Podcast
Closing Arguments
Hosted by John Razumich · EN
Closing Arguments is a long-form legal podcast that explores the law beyond the headlines and the courtroom drama. Hosted by Indianapolis attorney Jack Razumich of Razumich & Associates, the show examines criminal law through real cases, legal history, and the human stories that shape the justice system.
Each episode dives deep into complex legal questions — from infamous and unusual lawsuits to landmark criminal cases and Indiana-specific legal issues — offering listeners thoughtful analysis, practical insight, and candid discussion grounded in real-world experience. Rather than soundbites or sensationalism, Closing Arguments focuses on the why, the how, and the consequences behind the law.
Whether unpacking bizarre cases like suing the Devil, examining legally haunted houses, or dissecting serious criminal matters that affect lives and communities, Closing Arguments invites listeners to think critically about justice, accountability, and the limits of the legal system.
This podcast is for anyone curious about how the law actually works — not in theory, but in practice.
11episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
Why Trials Can Feel Like Gambling with Your Life
1w ago00:54:25Tap to summarizeThe right to a jury trial is one of the most fundamental protections in the American legal system.So why do so many defendants choose not to use it?In this episode of Closing Arguments, criminal defense attorney John Razumich examines a difficult and often misunderstood reality: for many people facing criminal charges, going to trial can feel less like exercising a right — and more like taking a risk.We begin with the foundation — the history and purpose of jury trials — and how shifts in the legal system over the past several decades have changed the stakes. From the expansion of law enforcement powers in the 1970s to the rise of statutes like RICO and increasingly aggressive prosecutorial strategies, the modern criminal system has evolved in ways that can dramatically impact a defendant’s decision-making.The episode then turns to real-world examples, including cases where charge stacking, severe sentencing exposure, and evidentiary concerns created enormous pressure to avoid trial altogether. These are not just legal hypotheticals — they are situations where the difference between accepting a plea and going to trial can mean decades of a person’s life.Finally, we ask the broader question: what does this mean for the justice system as a whole? Are these pressures a necessary part of maintaining order, or do they raise concerns about fairness and balance?This episode of Closing Arguments explores the intersection of rights, risk, and reality — and why the decision to go to trial is often far more complicated than it appears.Chapters:0:00 - Introduction2:15 - Busy days at Razumich & Associates3:20 - A brief history of jury trials7:28 - Rising plea agreements and mass incarceration 14:28 - The ever-changing role of the prosecutor23:45 - The case of Patrick Thompson34:12 - The case of Eli Burns43:28 - The state is in the driver's seat50:54 - How to contact Razumich & Associates53:26 - Closing remarks
Transcribe →Facts, Fear, and Force: A Legal Look at Minneapolis
Jan 2600:58:34Tap to summarizeIn this timely and careful episode of Closing Arguments, host and criminal defense attorney Jack Razumich confronts a major legal flashpoint: the fatal shooting of Renée Nicole Good by a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in Minneapolis and the broader questions it raises about self-defense, police authority, and the legal limits on force. We begin by exploring a question that is at once simple and complex: Do police officers have the same self-defense rights as everyone else? What do prosecutorial processes look like in police-involved shootings, and what immunities and challenges come into play when a federal agent uses lethal force? Razumich breaks down the legal concepts and real procedural hurdles that define how these cases unfold — often far differently than public perception. Next, we look directly at what we actually know about the Minneapolis incident — what’s confirmed, what remains unverified, and what Minnesota authorities are legally empowered to do. The fatal shot that killed Good occurred during a federal operation that has ignited protests and heightened scrutiny over law enforcement tactics, prompting calls for independent investigation even as federal agents assert a self-defense justification. We explore how these narratives intersect with legal standards and the realities of prosecuting a federal agent. Finally, we ask the hard questions: Where do we go from here? What legal pathways exist for accountability and public trust when force is used? What lessons should lawyers and laypersons alike take from this case as it continues to unfold?This episode offers a clear, grounded analysis of fear, force, and the law — without speculation, but with all the rigor and perspective you expect from Closing Arguments.Chapters:0:00 - Introduction1:34 - Self-Defense rights among law enforcement6:28 - Prosecuting during a police-involved shooting13:17 - The immunities existing for law enforcement19:04 - The shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis31:02 - What the State of Minnesota can actually do45:22 - Where do we go from here? 54:10 - Parting thoughts from an attorney57:45 - Closing remarks
Transcribe →When Self-Defense Becomes Manslaughter or Murder
Jan 1200:47:32Tap to summarizeSelf-defense is often described as a fundamental right — but in practice, it is one of the most misunderstood and narrowly defined concepts in criminal law.In this episode of Closing Arguments, Indianapolis attorney Jack Razumich takes a deep dive into the law of self-defense in Indiana, examining how doctrines like Stand Your Ground, Castle Doctrine, and no duty to retreat actually function inside a courtroom — not just in theory, but in real cases with real consequences.The discussion begins by breaking down the legal foundations of self-defense: what the law requires, how “reasonable force” is evaluated, and why a claim of justification does not guarantee immunity from prosecution.From there, the episode analyzes two recent Indiana cases with starkly different outcomes:State of Indiana v. Curt Andersen, arising from a fatal shooting through a door in Whitestown, Indiana, resulting in a manslaughter charge.State of Indiana v. Maclean Murt, stemming from a confrontation at a Fishers bar that led to a murder charge.Why was one case charged as manslaughter and the other as murder? What role did context, perceived threat, proportional force, and decision-making play in each outcome?This episode explores where self-defense ends, where criminal liability begins, and why invoking self-defense is often far more complex — and far riskier — than people realize.Chapters:0:00 - Introduction2:40 - The law of self-defense in Indiana7:54 - "Standing your ground" and the "castle doctrine"15:58 - State of Indiana v. Curt Andersen22:21 - Andersen's argument and claim of self-defense28:47 - The law doesn't recommend warning shots34:41 - The claims made in State of Indiana v. Maclean Murt42:49 - Making critical decisions in a split second 46:05 - Closing remarks
Transcribe →Suing Satan and Selling Ghosts: When the Law Meets the Supernatural
Oct 2200:41:01Tap to summarizeIn this spine-tinged installment of Closing Arguments, we step into the courtroom where logic meets the unexplainable.First up: Gerald Mayo vs. Satan and His Staff — the bizarre 1971 case where one man literally tried to sue the Devil. What drove him to file the lawsuit, and what did the courts have to say about it? More importantly, what does this strange filing reveal about the boundaries of law and belief?Then, we travel to Nyack, New York, home of the only legally haunted house in America. In Stambovsky vs. Ackley, a homebuyer discovered his dream home came with… ghosts. The ruling from this case reshaped how property law deals with psychological stigma — and gave new meaning to the phrase “buyer beware.”From Hell to haunted real estate, this episode of Closing Arguments explores how the justice system handles the strange, the supernatural, and the downright unbelievable.Chapters:0:00 - Introduction2:00 - Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction3:35 - Can you sue the devil? 8:25 - How deep are Satan's pockets? 14:35 - Why the case was dismissed21:30 - The legally haunted house in America32:06 - Is the house still for sale? 38:05 - Closing remarks
Transcribe →What I Learned Doing an Entire Year of Jury Trials
Sep 2900:37:32Tap to summarizeAfter a full year in courtrooms, trying nine jury cases, we’re pulling back the curtain on what really happens when you face the State. In this season premiere, we dig into the lessons learned from victories, defeats, and the unique challenges of sex-related cases.You’ll hear why jury trials are becoming increasingly rare, how juror perception can make or break a case, and why even the most prepared defense isn’t always enough to secure a win. Most importantly, we highlight why having a defense attorney in your corner is the single most critical factor when your future is on the line.If you’ve ever wondered what really goes on behind the courtroom doors—and why it matters to you—this episode will give you a candid, inside look at the realities of modern jury trials.Chapters:0:00 - Introduction1:51 - We're back with an all-new season!4:30 - The difficult nature of defending sex-related jury trials11:00 - The lack of physical evidence creating challenges12:24 - Trials are becoming a thing of the past20:02 - Plea bargains becoming more prevalent 28:33 - The key takeaways 34:38 - Make sure you seek out legal representation! 36:31 - Closing remarks
Transcribe →Expert Witnesses and How They Influence a Trial
May 14, 202400:44:41Tap to summarizeExpert witnesses play a pivotal role in shaping the outcome of trials, often serving as the linchpin between complex evidence and the jury's understanding. But how are these experts chosen? What criteria guide their selection, and how do attorneys ensure they're not just qualified but also compelling in the courtroom?Drawing from decades of experience, John Razumich, of Razumich & Associates, offers invaluable insights into the art of expert witness selection. From identifying the right expertise to assessing credibility and demeanor, every step in the process is carefully orchestrated to bolster the case's strength.Chapters:0:00 - Introduction and overview on the topic of the show1:47 - What is an expert witness? 3:42 - The differences between the Federal and State standard for an expert witness7:29 - Who can be an expert witness within a given case? 10:52 - The idea of "reasonable scientific principles" and a scientific witness20:42 - How an expert witness is 'obtained' by the prosecution or defense30:17 - The difference between an expert witness and a skilled witness33:33 - What can an expert witness actually testify to? 40:30 - How to get in touch with Jack and his team for representation44:03 - Closing remarksConnect with John Razumich:WebsiteFacebookYouTubeLinkedIn
Transcribe →True Attorney Confessions
Apr 1, 202400:55:15Tap to summarizeIn this eye-opening episode of Closing Arguments, join John and Ryan, as they delve into the intricacies of the legal profession, debunking common misconceptions surrounding the role of defense attorneys. Contrary to popular belief, defense attorneys aren't just advocates for the guilty; they serve a critical function in upholding the principles of justice for all.Through riveting anecdotes and insightful analysis, John Razumich offers listeners an insider's perspective on the value that defense attorneys provide to their clients and the broader legal system. From navigating complex legal procedures to safeguarding individuals' rights, defense attorneys play a pivotal role in ensuring fair and equitable treatment under the law.Enjoy!Chapters:0:00 - Introduction and overview on the topic of the day1:43 - The realities of hiring a defense attorney9:31 - How plea agreements work and how a defense attorney navigates them for a client19:28 - The waiting game played by the state22:39 - Is a defense attorney simply helping bad people get away with it? 29:30 - Bail reform and "letting dangerous people back out on the street"35:16 - Just because your friend was not guilty, doesn't mean you will be too40:02 - Why is it so expensive to hire a defense attorney? 47:42 - It's more expensive to not hire an attorney51:00 - The number one job of your defense attorney53:00 - How to get in touch with Jack and his team54:45 - Closing remarksConnect with John Razumich:WebsiteFacebookYouTubeLinkedIn
Transcribe →The State of Indiana vs. Richard Allen (Part 4) - Analyzing the Original Actions
Mar 20, 202400:43:52Tap to summarizeAs we continue our coverage on the State of Indiana vs. Richard Allen case, we take a deeper look into the Original Actions existing within this case. Original Actions themselves are quite rare to experience, but given the wild nature of this case it's no surprise we've experienced them. Join us as Jack and Ryan break down the Original Actions, what they mean, and where this case is ultimately headed!Chapters:0:00 - Introduction and overview on the topic of the day2:40 - What is an Original Action and how it operates4:09 - The limitations within Original Actions and how they are disfavored by the courts7:21 - The two Original Actions filed within the Richard Allen case13:47 - Why The Supreme Court denied the first writ18:50 - The fireworks surrounding the Franks Motion filed in this case26:42 - The Supreme Court granting the second Original Action, in part33:51 - The case has reached a standstill for now41:40 - Our plan for covering this case in the future as new developments arise43:13 - Closing remarksConnect with John Razumich:WebsiteFacebookYouTubeLinkedIn
Transcribe →The State of Indiana vs. Richard Allen (Part 3) - Will the Defense Prevail?
Jan 16, 202401:05:33Tap to summarizeIn this riveting episode of "Closing Arguments," we continue our dive deep into the intricacies of the State of Indiana vs. Richard Allen case, a legal saga that has captivated the nation. Join us as we unravel the layers of this complex case, examining the Allen's confession, shady prison guards, and even the theft of crime scene photos! This case continues to get more twisted each day, leaving our hosts and the audience wondering what type of fireworks will happen next?Enjoy!Chapters:0:00 - Introduction and overview on the episode1:26 - Recapping the high-level details of the Richard Allen case6:01 - Richard Allen's custody arrangements 10:44 - Odinism in the prison system14:36 - How Allen's attorneys handled potential Odinists in the prison system22:31 - Richard Allen's confession and its value to the prosecution29:48 - The fallout of this case and what to be on the lookout for37:46 - The issue of a gag order 46:22 - A tragic suicide enters the picture59:30 - The battle between judge and attorneys1:01:35 - The court has the authority to remove an attorney from a given case1:03:53 - What to expect in our next episode covering this case1:04:28 - Closing remarksConnect with John Razumich:WebsiteFacebookYouTubeLinkedIn
Transcribe →The State of Indiana vs. Richard Allen (Part 2) - Cracks in the State's Theory
Dec 4, 202300:55:07Tap to summarizeIf you thought this case was interesting, you haven't heard anything yet!Welcome back to our multi-part episodic series, where we explore The State of Indiana vs. Richard Allen. This murder case has gained international attention and it continues to get crazier as time goes on. In Part 2, we explore the pieces of evidence that begin creating cracks in the State's theory on how Richard Allen followed through with murder. Enjoy!Timecodes:0:06 - Introduction and overview on the case1:06 - Researching the case for the podcast has been exhausting3:35 - What is a Franks Motion? 6:50 - The Defense attorneys argued that the Sheriff lied to the judge in application for warrant7:50 - The State's public theory of the case12:26 - The search warrant application containing false information15:25 - Time to buckle up your seatbelt!21:20 - The nature of the crime scene wasn't initially revealed30:43 - There was no DNA left at the crime scene34:57 - How Odinism comes into play with this case39:18 - The red flags that begin popping up in the State's theory49:14 - Who ultimately will be Richard Allen's attorney at the end of the day?53:36 - Closing remarksConnect with John Razumich:WebsiteFacebookYouTubeLinkedIn
Transcribe →