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.

In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down the move nobody saw coming in the Luigi Mangione case: there will be no federal trial. Instead of the two trials everyone was waiting for, on August 14 Mangione pleaded guilty in federal court to the stalking-resulting-in-death charges — an open plea to the court, with no plea deal — and his lawyers immediately used that conviction to attack the New York murder case as double jeopardy.

Monica and Brandon walk through how it happened: the plea deal report that prosecutors shut down, what an open plea actually is and how federal plea practice differs from state court, and the carefully scripted allocution — the 3D-printed gun and suppressor, posing as an investor managing more than $50 billion to find UnitedHealthcare's investor conference, admitting he traveled to New York intending to shoot Brian Thompson, and tying his motive to his own experience with the healthcare system. Then why all that detail was the point: double jeopardy requires the same act, and the allocution erased any ambiguity. It's a calculated risk, because if the motion fails, his own words get used against him. The federal guidelines land between 24 and 30 years, the government is seeking life, and sentencing is set for December.

From a criminal defense perspective, they dig into the statute doing the work: New York's criminal procedure law bars separate prosecutions for the same act or criminal transaction — broader than the dual sovereignty rule they covered in Part 1, and triggered only by a conviction, which is exactly what the guilty plea created. They debate the exception that will decide the motion — whether stalking and murder are statutes designed to prevent "very different kinds of harm or evil" — through their own Florida stalking and injunction practice, cover the defense's due process argument that the prosecutions were sequenced to maximize punishment, and lay out the stakes: a potentially consecutive 25-to-life state sentence versus a single federal sentence and getting out in his 50s. Plus the supporters who were already a jury problem, and the hosts' split verdict: Monica is rooting for him to see daylight, while Brandon, the former prosecutor, can't get past the family who never gets their dad back.

Topics covered in this episode include: the Luigi Mangione guilty plea, open pleas, federal versus state plea practice, the allocution, the federal stalking resulting in death charges, New York's double jeopardy statute and dual sovereignty, the motion to dismiss the New York murder case, the "very different kinds of harm or evil" exception, stalking law and injunctions in Florida, the due process sequencing argument, federal sentencing guidelines, the December sentencing, the Pennsylvania case still pending, the Mangione supporters and the jury problem, and the smartest strategic plea they've covered.

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!

In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down where the Luigi Mangione case actually stands as his murder trials approach — separating what the internet believes from what is really happening in court.
Mangione is charged in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, gunned down on a Manhattan sidewalk in one of the most polarizing prosecutions in America. He faces state murder and weapons charges in New York plus federal interstate stalking counts — and the landscape has shifted: the death penalty is off the table after the judge dismissed the death-eligible counts and the government declined to appeal, and the once-headline terrorism charge is gone too. Monica and Brandon explain dual sovereignty, why being prosecuted by the feds and the state for the same act is not double jeopardy, and which case carries the bigger risk now.
From a criminal defense perspective, they walk through the suppression rulings that reshaped the case: the backpack contents and key statements thrown out because of how eight officers surrounded him in a McDonald's — and the ghost gun, suppressor, and notebook the government calls a manifesto that stayed in. They cover when Miranda actually kicks in, the $1.5 million donated defense fund and its jury-image problem, the Free Luigi movement, and the very real talk of jury nullification when a defendant has a fan base.
Topics covered in this episode include: the Luigi Mangione case update, the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, state murder charges and federal interstate stalking charges, why the death penalty is off the table, dual sovereignty and double jeopardy explained, the McDonald's arrest and when Miranda rights kick in, suppressed evidence versus the ghost gun and manifesto, the Free Luigi movement and the donated defense fund, jury selection and jury nullification, and the criminal defense perspective on fighting two prosecutions at once.
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!

In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down Part 2 of the Lindsay Clancy trial: the defense case in chief, the commonwealth's rebuttal experts, the closing arguments, and the deadlocked jury — recorded live on verdict watch, with a jury note landing just as the episode wrapped.
The defense built its case on experts. Dr. Paul Zeisel, the clinical and forensic psychologist who saw Lindsay within days of the killings and became her treating psychologist, delivered the money quote: she was unable to conform her behavior to the requirements of the law and had no appreciation for the wrongfulness of her act. Dr. Phillip Resnick — the country's leading expert on filicide and malingering — testified by Zoom that she was frankly psychotic at the time of the killings, like a puppet with someone else pulling the strings, and that standardized malingering testing showed she was minimizing her symptoms, not exaggerating them. A psychopharmacologist walked through the 13 medications and the missed signs of postpartum psychosis, a forensic pathologist legitimized the suicide attempt the state called performative and compressed the timeline, and the lay witnesses — her mother, her sister, and her former mother-in-law, who testified she was an excellent mother who was clearly sick — put a family's grief on the defense side of the courtroom. Plus the hospital chaplain who heard about the voices before any defense doctor ever did.
Monica and Brandon explain the Massachusetts criminal responsibility standard — cognitive or volitional, and the commonwealth's burden to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt, a minority rule nationally — then dig into the state's rebuttal experts, who contradicted each other's diagnoses, and the mic-drop moment when the defense read the prosecution's own opening statement to the state's final expert, who admitted it really minimizes what she was going through. From a criminal defense perspective, they break down both closings — the quarters on the prosecution's table, the family photographs, the "broken toys" line the state left the jury with — the three verdict slips and the lesser included offenses, and the Tuey-Rodriguez "dynamite" charge that reminds a deadlocked jury the burden sits entirely on the commonwealth. Then they each give their own verdict — and they don't match.
Topics covered in this episode include: the Lindsay Clancy trial verdict watch, the defense case in chief, not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder, the filicide and malingering experts, altruistic filicide, the MMPI malingering test, the 13 medications and the missed diagnoses, the compressed timeline, the ex-mother-in-law and chaplain testimony, the commonwealth's conflicting rebuttal experts, the mistrial motion over religious testimony, closing argument strategy and theatrics, the verdict slips and lesser included offenses, the Tuey-Rodriguez dynamite charge versus Florida's Allen charge, hung juries and what happens after a mistrial, and the criminal defense perspective on whether the state met its burden.
This is a heavy episode about mental illness, postpartum psychosis, and suicide. If you or someone you love is struggling, call or text 988, the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.
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, criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down Part 1 of the Lindsay Clancy trial: the state's case in chief, how the insanity defense actually works, and the question at the center of it all — was she criminally responsible?
Lindsay Clancy, a 36-year-old labor and delivery nurse, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the January 2023 deaths of her three young children at their Massachusetts home. Nobody disputes that she caused their deaths — this trial is about criminal responsibility: whether postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder, worsened by a cascade of psychiatric medications, left her unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or conform it to the law. Monica and Brandon explain how the insanity defense works in Massachusetts — once the defense raises it, the commonwealth must prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt — and why pleading it is anything but risk-free: it requires the client's actual consent, because the outcome is either prison or potentially decades in a psychiatric institution.
They walk through the commonwealth's 14-day, 71-witness case piece by piece: the digital forensics timeline built from Apple Watch data and internet searches, the takeout order and CVS run the state says was a plan to get her husband out of the house, the providers who testified she showed no psychosis at 20-minute telehealth visits, the toxicology report, and the state's claim that a suicide attempt that left her paralyzed was contrived. From a criminal defense perspective, they call out what worked, what backfired — playing the 911 call, the jury view of the house, the courtroom theatrics — and the strategic gamble they cannot explain: the state resting its case in chief without a single mental health expert. Plus the motion for a required finding of not guilty, the mistrial motion, and why closings — and maybe a verdict — are just days away. Part 2 covers the defense case, the rebuttal, and the verdict.
Topics covered in this episode include: the Lindsay Clancy trial in Massachusetts, three counts of first-degree murder, postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder, the insanity defense and criminal responsibility, who really bears the burden of proof, Apple Watch data and digital forensics evidence, premeditation versus psychosis, HIPAA and why her medical records became fair game, the state's no-expert gamble, the contrived suicide argument, the 911 call and courtroom theatrics, the required finding of not guilty motion, the mistrial motion, and the criminal defense perspective on trying a mental health case.
This is a heavy episode about mental illness, postpartum psychosis, and suicide. If you or someone you love is struggling, call or text 988, the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.
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!

In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down Michael Jackson: The Verdict, the Netflix docuseries revisiting the 2005 Michael Jackson trial, and the criminal defense strategy that ended in a full acquittal on every count.
The 2005 trial put the biggest star on the planet in front of a California jury on child molestation and conspiracy charges. After a trial that dominated worldwide media coverage, Michael Jackson was acquitted on every count. With the Netflix docuseries reigniting the debate and the billion-dollar Michael biopic bringing a new generation into the story, Monica and Brandon look at what actually happened inside that courtroom, not what the headlines said — including the cross-examination where a key witness swore by a magazine printed years after he ever saw Jackson.
From a criminal defense perspective, they examine how the defense dismantled the prosecution's case through the accuser family's credibility problems, why superfans lying their way onto celebrity juries is a real risk, and how reasonable doubt works when public opinion has already convicted the defendant. Then they turn to the fight that is still alive: Wade Robson and James Safechuck's civil lawsuit against Jackson's companies heading to trial in 2028, why the civil burden of proof is lower, why there is no right to remain silent in a civil case, and the estate's legal war that pulled Leaving Neverland from HBO.
Topics covered in this episode include: Michael Jackson: The Verdict on Netflix, the 2005 Michael Jackson trial explained, child molestation and conspiracy charges, the cross-examination that broke a key witness, jury selection and superfans on celebrity juries, reasonable doubt and the full acquittal, the Wade Robson and James Safechuck civil lawsuit and 2028 trial, civil versus criminal burdens of proof, no Fifth Amendment in civil court, the estate's fight over Leaving Neverland, and the Michael biopic's renewed interest in the case.
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!