Getting Off

Jessa and Nick talk about the cross-examination of Dousey in the Melgar trial.  If Jessa had to use song lyrics to describe how she reacted to this cross, it would be borrowed from Eminem.  "I can't tell you what it really is/I can only tell you what it feels like." Sponsor: Hello Fresh Note to regular listeners: We know that we're taking a long time on this case. We have a punch line, we promise.  Stick with us. For non-regular listeners: we hope the deep dive is useful to understanding what the actual trial record looked like in this case.

We're getting into the thick of it now! Jessa and Nick continue with the Sandra Melgar case, and Jessa has a series of total freakouts about the inadequacy of the record.

Nick and Jessa are trapped in the closet of the Melgar prosecution.  They make some jokes about that, but they're mostly trying to talk about prosecution witnesses.  Also, dogs.

Jessa and Nick talk about the first three witnesses called by the prosecution in the Melgar case and give commentary on their impressions of the trial so far.

Jessa and Nick discuss the opening statements and case theories from both the prosecution and the defense in the Melgar case.

Nick and Jessa are diving into a controversial case that has gotten a lot of publicity recently.  Here's our introduction with primers on how we define "direct" and "circumstantial" evidence, and discuss what we hope to add to the conversation.

Yeah, okay, the episode title pun was a stretch.  But this is the meat and potatoes discussion of the seriously important amicus brief the Michigan AG wrote in opposition to the constitutionality of Michigan's sex offender registration laws.

We're off to....Michigan?  (Jessa's home state!) Jessa and Nick start to discuss the incredible amicus brief written by the Michigan Attorney General regarding sex offender registration.  This is one of two parts, with the bulk of this episode explaining some legal concepts like the ex post facto clause, and then the very beginning of the substantive discussion of the brief.  Part two will come out Wednesday, and will conclude the substantive discussion of the brief and also captures what is slowly becoming "classic" Jessa ranting.

Nick and Jessa conclude their discussion of US v. Rahmen, including thoughts on the tension between proof beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial and "character of the offender" considerations at sentencing.

Jessa and Nick continue to discuss the Feras Rahmen case.

Nick and Jessa get caught with the fire bug and discuss a Wisconsin arson case.

What happens if someone is convicted of a crime but wants to erase their criminal history? Is that a thing?  Jessa and Nick talk about the confusing world (and semantics) of expungement.

Jessa and Nick conclude their discussion of the Troy Davis case.  Yes, Jessa suggested she would put a link to something in the show notes.  No, she does not currently remember what that thing was.

Nick and Jessa (finally) get to the case that has them waxing philosophic...Troy Davis.

Jessa and Nick conclude their discussion of the common arguments for and against the death penalty, and share their personal opinions.

Jessa and Nick continue to go pro vs con on the common arguments about the death penalty.

Nick and Jessa talk about the death penalty, specifically, the history behind capital punishment.  They also start to debate the common arguments for and against the death penalty, generally.

Nick and Jessa talk about the third and final trial of David Camm.

Nick and Jessa discuss the extremely bad rulings that resulted in the second conviction of David Camm.

Jessa and Nick talk about the first trial of David Camm.