Whether you’re interested in criminal law or just want to know how timing can make or break a case, this episode delivers answers in a way that’s both accessible and engaging.

Welcome back to Lawyer Talk! In this episode, host Steve Palmer and law student Troy Henricksen dive into a thought-provoking legal question from a listener: Can someone file charges seven years after an incident occurred?

The conversation explores the complexities of statutes of limitations, who can actually bring criminal charges, and why delayed justice is such a tricky subject.

Along the way, Steve Palmer and Troy Henricksen break down the differences between civil and criminal cases, how exceptions work for serious crimes like murder and rape, and the challenges that come with bringing old cases to court.

Here are 3 key takeaways from their discussion:

1. Statutes of Limitations Matter: Most criminal charges must be filed within a specific time frame set by law. For example, in Ohio, most felonies carry a 6-year limitation, but serious crimes like murder or some types of sexual assault may have no limit at all.
2. Discovery of the Crime is Key: The clock doesn't always start ticking when the crime happens. Sometimes, it starts when the crime is discovered or should have been reasonably discovered—especially true for cases involving hidden offenses like fraud.
3. Defendants’ Rights Are Still Protected: Even if a case is technically timely, defense attorneys can argue that a long delay in prosecution causes unfair prejudice—like lost evidence or missing witnesses—which can become a powerful part of the defense.

Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!

Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.

Recorded at Channel 511.

Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.

Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.

He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.

Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.

For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense.

Copyright 2026 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

Mentioned in this episode:

Circle 270 Media Podcast Consultants

Circle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

Whether you’re curious about your rights or the risks that come with carving out exceptions for police actions, this episode is packed with insights on why these lines matter and how the legal landscape is always evolving.

Welcome back to Lawyer Talk! Host Steve Palmer gets into the tug-of-war between individual rights and police authority, exploring what the government can and can't do when it comes to entering your home.

Using a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Case v. Montana, as a springboard, Steve Palmer walks us through the facts—an emergency police entry and its Fourth Amendment implications—including how courts have wrestled with exceptions like the "caretaker doctrine" and "exigent circumstances."

Ever wondered what really protects you from warrantless searches, or how emergencies play out in real life versus the courtroom? This conversation blends real-world scenarios, legal precedent, and the philosophical debates that underlie our constitutional protections.

Moments

03:39 "Emergency Aid Standard Established"

07:29 Balancing Safety and Legal Boundaries

09:49 "Nuanced Support for Police"

14:00 "Inventory Searches and Legal Limits"

15:45 "Legal Dilemma: Dual Intent"

Key Takeaways:

1. Emergency Exceptions Are Expanding: The Supreme Court now upholds police entry into homes without warrants if there’s an “objectively reasonable” basis to believe someone inside needs emergency assistance. This broadens what counts as exigent circumstances under the Fourth Amendment.
2. The Risk of Abuse: Steve Palmer highlights real concerns about this ruling opening the door for potential misuse, with police possibly leveraging emergency exceptions to search without proper cause.
3. Balancing Safety and Rights: While saving lives is critical, it’s equally necessary to monitor police activity and ensure constitutional rights are protected. The ongoing evolution of these legal standards means scrutiny and debate are more important than ever.

Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!

Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.

Recorded at Channel 511.

Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.

Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.

He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.

Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.

For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense.

Copyright 2026 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

Mentioned in this episode:

Circle 270 Media Podcast...

If you want to understand not just the headlines but the gritty realities of law, training, and police accountability, this episode is a must-listen.

Welcome back to Lawyer Talk! In this special panel episode, “Minnesota ICE,” Steve Palmer brings together a powerhouse group of voices to dig deep into the complexities of police use of force, especially when officers are confronted with split-second decisions involving moving vehicles. Joining Steve Palmer at the table are veteran law enforcement officer Eric Delbert, renowned police defense attorney Mark Collins, and civil rights litigator Dave Goldstein—each bringing decades of experience, unique perspectives, and real-world insights to an issue captivating national attention.

The discussion kicks off with reflections on high-profile cases, including the recent Minnesota shooting involving a federal ICE agent and the local Franklin County officer Connor Grubb, whose prosecution highlighted how perspectives can shift based on the facts known to police at the time of a critical incident. The group navigates the legal frameworks that govern use of force, the importance of training, the shifting public attitudes toward police authority, and the ways grand juries and media narratives influence outcomes before all the facts are in.

You will hear candid opinions about grand jury secrecy, the impact of recent protests on police morale and recruitment, and robust debate over qualified immunity for officers and public officials. Throughout the episode, the panel emphasizes the need for thorough investigations, transparency, and legal guidance, all while maintaining a commitment to justice—no matter who is sitting at the defense or the prosecution table.

Pull up a seat and join the conversation as Lawyer Talk takes you beyond the soundbites and into the heart of the issues shaping law enforcement and civil rights today.

Top 3 takeaways for fellow legal professionals, law enforcement, and anyone passionate about justice:

1. Officers’ Use of Force is Complex: The legal standard for police use of deadly force is built around the reasonable officer standard—not civilian self-defense. It’s shaped by landmark cases like Graham v. Connor, demanding juries step into an officer’s shoes, considering split-second perceptions and training, not just “what would you do?”
2. Obey Now, Challenge Later: The panel reinforced—no matter how tense or unjust a police interaction may feel—comply in the moment, challenge in court. Civil rights and justice are far better protected and remedied after the fact, rather than escalating roadside confrontations.
3. The Need for Clarity & Transparency: Ohio (and the nation) desperately needs clearer jury instructions and legal guidance in police shooting cases. As Mark Collins pointed out, inconsistency across courts and shifting grand jury protocols put officers, victims, and the justice process on unsteady ground. Transparent, thorough investigations and communication with the public can help restore trust.

Moments

00:00 Commitment to Truth and Accountability

08:48 "Officer's Response to Threat"

13:29 Reasonable Officer Perspective Explained

20:14 "Compliance with Police Orders"

23:39 "Comply Now, Address Later"

26:36 Police Recruitment and Accountability Challenges

36:20 Polarized Reactions to Minnesota Case

41:23 Body Cam Perspective Sparks Debate

50:33 "Unexplained Noise in Basement"

56:26 Assessing Threats and Justification

01:02:12 "Justice, Pressure, and Settlements"

01:06:29 "1890 Case: Federal Immunity Standard"

01:12:25...