Advertise on podcast: The Clinical Gavel -Criminal Law Cases

Explore how investigators must navigate search-and-seizure requirements when investigating suspects and vehicles. Examine probable cause, the automobile exception, suppression motions, and how improperly obtained evidence can affect a prosecution.

A criminal defense attorney is hired to protect a client accused of serious crimes. But what happens when the attorney begins helping the client conceal evidence, move illegal money, or obstruct an investigation? This episode of The Clinical Gavel explores the boundary between zealous legal representation and criminal participation, examining attorney-client privilege, obstruction of justice, and the ethical obligations of defense lawyers.

When a defendant has ADHD, how should courts distinguish neurological vulnerabilities from deliberate criminal conduct? This episode examines the intersection of clinical diagnosis, forensic evaluation, and legal accountability, focusing on executive dysfunction and impaired behavioral inhibition. We explore why an ADHD diagnosis does not automatically establish diminished criminal responsibility and how psychological evidence may inform legal proceedings. The discussion highlights the complexities of evaluating mental state, behavioral control, and rehabilitation within the justice system.

When investigators began uncovering what fertility doctor Cecil Jacobson had done to his patients, prosecutors faced an unusual problem: existing criminal laws did not neatly describe some of the most disturbing conduct. The government ultimately built its case around charges including fraud and perjury. The Jacobson case demonstrates how prosecutors sometimes have to use existing statutes to confront conduct technology and medicine have moved beyond the law.

You have probably heard the phrase “You have the right to remain silent,” but when does that right actually apply? This episode of Clinical Gavel examines the Fifth Amendment, Miranda warnings, police questioning, and why remaining silent is not always as simple as saying nothing. We also explore the psychology of police encounters and why stress, authority, and the urge to explain yourself can cause people to keep talking when silence may be the safer choice.

Can a detective falsely tell a suspect that an accomplice confessed—or claim evidence exists when it doesn’t? American courts have historically permitted some forms of deception during interrogations, but that does not mean investigators can say anything they want. This episode of Clinical Gavel examines the Supreme Court case Frazier v. Cupp, the voluntariness rule, and the line between deception and an unlawfully coerced confession.

Can a detective falsely tell a suspect that an accomplice confessed—or claim evidence exists when it doesn’t? American courts have historically permitted some forms of deception during interrogations, but that does not mean investigators can say anything they want. This episode of Clinical Gavel examines the Supreme Court case Frazier v. Cupp, the voluntariness rule, and the line between deception and an unlawfully coerced confession.

Investigate the case of Christina Marie Chapman, who operated a “laptop farm” from her homes in Minnesota and Arizona, enabling North Korean IT operatives to steal U.S. identities, secure remote jobs at over 300 American companies, and generate more than $17 million for the DPRK regime.
This episode details the mechanics of the scheme—stolen identities, hosted company laptops, and cross-border shipments—while examining modern identity laundering and the challenges of enforcing digital sovereignty in a remote-work era.
Essential listening for cybersecurity professionals, national security analysts, corporate risk officers, legal experts, and anyone concerned with the intersection of economic espionage, sanctions evasion, and the vulnerabilities created by distributed workforces.

In April 2026, the Nebraska Supreme Court issued a landmark indefinite suspension against attorney Greg Lake, marking a shift from mere financial sanctions to career-altering discipline for AI misuse. This episode deconstructs the "Failure of Candor" that led to his downfall. We move past the 57 hallucinated citations to the courtroom confrontation where Lake initially blamed a broken computer and a wedding anniversary for the errors. We discuss why the court found his explanation "lacked credibility" and what this means for the Model Rules of Professional Conduct in a world where AI-generated fabrications are becoming a weekly occurrence in the docket

In this episode, we examine Riggins v. Nevada (1992), a landmark Supreme Court case addressing whether the state can forcibly administer antipsychotic medication to a criminal defendant awaiting trial. The Court ruled that while forced medication is not categorically prohibited, the state must demonstrate it is medically appropriate and the least restrictive means of achieving competency for trial. The decision protects the defendant’s due process rights and the integrity of the adversarial process by ensuring a defendant can present a defense as themselves, not as a pharmacologically altered version shaped by the state.

A forensic psychology and criminal law podcast analyzing “roid rage,” anabolic steroid effects on the brain, and how courts evaluate mens rea (criminal intent), voluntary intoxication, and legal responsibility in violent crime cases. This episode breaks down the intersection of neuroscience, behavioral evidence, and legal standards, featuring high-profile cases like Oscar Pistorius and legal precedents such as People v. Hood and R v. Kingston to examine why steroid defenses often fail in court. Designed for audiences interested in true crime, white collar crime, legal analysis, and clinical psychology, this content targets people who like topics such as criminal defense strategy, expert witness testimony, mental state defenses, and the psychology of violent offenders.