As President Donald Trump fends off critics of his administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking of minors’ case, new attention is swirling around Epstein’s co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted as a conspirator in 2022.
She has been interrogated for a day and a half by Trump’s former defense attorney and now Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.
She has been subpoenaed to testify before the House Oversight Committee.
She has filed a sudden appeal of her conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, and she has been transferred to a minimum-security federal prison camp in Texas as she serves her 20-year sentence for sex trafficking of minors.
At the center of this Maxwell maelstrom are legal terms that many people do not understand such as “immunity,” “limited immunity,” “absolute immunity,” “clemency,” “pardon” and “commutation.”
What do these terms mean, in everyday language?
For example, Maxwell was given “limited immunity” to talk with Deputy Attorney General Blanche.
Her defense attorney has demanded that she receive “immunity” before she testifies before Congress. And Maxwell’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court concerns whether she was immune from prosecution by an earlier Epstein agreement with the federal authorities.
Meanwhile, her attorney has said that she would cooperate fully with the government if she received “clemency” from President Trump in the form of either a “pardon” or a “commutation” of her sentence.
Retired judges Gayle Williams Byers and Thomas Hodson break down these terms into understandable bites on this episode of their podcast Next Witness…Please.
They delve into legal strategies in play and talk about what might happen as this legal drama continues to unfold.

President Donald Trump has asked Senate leadership to forego the Senate’s traditional August recess and “long weekends” to push through a series of his appointments to key federal positions.
One such nomination that is hanging in the balance is the appointment of ultra controversial Trump loyalist Emil Bove to a seat on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. That court spawned conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
Bove’s nomination highlights the ongoing battle between Trump’s administration and the federal courts.
Bove currently is the Principal Associate Attorney General and is a longtime Trump attorney who represented Trump in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case and was part of Trump’s defense team when the president was convicted of a felony.
As part of the Department of Justice, Bove has been accused of ignoring federal court orders, providing misinformation to federal judges and telling federal attorneys that they should consider saying “F… You” to the courts.
He has been accused of personally ordering three plane loads of prisoners to be deposited at the CECOT prison in El Salvador after federal judge James Boasberg ordered the planes to turn around and return to America.
Bove has reportedly advocated for policies promoting racial profiling and undermining due process rights of immigrants.
Bove also was instrumental in the Justice Department’s move to dismiss corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
He is a former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York where his management style and temper were challenged by colleagues and opponents alike.
Bove has no judicial experience whatsoever but is rumored to be on a fast track for the next nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. He also is not an experienced litigator in federal appellate courts.
On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams Byers and Thomas Hodson unveil the judicial appointment process and dig deep into Bove’s controversial nomination.

“Next Witness…Please” examines the bill that could turn abortion into homicide—and voters into bystanders.
You might have thought that abortion rights were safe in Ohio after the Ohio Reproductive Freedom amendment to the Ohio Constitution was passed by 57 percent of the vote in 2023.
But think again.
In mid-June, House Bill 370, the Ohio Prenatal Equal Protection Act was introduced in the Ohio General Assembly. Its intent is to “entirely abolish abortion in this state.”
It does so by establishing that when a woman’s egg is fertilized that it then becomes a “pre-born person” entitled to all the federal constitutional protections provided a person once born.
The bill’s supporters say that Fourteenth Amendment protections of the U.S. Constitution would wipe out the Ohio Constitutional amendment legalizing abortion.
In short, an abortion would be considered a homicide by the mother, the doctor who performed the abortion, and anyone who advised the mother to be to get an abortion.
The proposed bill outlaws all abortion, even in the cases of rape or incest. There are only two exceptions: a spontaneous miscarriage and a life-saving emergency of the mother.
On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Thomas Hodson and Gayle-Williams Byers dive deeply into this bill and examine its potential ramifications – not only for Ohio but for the nation.
They also discuss the impact this bill, if passed, would have on democracy – given the recent overwhelming passage of the Reproductive Freedom Amendment in Ohio.
Additionally, they examine hypotheticals about how far ranging this proposed statute might be.

After two trials and months of gripping testimony, a Massachusetts jury has acquitted Karen Read of second-degree murder and manslaughter in the death of her boyfriend, Boston police officer John O’Keefe.
In a case that drew national attention—fueled in part by a Netflix documentary—Read was found guilty only of driving under the influence. Her sentence: one year of probation.
Prosecutors argued that after a night of heavy drinking, Read struck O’Keefe with the rear of her SUV outside a friend’s home, then left him injured in a blizzard, where he died from exposure.
But Read’s defense told a very different story—one of police missteps, flawed forensics, and a possible coverup. They raised the specter O’Keefe was harmed inside the house and that fellow officers framed Read to protect one of their own.
Jurors told Boston media the prosecution simply failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
This was Read’s second trial. The first ended in a hung jury last summer.
On this episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson break down the legal complexities behind the verdict.
They explore why prosecutors retry cases after hung juries, who gains the advantage in a second trial, and how each side handled its courtroom strategy.
The judges also examine how the not-guilty verdicts may impact a pending civil wrongful death suit filed by O’Keefe’s family—and they explain the crucial differences between criminal and civil standards of proof.
Finally, Byers and Hodson consider whether Read might turn the tables by filing her own civil claims against police for a botched investigation—or even against prosecutors for malicious prosecution.

For decades, federal health regulation has been a cornerstone of America’s public well-being.
Agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have long been trusted to uphold safety standards, push the boundaries of science, conduct vital research, and operate with transparency.
But that trust is now under strain.
On this week’s episode of Next Witness…Please, guest Dr. Stephen A. Goldman issues a clear warning: a major shakeup at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) could put public health at serious risk.
Seventeen members of ACIP were abruptly removed by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., replaced with individuals reportedly aligned with his controversial views on vaccines.
Dr. Goldman, a psychiatrist, author, historian and veteran of the FDA, explores how these sweeping replacements could upend national vaccination policy, particularly amid resurgent diseases and falling immunization rates.
He also discusses a growing internal backlash within the scientific community. A group of NIH employees recently published The Bethesda Declaration: A Call for NIH and HHS Leadership to Deliver on Promises of Academic Freedom and Scientific Excellence, criticizing what they see as politicization and erosion of scientific integrity at the federal level.
The American Medical Association echoed those concerns in a forceful public statement, calling the ACIP overhaul “a blow to public trust.” It warned:
“With an ongoing measles outbreak and routine child vaccination rates declining, this move will further fuel the spread of vaccine-preventable illnesses.”
Dr. Goldman’s concerns don’t end there. He also critiques a recent announcement from the FDA, which, facing a 2,000-person staffing shortfall, plans to lean heavily on artificial intelligence to accelerate approvals of drugs and medical devices. While framed as an efficiency boost, he argues this strategy could compromise critical safety reviews and open the door to hasty, under-scrutinized decisions.

Music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs is on trial in federal court in New York, facing two sex trafficking charges, two counts of transporting individuals across state lines for sex work, and one count of racketeering conspiracy.
Testimony began May 12, with witnesses detailing wild, days-long sex parties dubbed “Freak Offs.” These allegedly took place in multiple states and involved Combs’ girlfriends, escorts, and others.
Sex trafficking charges hinge on whether force, fraud, or coercion was used to compel someone into commercial sex acts. At the heart of this trial: did Combs cross that legal line?
On the latest episode of Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson break down exactly what prosecutors must prove — and how “force” and “coercion” play out in court.
They explain these legal terms with real-world clarity and offer vivid examples to make the law understandable.
The judges also dig into the racketeering charge under RICO — a complex law requiring proof of crimes like kidnapping, bribery, fraud, or extortion as part of a criminal enterprise.
They also analyze a recent defense motion for mistrial, claiming the prosecution knowingly allowed perjured testimony. Byers and Hodson explain how they'd rule — and why.
And in a tense courtroom moment, the judge warned Combs to stop making facial reactions during testimony — or risk being barred from his own trial.

Over the last five years, we have witnessed an uptick in attorneys being disciplined for lying to courts in addition to filing frivolous lawsuits. Some have even faced criminal charges
Now, lying to the court seems to be the new normal for some U.S. Justice Department attorneys. Is this something that is expected by President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi or something that should be disciplined by the courts and bar associations?
Over the election hubbub of 2020, several noted attorneys received strict discipline.
John Eastman was disbarred in California for making false statements about the election. Rudy Guiliani was disbarred in New York and Washington D.C.
Other attorneys received disciplinary actions including Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, and Jeffrey Clark and several lawyers were indicted in Georgia for their alleged attempts to overthrow the election.
Fast-forward to 2025. In the past Justice Department attorneys had a trust factor with judges. Now, that is being squandered and erased.
According to an article in Politico, in March, four different judges challenged the veracity of government lawyers. Attorneys were chastised by judges for not speaking the truth.
In April, the situation between judges and attorneys got worse. In describing government attorney statements, judges used words like “pretextual,” “muddying the waters” and “unsubstantiated”, according to Politico.
Judges have called government attorneys unreliable and dishonest.
Besides eroding the stature of the Justice Department, will these actions bring about contempt citations against the attorneys and possibly further disciplinary actions?
Attorney honesty in court and possible disciplinary sanctions for lying are the topics of this new episode of Next Witness…Please. Retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson discuss current cases and explain the importance of attorney discipline for all to understand.

Defending white-collar crime defendants is more than just going to trial and winning. It is far more complex and complicated.
Defending is really a combination of three skills that law firms can offer to keep corporations and corporate executives safe, according to John R. Mitchell, a partner in the Taft law firm and one of the nation’s top white-collar criminal defense attorneys.
First, law firms, that specialize in defending white-collar crime, offer their clients “compliance” advice. They make sure that their clients’ policies and procedures are in accordance with voluminous state and federal laws to limit possible infractions.
Secondly, white collar crime lawyers often are called upon by corporations or corporate executives to do internal investigations if wrongdoing is suspected from other employees. This often proceeds any law enforcement investigation.
Thirdly, the lawyers defend clients who are charged in either state or federal courts with violating statutes. This can be a long and arduous process. Some of these cases take months or even years from the beginning of an investigation until a grand jury would bring an indictment and then on to trial.
White-collar defense counsel often negotiates cooperation agreements with federal agents from the inception of the investigation to gather needed evidence but also, to limit the scope of overly broad inquiries, according to Mitchell.
About 90 percent of white-collar crime cases are resolved prior to trial, but that last 10 percent mandate unique trial skills and tactics from defense counsel.
Mitchell is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers (top one percent from any state) and has been recognized as Lawyer of the Year for Criminal Defense: White-Collar by Best Lawyers in America.
He visits with retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson on this edition of Next Witness…Please and shares the ins and outs of defending white-collar crime charges from their inception up through unique aspects of trial work.
Join us on this fascinating journey.