Next Witness...Please

America’s True Crime Fix: Why We Can’t Look Away from Real-Life Tragedy

We live in an era where our dinner conversations are often dominated by the darkest corners of the human psyche, as society remains endlessly gripped by the world’s most chilling true crime cases. Why are we so occupied with reality television and the popularity of true crime shows when our current news headlines are full of real-life and real-time legal dramas of national proportion? Next Witness…Please decided to explore this question with one of the leading producers of true crime/reality television. Jack Cole is an executive producer, documentary filmmaker and write behind some of the most popular reality and true crime series, including Suddenly Amish on HBO’s Max and The Curious Case Of… series on Prime. He breaks down for our audience, how cases are found to portray, and walks us through his thought processes in editing reality and true crime programming. Many critics say that reality television is staged and acted pursuant to scripts. However, Cole assures us there are no scripts and that “reality tv is more real than not.” Cole also discusses why, we as a culture are so “uniquely at home” with stories of tragedy and strife. Why are we innately curious? He compares our reactions as being the same as when we “rubberneck” to see the details of a vehicular accident we may pass on the highway. We want to see the destruction and sometimes the carnage. We also are intrigued with other people’s travails and tragedies. He says we, as individuals, can either identify with a person in trauma or be thankful that we are not experiencing the same in our lives or both. Cole does not see the popularity of true crime or reality shows abating any time soon. Most people’s lives are tough, and we are often looking for a way to escape into someone else’s trauma, he says.

Trump’s Civil Service Shakeup Reaches a Breaking Point

President Donald Trump’s attack on federal civil service workers continues and is about to hit a new crescendo. For two terms Trump has been targeting some federal civil service workers trying to take them out of civil service protections and make them employees “at will.” This allows for political appointees, patronage, and quick hiring and firing of top-ranking federal workers without civil service procedures. It also makes the federal workforce totally loyal to one person, Trump, its leader. Trump did this by Executive Order in 2020, but that order was repealed by President Joseph Biden in 2021. On Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2025, Trump reissued his original order from 2020. Trump’s federal Office of Personnel Management, then in Feb. 2026, issued a final order titled “Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service” which formerly reclassifies nearly 50,000 workers out of the civil service on March 8. Dr. Stephen Goldman, psychiatrist, author, and historian along with being a person who spent years as a product safety and risk management expert and regulator for the Food and Drug Administration, joins Next Witness…Please to critique this new development. Dr. Goldman argues that the federal government has relied on a robust civil service since the 19th century. He fears that true federal experts, who are not politically aligned, will now be stripped of civil service protections and replaced by less qualified political appointees. Dr. Goldman also joins retired judges Gayle Williams Byers and Thomas Hodson to discuss the numerous federal lawsuits that have been filed to stop this transition. They also examine the parallel case of Trump v. Cook that awaits a Supreme Court decision this spring. That case, although not directly on point, will give politicians and legal experts a precedent for how much authority the President has to fire “inferior officers without traditional civil service protections.”

Federal Sentencing Guidelines Explained: What They Are and How Judges Use Them

One often hears the term “sentencing guidelines” when following a federal criminal case. But what are they and how do they work? The guidelines are for federal judges to use in sentencing defendants convicted of federal crimes so there is some consistency from court to court across the country, says John R. Mitchell, award-winning attorney in the Taft Law Firm’s Compliance, Investigations, White-Collar Defense and Commercial litigation practices. The guidelines are established by the U.S. Sentencing Commission consisting of lawyers, judges, and legal scholars. The guidelines also are reviewed periodically by the commission to see if any of the guidelines need to be changed. The guidelines are intended to provide fairness and consistency, to reduce disparities by preventing arbitrary or biased sentencing, to provide transparency for the public, and to give judges some structure in fashioning the right sentence. The guidelines originally were mandatory but since 1987 they have become advisory to judges. This flexibility allows judges some discretion in sentencing convicted individuals. Attorney Mitchell explains, in depth, on this edition of Next Witness…Please the key components of the guidelines. A judge must first consider the seriousness of the offense considering the nature of the crime, whether a weapon was used, and the harm to the victim. Secondly, a judge must consider the defendant’s criminal history – whether the defendant has a past criminal record. Finally, a judge must look at a Sentencing Table or Sentencing Grid. This table takes into consideration the offense level and the criminal history of the defendant to arrive at a recommended sentence of prison, fines, or probation. The use of sentencing guidelines by the prosecution and the defense, often creates incentives for a negotiated guilty plea in a matter – with sentencing recommendations to the judge. That often avoids a trial Mitchell says. Some states have sentencing guidelines for state crimes but not all.

Ohio Lawmakers Target Judge Over Social Media Posts, Raising Judicial Free Speech Concerns

Judges, both federal and state, are increasingly under attack and are becoming targets of abuse and even violence from citizens and politicians alike. Sometimes, state legislatures target judges for punishment for First Amendment speech. One such case is happening in Ohio. On Oct. 21, two members of the Ohio House filed a joint resolution demanding that a Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Municipal Court judge resign immediately or be brought before the General Assembly for impeachment proceedings. Judge Ted N. Berry is being targeted for his social media comments after the death of conservative leader Charlie Kirk. Judge Berry is the son of the first African American Mayor of Cincinnati. Adam Mathews (R-Lebanon) and DJ Swearingen (R-Huron) claim that Judge Berry made inappropriate comments. They site three.: First, “So, a white guy killed him! Color it KARMA.” Second, “Rest in Hatred & Division!” and finally “How’s he feel about gun violence and gun control in Hell, now?” Matthews and Swearingen claim that these statements show a clear “personal bias or prejudice” and therefore, Judge Berry should be removed from the bench. This legislative action bypasses the usual disciplinary processes conducted and managed by the Ohio Supreme Court and makes this whole free speech issue political. Sponsor testimony was given to the resolution in the House General Government Committee on Nov. 4, but no further action has been taken. Some observers see this resolution as a political stunt to silence judges since Judge Berry’s term of office ends on Jan. 4, 2026. This edition of Next Witness…Please examines this legislative action and other attempts to curtail the free speech rights of judges and to target them if they do not follow the conservative path.

The Hit List: Trump’s DOJ Accused of Political Retribution

As President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to target his political foes with criminal indictments, the topic of vindictive prosecutions is making headlines. Currently the judicial landscape is strewn with cases against former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Lettia James, former National Security Advisor John Bolton and others less well known. Special grand juries are being formed to investigate former President Barrack Obama’s officials and other so-called “enemies” of President Trump. Others on the “hit list” are former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Adam Schiff of California, former FBI Director Christopher Wray, Congressman Eric Swalwell and more. The list seems endless. Normally successfully claiming “vindictive prosecution” is difficult because defendants must prove genuine animus against them by the prosecution. However, in the case involving Comey, he is attacking the issue of vindictive prosecution at four levels. First, he is saying that his prosecutor Lindsey Halligan was not properly appointed and is holding her office illegally. Secondly, he claims that there were grievous errors committed by current FBI agents in testifying before the grand jury and divulging privileged information. Third, Comey claims that Trump literally ordered his prosecution through various social media posts that were made public by Trump. Therefore, Comey was targeted. And finally, it has been discovered that newly appointed prosecutor Halligan never showed the final indictment to the entire grand jury which is required. She just had the foreperson sign the indictment in a rush to get charges filed before the statute of limitations ran out against Comey. On this episode of the podcast Next Witness…Please, retired judges Gayle Williams-Byers and Thomas Hodson make the whole concept of vindictive prosecutions understandable. They delve into what the various federal judges must consider in making their decisions and specifically look in-depth at the allegations of vindictiveness in the Comey case.