Podcast on Social Justice Lawyering Forum

[pgs2q7]

Had missed these, thanks!

[serviceroadspodcast]

Just wanna plug again and say that we uploaded 4 new episodes:

Edgar Saldivar of ACLU speaks to us about the litigation surrounding SB4.

James King of the Public Defender Service in DC shares the story of the wrongful conviction that forced him out of the NFL, and how he used that experience to obtain his J.D. and provide quality representation to indigent clients.

Will Snowden of the Orleans Public Defenders talks about The Juror Project, an organization he founded in order to ensure that juries are actually representative of the community at large.

Alec Karakatsanis of CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS speaks to us about the lawsuits his organization has filed against municipalities engaging in unconstitutional cash-bail practices.

www.serviceroadspodcast.com

Also, we're now up to #5 (as of this post) in Government & Organizations on iTunes. We would really appreciate anyone who is willing to take the time to leave us a review and subscribe to future episodes.

Take care!

[2807]

@milksteak: Quigley is a great dude, and he has a phenomenal outlook on how to approach his work. We really appreciate the kind words and we hope you'll enjoy some of our upcoming episodes.

@cavalier1138: Totally agree that it's not productive to any cause when you say "there's only one way to do it." I don't think that's our guests' message at all, but I suppose we could do a better job making sure it's not taken that way. I'd like to ask what specific guest you're referring to. Or are we the ones who clearly don't give a flying f***?

@2807: The top 3 things that are wrong with our position? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Let's take the example of Anthony Graves: What are the top 3 things that are problematic with the position that an innocent man should not be convicted of murder? I'm not sure, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Is that an actual topic of your show?
I believe we all agree an innocent man should not be convicted of murder. Who is your audience for this?
Your example is too simplistic. It is also not the argument made in an appeal.
Also, people are not found “innocent” they are found “not guilty”
A defendant can later file a motion to be found factually innocent, but they don’t. For a reason.

The specifics of evidentary arguments or trial matters of law are where the analysis is for this.
Give me some specifics, and I’ll see what I can do. Most claims of “innocent man convicted” are built around bad evidence.
I have no problem with analyzing evidence and seeing if a problem exists.
But that comes with the corresponding analysis to see if culpability exists.
Can your show do both?

I suspect there are two sides to those arguments and your podcast likely supports one.
My point is that I hope you acknowledge the other arguments and the reasonable debate.
Then, you will educate the listener, as opposed to selling them a world view.
Balance. We seem to missing that in the world lately.

It’s not easy.
Can you do it?