In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down the Cornell 7 case: the new civil lawsuit against seven Cornell University fraternity brothers, the District Attorney's decision to reopen the investigation, and what the headlines are getting wrong about the law.

The case stems from the night of October 19–20, 2024, at the Chi Phi fraternity house on Cornell's campus. Jane Doe, then a 20-year-old student, alleges she arrived heavily intoxicated after a night of bar hopping, was pressured into taking ketamine, and was sexually assaulted by multiple men. Her civil complaint names the seven students, the fraternity, a sorority, the bar that allegedly served her while underage, and Cornell under Title IX. But her six-page sworn statement to police, given about three weeks after the incident, tells a very different story, and text messages reported by CBS News raise even more questions. Monica and Brandon walk through those inconsistencies and why they matter for both the criminal case and the civil lawsuit.

From a criminal defense perspective, they explain why the DA declined to prosecute in the first place. Under New York Penal Law § 130.05, voluntary intoxication does not make someone "mentally incapacitated," and the "physically helpless" theory under People v. Bjork runs into problems when the record shows she refused a proposed foursome and ended encounters herself. They also cover New York's affirmative defense that the accused didn't know the facts causing incapacity, and why this case would likely look very different under Florida's sexual battery law, where there is no origin requirement for intoxication and sex without consent alone can be a second-degree felony. Plus: delayed reporting in sexual assault cases, the beyond a reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of the evidence standard, why the civil case could still end in settlements, and the danger of labeling seven young men before any charges or findings.

Topics covered in this episode include: the Cornell 7 case explained, the Cornell fraternity lawsuit, the Chi Phi allegations, the reopened DA investigation, consent and intoxication under New York law, New York Penal Law 130, mental incapacity vs. physical helplessness, People v. Bjork, affirmative defenses in sex crime cases, Florida sexual battery law compared, Title IX and university liability, bar liability for serving an underage, visibly intoxicated customer, delayed reporting and evidence, civil vs. criminal burdens of proof, media pressure and settlements, and the criminal defense perspective on high-profile sexual assault allegations.

This episode discusses sexual assault. If you or someone you know has been affected, call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 800-656-HOPE (4673) or visit rainn.org.

Listen to Come Back with a Warrant for legal commentary, criminal defense insight, true crime breakdowns, and real conversations about the justice system. Subscribe, leave a five-star review, and sign up for our weekly newsletter for more criminal defense stories, legal insight, and unfiltered courtroom commentary.

Leave us a 5 Star Review! Follow us for legal hot takes, episode updates, and a peek into our lawyer lives.

YouTube: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Podcast

Instagram: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod

TikTok: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod

Find us everywhere and join the conversation!

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, Monica and Brandon break down the Sean "Diddy" Combs federal trial — the RICO conspiracy and sex trafficking case that ended with one of the most surprising verdicts in recent memory. The government charged the music mogul under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a statute built to take down mob bosses who order crimes without pulling the trigger themselves. So how did a case with hotel surveillance video, thousands of bottles of baby oil, and cooperating witnesses end in acquittal on the biggest counts?

Monica and Brandon explain how RICO actually works — the criminal enterprise, the pattern of racketeering activity, the enumerated predicate crimes, and why "someone always flips" in these prosecutions. Then they walk through the five counts against Combs: RICO conspiracy, two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion involving accusers Cassie Ventura and "Jane," and two Mann Act counts for transporting people across state lines for the so-called freak-offs. The jury convicted on the two Mann Act transportation counts only — acquitting Diddy of racketeering and sex trafficking outright. The hosts give their unfiltered defense-attorney take: this case was greatly overcharged by the government. The infamous hotel hallway video of Combs assaulting Cassie was powerful evidence of domestic battery — but domestic battery is not racketeering, and the jury saw the difference. The entire case turned on the line between consent and coercion, and the government couldn't carry its burden.

The conversation also covers the defense strategy from attorneys including Brian Steele, the 50 Cent Netflix documentary and whether it made a stronger case than the prosecution did, the uncharged allegations like the Kid Cudi car arson, the history stretching back to Tupac and Biggie, and what cross-examining accusers in a case like this really looks like from the defense table. Finally, they dig into the appeal: Combs's lawyers argue the judge unconstitutionally relied on acquitted conduct — the very coercion allegations the jury rejected — to drive up his sentence. If the appeal wins, what's the remedy, and could Diddy be out in just a few years? And why did he lose so badly in the court of public opinion while winning in the courtroom?

Topics covered in this episode include: the Diddy verdict explained, RICO charges and how federal racketeering prosecutions work, sex trafficking law and the meaning of force, fraud, or coercion, the Mann Act and transportation charges, the Cassie hotel video as evidence, consent versus coercion at trial, federal overcharging by prosecutors, cooperating witnesses and why co-conspirators flip, sentencing based on acquitted conduct, the federal appeals process, and the difference between a legal verdict and the court of public opinion.

Leave us a 5 Star Review! Follow us for legal hot takes, episode updates, and a peek into our lawyer lives.

YouTube: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Podcast

Instagram: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod

TikTok: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod Find us everywhere and join the conversation!

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down the latest in the Menendez brothers case: the resentencing that made Erik and Lyle Menendez parole-eligible, the parole board's denial, and what happens next.

More than three decades after the 1989 shotgun killings of Jose and Kitty Menendez in Beverly Hills, the case is moving again. In May 2025, a judge resentenced the brothers to 50 years to life, making them immediately eligible for parole under California's youthful offender law. Months later, the parole board denied both brothers. Monica and Brandon explain what the board actually weighs — risk assessments, insight, prison conduct — and why a denial is not the end of the road.

From a criminal defense perspective, they dig into the paths still open: the pending habeas petition built on new sexual abuse evidence, petitions to advance the next parole hearing, and the clemency question sitting with the governor. They also revisit how differently the abuse evidence would be treated in a courtroom today than it was in the 1990s trials, and how the Netflix series and a new generation of advocates turned a closed case into a national conversation.

Topics covered in this episode include: the Menendez brothers case in 2026, Erik Menendez and Lyle Menendez parole hearings and denials, the 2025 resentencing to 50 years to life, California's youthful offender parole law, what the parole board considers, the pending habeas petition and new abuse evidence, clemency and the governor's role, sexual abuse evidence in murder trials then and now, Netflix's Monsters and public opinion, and the criminal defense perspective on resentencing and second chances.

Listen to Come Back with a Warrant for legal commentary, criminal defense insight, true crime breakdowns, and real conversations about the justice system. Subscribe, leave a five-star review, and sign up for our weekly newsletter for more criminal defense stories, legal insight, and unfiltered courtroom commentary.

Leave us a 5 Star Review! Follow us for legal hot takes, episode updates, and a peek into our lawyer lives.

YouTube: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Podcast

Instagram: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod

TikTok: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod

Find us everywhere and join the conversation!

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.