

Shouldn't it be an individual's responsibility to know, and assert, their own rights?

In this episode, we look at the origins of the requirement that law enforcement inform suspects and defendants of their rights to remain silent and right to counsel.

Listen to the story of Ernesto Miranda, who was arrested for kidnapping and r**e, voluntary answered questions and ended up confessing without ever knowing that the had the right to refuse to answer or the right to have a lawyer there with him. His appeal became the catalyst for one of the most transformative Supreme Court opinions of all time.

https://insummation.com/episodes/

04/03/2022

Can anyone take a guess which legal topic is covered in the next episode? 👀

04/03/2022

Get to know your host!

Paul Townsend joined Robert C. Gottlieb & Associates in May 2019 and is senior counsel to the firm.  He represents clients in a wide variety of white-collar and traditional criminal defense matters in federal and state courts both in New York and throughout the country.  Mr. Townsend has obtained countless favorable results for his clients through non-prosecution agreements, motion practice, plea negotiations, hearings and trial.  Since joining the firm, he has tried both federal and state cases in New York, Vermont and California.  Additionally, he has been published in the New York Law Journal.

Prior to coming to the firm, Mr. Townsend worked as an associate for a boutique criminal defense practice and handled complex high-profile criminal litigation.  He has successfully tried cases in both the state and federal courts in New York and has handled cases in Colorado, Connecticut, and Florida.  Notably, Mr. Townsend was one of the attorneys on the trial team representing Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman-Loera during his trial for being the leader of the Mexican Sinaloa Cartel in the federal court for the Eastern District of New York.

Mr. Townsend is also the creator and host of the popular legal podcast, In Summation: The Final Word. In it, Mr. Townsend examines some of the most famous, infamous – and often misunderstood – court cases to make headlines across America.  In doing so, he provides listeners with a true and unbiased understanding of the underlying facts as the judge or jury would have heard them at the time. He then explains the role of each party, breaks down the legal arguments presented, and gives “the final word” on who ultimately prevailed, and why.

03/03/2022

Check out your favorite host discuss Dr. William Husel’s murder trial

28/02/2022

Hello All! Go check out my new article: “Juror Misconduct and Why it Matters.” You can read it at the following link:

https://insummation.com/juror-misconduct-and-why-it-matters/

And if you haven’t listened to the latest episode covering the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, it is available at either of the following links:

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4HxVQOh48YW7h6X2qTQsje

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/united-states-v-ghislaine-maxwell/id1541506497?i=1000551712000

24/02/2022

Hello All!
In Summation is now on Instagram! I’ll post information on new episodes and interesting updates on cases we’ve looked at in the past. For those of you unfamiliar with the podcast, In Summation takes a closer look at some of the court cases, both past and present, which have gripped national attention and attracted significant media coverage. What we do is break down the case so that you can impress your friends and family by demonstrating a clear understanding of the underlying facts which led to the trial, the important rulings which came down, the arguments made by the attorneys, and ultimately who had the more compelling narrative for the jury. In doing so, we hope to demystify the criminal justice system just a bit, so that anyone and everyone realizes that they can understand what goes into both a criminal prosecution as well as a zealous defense.
In our most recent episode, we looked at the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell. Though her name is universally recognizable, very few people actually know much about her background and the true nature of her relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. In Summation breaks down how she came to find herself in the crosshairs of the Department of Justice, what charges were filed against her, how her lawyers tried to separate her from Epstein and discredit her accusers, and what the federal prosecutors claimed she had done and how they proved it.
For those of you who already listen to the show, I would like to again express my appreciation and gratitude for all the support you’ve given me. Please visit the show’s website, www.insummation.com and leave any comments or feedback.

22/02/2022

Hello everyone, we are BACK!

I apologize for the lack of new episodes recently, but I was on trial in federal court, which has a tendency to soak up literally every second of every day in preparation and trial work. With the litigation concluded, a new episode has dropped!

In July 2019, the world was shocked when federal agents arrested Jeffrey Epstein for the s*xual abuse of several minor children. Many were not shocked because of the allegations, but rather were surprised that he was actually being arrested for them. Epstein's reputation preceded him in many aspects.

When he was found dead in his pretrial detention holding cell in August 2019, the country was left feeling that this gruesome story lacked closure.

But then, a small flicker of light emerged from the periphery hinting that some modicum of justice might be afforded to the purported victims after all. Ghislaine Maxwell, who had been accused of doing monstrous acts in her own right, was found hiding under a false name in a remote New Hampshire mansion.

To society, she became the proxy for the Epstein prosecution which never really got underway, and her defense team had the nearly impossible task of creating enough separation between Maxwell and boogeyman Jeffrey Epstein.

But who really was Ghislaine Maxwell, where did she come from? Very few people have any idea what her background is, how she became involved with Epstein, or what specifically she is accused of doing. Listen to the United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell episode of In Summation to really understand what this criminal trial was all about.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/united-states-v-ghislaine-maxwell/id1541506497?i=1000551712000

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4HxVQOh48YW7h6X2qTQsje

Please visit the show's website, www.insummation.com and let me know your thoughts!

Welcome to In Summation – The Final Word Attorney, host and creator Paul Townsend examines some of the most famous and infamous – and often misunderstood – court cases to make headlines across America. In doing so, he provides listeners with a true and unbiased understanding of the underlying ...

10/11/2021

Hello All,

So many people have reached out regarding the Korematsu episode commenting about how much they enjoyed having a co-host on to discuss the episode that we've done it again!

Forensic death investigator Joseph Scott Morgan joins as a co-host to discuss the California trial of Robert Durst this past summer. Durst, a member of one of the richest New York City families was put on trial for the murder of his best friend, Susan Berman, which occurred on Christmas Eve, 2000 in Los Angeles.

The trial, however, seemed to be only marginally about Susan Berman, and the prosecution team spent months eliciting testimony regarding the disappearance of Durst's first wife, Kathy, back in 1982 and the homicide of Morris Black in 2003. Durst had already been arrested and put on trial for the murder of Black and was acquitted by a jury back in 2004.

This trial had no shortage of odd strategy decisions, dramatic courtroom recreations, and egos.

Listen as Joe and I dive into the litigation and bring our unique perspectives.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/california-v-robert-durst/id1541506497?i=1000541057002

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0duTrKAmtsfyyM40rKpuUH

Also don't forget to check out the show's website: https://insummation.com/

Welcome to In Summation – The Final Word Attorney, host and creator Paul Townsend examines some of the most famous and infamous – and often misunderstood – court cases to make headlines across America. In doing so, he provides listeners with a true and unbiased understanding of the underlying ...

02/11/2021

Plea bargaining is becoming a hot button cultural topic. Talking heads and well-meaning crusaders look at plea bargain rates well over 90% as per se evidence that defendants are getting a raw deal and then claim that those with the gall to force a trial are hit with a "trial tax" if convicted.

Read about the arguments here:
https://insummation.com/plea-bargaining-and-the-myth-of-the-trial-tax/

IS THERE A TRIAL TAX AND WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT PLEA BARGAINING There has been an increase lately in media attention regarding plea bargaining. Well-meaning but often naive journalists and politicians, who lack a real understanding of how plea bargaining works or its benefits to all parties involve...