307: The Return Of The Power Broker

Summary

Podcast Summary: #SistersInLaw — “The Return Of The Power Broker”

Episode 307 | Date: May 27, 2026
Hosts: Barb McQuade & Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Podcast by: Politicon

---

Overview

In this lively “Sister Sidebar” episode of #SistersInLaw, Barb McQuade and Kimberly Atkins Stohr respond to listener legal and political questions with their signature mix of expertise, candor, and wit. Topics range from recent high-profile Supreme Court decisions around voting rights and access to medication, to Trump’s ongoing legal maneuvering, the inner workings of the Supreme Court, gerrymandering, statutes of limitations, and (comically) overdue library books. The hosts dissect complex legal issues, share personal commentary, and sprinkle in memorable quips, all aiming to pull back the curtain on how America’s legal and governmental systems work.

---

Key Discussions & Insights

1. Nationwide Injunctions & the Mifepristone Ruling

(00:54–02:05)

• Listener Q: Confusion over the Fifth Circuit Court's ruling on in-person visits for mifepristone, the Supreme Court’s temporary stay, and the status of nationwide injunctions.
• Barb: Explains that while the Supreme Court generally restricts nationwide injunctions (per the CASA case), rare exceptions exist, such as when plaintiffs (in this case, Louisiana) need full relief against FDA regulations. The current case meets that exception because it implicates federal medication regulation for all states.
• Quote: “Ordinarily there should not be nationwide or universal injunctions unless they are necessary to provide full relief that is sought by the plaintiffs...” — Barb (01:27)

---

2. Calais Decision, Intent vs. Effect, and Congressional Remedies

(02:47–05:32)

• Listener Q: Why did the Supreme Court in Calais require proof of discriminatory “intent” (not just “effect”) under the Voting Rights Act (VRA)? Can Congress reverse this?
• Kim: Explains the majority’s reasoning: only intentional racial discrimination is actionable under Section 2 of the VRA. Merely showing a plan has discriminatory effects isn’t enough, which, Kim notes, makes enforcement nearly impossible given the overlap of partisan and racial gerrymandering.
• Quote: “The Venn diagram of a partisan gerrymander and a racial gerrymander is a circle in most of these cases.” — Kim (04:13)
• Kim notes the Supreme Court’s shadow docket has made Section 2 essentially unenforceable, rendering Congressional remedies near impossible unless the composition of the Court changes.

Barb adds: Chief Justice Roberts’s “colorblind Constitution” argument ignores strict scrutiny and Congress’s ability to pass narrowly tailored laws for compelling governmental interests like anti-voter suppression.

• Quote: “They call it colorblindness, but if you ask me, it’s willful blindness.” — Barb (06:15)

---

3. Trump, IRS Audits & The 'Weaponization Fund'

(06:26–07:47)

• Listener Q: Is Trump immune from IRS audits forever?
• Kim: Says Trump currently isn’t immune, but efforts are underway to shield him via so-called “slush fund” settlements.
• Barb: Details an agreement waiving IRS claims for Trump for anything up to May 20, 2026, granting him “immunity from an audit forever”—limited only to acts before that date.
  • Quote: “Audits are forever. Was that a James Bond movie?” — Barb (07:04)
• Future tax offenses (after May 20, 2026) would still be fair game, and there may be legal challenges to this agreement.

---

4. Supreme Court Dynamics & Division

(07:47–11:33)

• Listener Q: Are the current justices actually as divided as the public perceives?
• Kim: Cites public remarks by Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson downplaying rumors of acrimony. Barrett says most cases are near-unanimous, but Kim points out the divisive cases—those the public pays most attention to—are the ones that reveal sharp ideological splits.
  • Quote: “The ones that get the blood boiling tend to be the ones that are sharply divided...” — Kim (09:16)
• Kim and Barb joke about SNL sketches imagining forced camaraderie among the justices, expressing skepticism that “Kagan and Alito are having tea.”

---

5. Gerrymandering: At-Large Systems & Federal Authority

(18:29–21:23)

• Listener Q (Kristin from Salem, OR): Can the federal government prevent states from using “at-large” districting, or random assignment for congressional districts?
• Kim: Election administration is largely a state power; the federal government can only regulate minor aspects. Effective districting should connect communities with shared interests rather than randomize, to ensure fair representation. Independent redistricting commissions (like Michigan’s) are recommended.
  • Quote: “If a state has the will and wants to do apportionment fairly...they have the power to do that.” — Kim (19:55)
• Emphasizes the importance of voting in state and local elections, as those officials control election laws.

---

6. Evidence Suppression & Jury Bias — Mangione Case

(21:53–25:17)

• Listener Q: Why was some evidence suppressed for Luigi Mangione, and does media coverage risk jury bias?
• Barb: Explains the legal nuances of search incident to arrest; evidence in Mangione’s backpack (not in immediate possession) required a warrant. In the federal case, broader evidence was admitted; the state chose not to delay with appeals over suppressed evidence.
• Jury selection is crucial in high-profile cases: jurors must promise to decide only on admissible evidence. Media exposure doesn’t automatically disqualify a juror if impartiality is maintained.
  • Quote: “You will be amazed at how many people have never even heard of this case or this guy.” — Barb (24:08)

---

7. Statute of Limitations: True Crime and Confessions

(25:59–30:07)

• Listener Q: Is the statute of limitations always a “get out of jail free card”? Are there famous cases of confessions after it ran out?
• Kim: Statutes can be paused (tolled) under certain conditions, especially if the defendant flees. In some civil cases (e.g., sexual abuse), temporary windows have allowed old cases to be revived (e.g., Harvey Weinstein, Sean "Diddy" Combs). High-profile example: Joseph James DeAngelo, the “Golden State Killer,” confessed to uncharged assaults after limitations expired.
  • Quote: “The statute of limitations...can actually work against justice as opposed to for it.” — Kim (28:15)
• Kim and Barb agree that serious crimes, especially against children, should have much longer or no statutes of limitations.

---

8. Light-hearted End: The Power Broker & Library Offenses

(30:07–32:08)

• Kim facetiously confesses overdue library fines over a copy of “The Power Broker,” prompting Barb to offer forgiveness, referencing the episode title.
  • Quote: “The statute is probably run. I think it’s your book.” — Barb (30:38)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Kim on VRA jurisprudence:
  “The Venn diagram of a partisan gerrymander and a racial gerrymander is a circle...” (04:13)

• Barb on Roberts’s colorblind Constitution:
  “They call it colorblindness, but if you ask me, it’s willful blindness.” (06:15)

• Barb, riffing on Trump’s audit deal:
  “Audits are forever. Was that a James Bond movie?” (07:04)

• Kim on Supreme Court comity:
  “I just can’t believe that, you know, Kagan and Alito are having tea. I just, I just, I don’t buy it.” (11:20)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Mifepristone/Nationwide Injunctions: 00:54–02:05
• Calais Decision & Voting Rights Act: 02:47–06:25
• Trump/IRS Immunity: 06:26–07:47
• Supreme Court Relations: 07:47–11:33
• Gerrymandering & Federal Limits: 18:29–21:23
• Evidence Suppression/Mangione Case: 21:53–25:17
• Statute of Limitations Confessions: 25:59–30:07
• ‘Power Broker’ & Library Book Banter: 30:07–32:08

---

Takeaways

• The legal landscape on voting rights and election administration continues to shift dramatically, with Supreme Court decisions narrowing options for federal remedies.
• Trump's legal team’s attempts at constructing novel immunities (e.g., from IRS audits) reveal new frontiers in “lawfare.”
• Tensions on the current Supreme Court, while downplayed by some justices, seem impossible to fully hide given open antagonism over critical cases.
• State-level innovation and activism remain key as tools for reform—especially regarding fair redistricting and voter protections.
• The statute of limitations offers real bars to justice in some contexts, but shifting public values (e.g., #MeToo movement) have led to legislative exceptions.
• Even legal podcasts benefit from inside jokes and levity—like overdue library books—when tackling ongoing, high-stakes debates in American democracy.

---

Transcript

[A]

Welcome to this episode of Sister sidebar with Barb McQuaid and me, Kim Atkins Storr. If you have a question for us, please email [e-mail] or you can tag us on social media and ask your questions there. But don't forget, we don't just have to, you know, take what you type. We can hear what you say. Just record a voice note on your phone and send it to sisters in lawoliticon.com and we may play your question in your voice right here on Sister sidebar. We want to hear you. It's like you're having a conversation with us, so try that as well. So let's get started. Barb, I'm going to start with you with a question from Lindy.

[B]

Hello, Sisters love the shows. This is Lindy from the Chicago suburbs. My question reflects my confusion about the fifth Circuit Court's rule ruling requiring an in person visit to a healthcare provider to obtain methapristone and the Supreme Court's temporary stay of that ruling. I thought an earlier Supreme Court ruling had limited the lower court's power to issue nationwide injunctions. Could you explain how all this fits together? Thank you, Lindsay. That is such a good question. In fact, when this decision came down, I had the same question myself, which is, wait a minute, I, I thought the Supreme Court has struck down universal or nationwide injunctions. How is that still a thing? But the answer is in that case, that was the CASA case. It was an early iteration of the birthright citizenship case. This procedural issue, what they said is that ordinarily there should not be nationwide or universal injunctions unless they are necessary to provide full relief that is sought by the plaintiffs in that particular case. And so here, this did meet that exception because the state of Louisiana was suing to block the Food and Drug Administration from what it claims is an unlawful regulation. That is the rule that allows the distribution of mifepristone without being present with a doctor or prescriber there in case there's some, you know, emergency that might arise. So this is one of those rare exceptions that the Supreme Court said where it is permissible to have a nationwide injunction. All right, here's a question from Michael, who asks, how did the majority in Calais argue that a showing of effect would be replaced by one of intent? Oh, I love this question. Could that finding be reversed by legislative action? Oh. What do you think, Kim?

[A]

Oh, man. So, yeah, this is a really, really great question because one of the, one of the parts of the holding in Calais Indeed was that in order to bring a claim under section 2 of the Voting Rights act, which the majority claims they did not actually strike down, you would have to prove that lawmakers intended to discriminate on the basis of race, rather than just a particular gerrymander, had the effect of discriminating on the basis of race and diluting the voting power of black voters. The rationale was based on a previous ruling by the court that we've talked about in a case called Rucho, which held not only that it was not unconstitutional to gerrymander on the basis of partisanship. So, you know, you're trying to boost the number of one party or another, but that courts can't even consider challenges to that, that it's non judiciable. And so the rationale of Justice Alito in Calais was that, well, if. If a state does it for partisan reasons and it has the effect, you know, just the effect of potentially, you know, seeming like it targeted black people, well, that's not. That's not in actionable thing under the Voting Rights act. So you have to actually prove the intent that it was meant to be racial. Now, y' all know, as I've said more than once on this podcast, the Venn diagram of a partisan gerrymander and a racial gerrymander is a circle in most of these cases. So it was basically served as a get out of jail for racial gerrymandering free card in that. But to your next question about if there's anything Congress can do about it, I would say limited, not based on Calais, but based on the shadow docket ruling after Calais, which allowed Alabama to move forward with its case because in Alabama, in the lower court had found it was an intentional racial gerrymander. So in that case, they referred back to Calais to say that because race was considered in remedying that it violated the Constitution. So what the court did not overtly with its full chest in the text of Calais, but quietly in a shadow docket ruling that came afterwards was basically hold that Section 2 is unconstitutional and Congress cannot write a law that changes the Constitution. Sadly, no, I don't think that there is much that Congress can do until or unless we get a Supreme Court that actually reads the law and the Constitution correctly and overturns. Kalai.

[B]

Yeah, you know, just to put a fine point on it for our listeners, there's this popular view that Chief Justice Roberts likes to espouse that our Constitution is colorblind and the best way to end race discrimination is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. But he ignores the whole concept of strict scrutiny, which is that Congress can find that if there is a compelling governmental interest, like not suppressing the votes of certain groups of voters, then if it enacts a law that is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal, then that is constitutional. And he acts like that's not a thing when it comes to voting, that no intrusion whatsoever that considers race in any way can be constitutional. You know, they call it colorblindness, but if you ask me, it's willful blindness.

[A]

Boom.

[B]

What do you think of that?

[A]

Get it right on the nail, Barb. Thank you. All right, so our next question is from Alan, who asks, is Trump immune from IRS audits forever or just those that are currently ongoing? Well, right now he's not immune at all, but they're trying to make him immune under this new, ridiculous, ridiculous slush fund gambit that we talk about. We really break it down. Make sure you listen to our Sisters in Law episode this week, because we really break that down. But Barb, what do you think?

[B]

Audits are forever. Was that a James Bond movie? Audits are forever. This is of course referring to the addendum to the settlement, Trump's weaponization fund, grift fund, whatever you want to call it, where in addition to giving him an apology and setting up a $1.7 billion fund for so called victims of weaponization, they also said that the IRS would be precluded from any audit or claim against President Trump forever. However, it was for any issue of which that that currently exists. So as of the date of this document, which is like May 20, 2026, anything from that date or earlier, Donald Trump now has, you know, essentially immunity from an audit forever. That's what Todd Blanche has purported to give him. Maybe this will be challenged and will not be enforceable, but that's it. Now, if on May 21st he commits a brand new tax offense, that's still fair game. So, you know, the guy's 79 years old for the first 79 years of your life. President Trump, we're all good. Forget about it now. Don't go doing anything else because that's outside the scope of this settlement. So, you know, I know there already have been some challenges filed to this thing, so we'll have to see how this holds up. But that's the gist of the agreement that was signed. All right, Kim, here's another one for you. This is from Natalie. Do the justices on the Supreme Court still get along? Has there ever been a more? Oh, I think I think we don't. Has there ever been a more divisive or divided court?

[A]

So, okay, so in some recent comments, recently at public speaking events, both Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson claimed. Claimed that rumors about acrimony between the justices were overblown. So the point that Justice Barrett made was, you know what? The vast majority. The vast majority of the cases that we decide are done unanimously or very lopsided. So there's not a lot of disagreement. It's just a small percentage of cases that are divided along, you know, what people think are ideological lines. Okay, yes, Justice Barrett, that is true. The vast majority of cases they decide about, you know, bankruptcy regulations or ERISA or, you know, what, the Federal Arbitration act are unanimous or nearly so. But the ones that get the blood boiling tend to be the ones that are sharply divided and create the really pointed back and forth between the opinions and the dissents. So I get what you're saying, but that doesn't really answer the question when Justice Jackson was asked outright recently at a school that she was speaking at, what the, you know, what the atmosphere was like among the justices. She said, and I quote, yeah, no, it's fine. And apparently, according to Politico, my friend Josh Gerstein, who was there, said that drew some sort of, you know, skeptical laughter in the crowd where people are like, we just, we just read what you wrote about Alito. Like, come on. And in Jackson's defense, when she came on the court, it was already on fire. I mean, I don't think she, like, she knows nothing about being on a court where Justice Scalia goes on vacations abroad with Justice Ginsburg. She didn't know the court where Justices Sotomayor and Gorsuch were very close, so much so that they did this, like, joint national speaking thing, talking about encouraging people to have better civic education. Right. And they grew close. I don't think they're doing that anymore. So, you know, Jackson came on right after Dobbs, so she is only known this court to be on fire. So maybe compared to that, it was

[B]

already on fire when she arrived. The house is on fire.

[A]

It hasn't gotten any worse. But I just can't believe that, you know, Kagan and Alito are having tea. I just, I just, I don't buy it. I know they don't want to. They want to seem like everything's getting along, but I'm skeptical.

[B]

I think this is an idea for a Saturday Night Live sketch. Can you see it now? I totally like it. Everything's fine. We get along and then you know, the language and the opinion. Like her opinion is naive and ridiculous. Lawless keeps getting worse and worse.

[A]

Yeah. Then they have to show up at a holiday party.

[B]

Yeah. Did you know that Fast Growing Trees is America's largest and most trusted online nursery with thousands of trees and plants and more than 2 million happy customers, including me. Last spring I got some beautiful lilac shrubs and they are fully blooming today. Fast Growing trees have all the plants that your yard or your home needs, including fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs and houseplants, all grown with care and guaranteed to arrive healthy. It's like your local nursery, but anywhere you live and with 1600 plus varieties of trees and plants, that is more than you'll find anywhere else.

[A]

You know, I love when I sit outside because everywhere I look around the house I see a fast growing tree. Some we planted growing, it's just every, they grow so fast and we've some we planted years ago and are big and then we have new ones and we really, really love it. So I can definitely say whatever you're looking for, Fast Growing Trees helps you find options that actually work for your climate, space and lifestyle, making it easy to get your dream yard. Just click order and get healthy, thriving plants delivered to your door ready to grow. We're so happy to learn about their 30 Day Alive and thrive guarantee that promises your plants arrive happy, healthy and ready to enjoy. And as somebody who's used that guarantee once or twice, they do arrive quick. You know, things happen sometimes, you know, plants just aren't feeling it and it was really an easy process to get them replaced. There's no green thumb required, just quality plants you can count on. Plus they have ongoing support from trained world class plant experts. Available 7 days a week by email, chat or phone to help you plan your landscape, choose the right plants and learn how to care for them every step of the way.

[B]

Did you know, Kim, that you can even grow lemon, avocado, olive or fig trees indoors?

[A]

Oh man, that just sets out my whole Mediterranean menu. I love that.

[B]

Along with a wide variety of houseplants that are prepared with care and hand selected to thrive in your home. Order online and get your plants delivered to your door in just a few days. It's so much better than wandering around a store hoping you can pick a plant that will last and making a mess in your car. And with summer coming up, there's no better time to plant. It's a great way to invest in your home and Fast Growing trees is ready to help you with the essentials.

[A]

Just being outside surrounding by plants is such a mental health boost and right now they have great deals on spring planting essentials. Up to half off on selected plants and listeners to our show get 20% off their first purchase when using Code Sisters at checkout. That's an additional 20% off. Better plants and better growing at fastgrowingtrees.com using the code Save Sisters at checkout again fastgrowingtrees.com code Sisters Now's the perfect time to plant. Let's grow together. Use Sisters to save today. Offers valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply and the link is in the show Notes.

[B]

This episode is brought to you by IQ Bar, our exclusive snack, hydration and coffee sponsor. IQ Bar Protein Bars, IQ Mix Hydration Mixes and IQ Joe Mushroom Coffees are the delicious, low sugar brain and body fuel you need to win your day. They have something for everyone, but we recommend the Ultimate Sampler Pack. It's a great way to try all of IQ Bars products and flavors, complete with nine IQ Bars, eight IQ Mix Sticks and four IQ Joe sticks.

[A]

Unlike a lot of stuff out there, you don't have to worry about what you're getting. All IQ Bar products are clean, label, certified and entirely free from gluten, dairy, soy, GMOs and artificial ingredients so you know you're treating yourself to the best. Plus, all IQ Bar products are packed with clean, delicious ingredients that keep you physically and mentally fit, like magnesium, lion's mane and more.

[B]

Between teaching, podcasting and keeping up with the news, it can be hard to find time to get the nutrition and energy we need to beat the clock. That's why we're so glad we discovered IQ Bar and their awesome products. Their Chocolate Sea Salt Plant Protein bars are so convenient to carry around in your bag and when you're in a rush, the original Black IQ Joe is a powerful burst of delicious caffeinated mushroom coffee with everything from mint chocolate chip protein bars to blueberry pomegranate hydration mixes, Vanilla spice coffee and more. There's so much variety. The only problem is deciding on which flavor we want that day. So the ultimate Sampler pack is a must. You need to try it for yourself.

[A]

With over 20,000 5 star reviews and counting, more people than ever are fueling their busy lifestyles with IQ Bars. Brain and Body Boosting Bars say that quickly three times.

[B]

I was just thinking of that.

[A]

Brain and Body Boosting Bars, Hydration Mixes and Mushroom Coffee and their Ultimate Sampler Pack include all of those things and right now, Ikebar is offering our special podcast listeners 20% off all Iqbar products, including the Ultimate Sampler Pack, plus free shipping. To get your 20% off, text sisters to 64,000. Again, text sisters to 64,640. That's sisters to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply. See Terms for details. The link is in our show Notes.

[B]

Our next question is an audio question from Kristen. My name is Kristin and I'm from Salem, Oregon. I am so fed up with this gerrymandering situation that we all find ourselves in. Is there anything at the federal level that would prevent states from developing an at large system for organizing congressional districts? It seems we could just randomly assign citizens to a particular district representative and leave it at that. Is there anyone else working on this problem?

[A]

Thanks, Kristin. That is a great question. I too am very disheartened by all of the shenanigans with respect to the Supreme Court striking down the Voting Rights act and so many voter protections that seem to be going by the wayside and about how the future of congressional apportionment will look. As to your question, no, there is nothing that. Well, let me start it this way. There's nothing that the federal government can really do to change the way that the power of the states in apportioning the law that's set by the Constitution, except for some minor regulation that Congress can do with respect to federal elections. By and large, election administration is up to the state. So if a state has the will and wants to do apportionment fairly, regard whether it's by using a randomization like yours. I worry a little bit about pure randomization because it matters for representation that you do that. You keep communities together because people in communities share interests. They share a lot of commonalities that would be lost if somebody from one district is hundreds of miles away or if you pocket everybody up. That might end in the same kind of dilution that you're trying to fix. But there are ways. Listen, we have computer programs that can keep communities together that can make sure that people are more evenly spread throughout the state. That can really do a lot of things that would ward out things like racial targeting and other stuff that the Voting Rights act used to do. So if states have the willingness to do that, they have the power to do that. States like Michigan that set up independent redistricting boards in order to handle that. Taking it out of the, you know, the fire and the, the partisan, you know, fog of state houses. That's a good idea. But there's nothing that Congress can do to stop states right now. Let's hope that, you know, we don't get a Supreme Court case where the high court says otherwise. But the Constitution is pretty clear there. So that's why I always advocate that voting is important, not just in the federal elections here in Washington, D.C. but in your local and state election. Local officials and state officials are the ones that carry out your election. So if you want your elections to remain free, fair and open, make sure you elect candidates in your community and in your state that are going to ensure that that happens. That's more important now than ever. All right, our next question is from Sam Barb, who asks why was some potential evidence found on Luigi Mangione? Is it Mangione? Am I saying that right?

[B]

It's Mangione.

[A]

Mangione. Okay. I want to say it right.

[B]

I guess I'm not sure. I've never met the man.

[A]

Well, that's okay with me. Why was some potential evidence blocked from use but not others? Isn't knowledge of it enough to bias a jury?

[B]

Oh, great, Great question, Sam. And there's. There's kind of two parts to your question here. So first, why, why was some of this evidence suppressed? So you may recall the facts of this case. He was spotted in a McDonald's in Pennsylvania. And some, you know, kid working behind the counter calls the police, like, oh, my God, Luigi's here. And the police come. And there are certain exceptions to the warrant requirement that allow you to seize evidence even without a warrant. And one of them that they relied on was search incident to arrest. And that search doctrine allows officers to search things to prevent an individual from harming the police officer. So you can look in their pockets, you can look at anything within their immediate vicinity. But what they did is they grabbed. They grabbed the backpack. Now it's not in his vicinity anymore. And they take a bunch of stuff out, including a cell phone and a wallet and some other kinds of things. They later get a warrant for the other contents of the backpack, including, crucially, this notebook that contains what some have described as a confession. You know, he talks about taking out a CEO and some other kinds of things. So ultimately, I think the evidence they need will stay. One interesting fact is that this exact same motion was also filed in the federal case. This is the state case. You know, the state has charged him with murder. And then there's a federal case for anti stalking and murder in connection with stalking. And the federal judge admitted all this stuff and said all of this was properly within an exception to the warrant requirement, but nonetheless, the New York law enforcement authorities said, you know what? We're good. We just want to move on with this case. We don't want to delay it with an appeal. We've got everything we need. We'll go forward. But the other question you ask, which is a very good one, is, isn't knowledge of this evidence enough to bias a jury? And potentially, yes. Now, in a case like this that has been quite well covered by the media, it will be important that there be some very rigorous jury selection done. You know, most. Most cases, members of the public have never heard of the case or the parties, and so you can select the jury without any problem. But in a case like this, I imagine there will be extensive questioning of the jurors about what they know about the case. Now, you can't say, did you read the thing about the evidence being suppressed from his backpack? But people will be asked, have you heard, you know, evidence coverage? Here's one thing that always surprised me as a prosecutor. You will be amazed at how many people have never even heard of this case or heard of this guy. There are people who live in New, certainly not you dear listeners, who are very engaged and tuned in what's going on in the world, but there are a lot of people out there who are just busy running their lives and their families, and they don't pay attention to the news. Like, I've never heard of this guy. I don't know anything about it. Yes, I can be fair. The other thing to know is it isn't necessary that a person never have heard any of this. What they have to commit to is that they will decide the case based only on the evidence they hear in court and not on anything they might have heard outside of court. And if they can make that promise, then that's sufficient as well. But no doubt there will be some extensive screening because of the pretrial publicity of this case about this issue, as well as many others.

[A]

Yeah, that happens all the time. I mean, I'm thinking about the Boston Marathon bomber case, you know, that was tried right there in Boston, and they were able to get jurors that were able to deliver a verdict. So it's more possible than you think that it is, because no case in the history of at least my lifetime in Boston was more covered than that one.

[B]

Yeah. Especially with a jury from the Boston area.

[A]

Yeah, yeah, right there.

[B]

Were you there at the time. Were you there at the time of the bombing?

[A]

I was. I was working for a Boston news organization. But I was not there. I was here in D.C. but man, you really. It's like the ground shifted after that case happened. It was something for sure.

[B]

Our next question comes to us from Walter, who asks, is the statute of limitations always a get out of jail free card? Are there any famous post limitation confessions? Kim, what do you think about that?

[A]

Ooh, this is really interesting. So I would not say that the run of the statute of limitations was. Is always a get out of jail free card. Some things can happen, such as tolling, which means that in some circumstances, the time that a statute is running might be paused based on circumstances such as the person leaving the country or leaving the jurisdiction for a period of time, particularly if they're trying to evade prosecution under the statute. A judge may rule that that statute was told until they are able to get that person back, for example. But after the statute has run, for the most part, it forecloses, particularly criminal prosecutions. But there's also sometimes when justice in other forms can be had. If you recall, in New York State, they issued this temporary period where people who were minors and suffered sexual abuse could bring civil actions. Not just minors, people who had suffered previous sexual abuse. And the statute of limitations had run, but there could be sufficient evidence to show that they could bring civil orders. And we saw a lot of people brought to justice out of that, people like Harvey Weinstein and Sean Diddy Combs and others. So even though those statutes had run in a lot of those cases, there was still some accountability. But in terms of famous cases where people have confessed after the statute has run, the most high profile one I can think of is Joseph James DeAngelo, who was the Golden State Killer, confessed after the statute of limitations had run. Now, he had been convicted of murder, but there were all kinds of assaults that he had committed for which the statute of limitations had run. And he apparently gave up information about those. It's horrific.

[B]

It's awful.

[A]

But yeah, it's really something. I am. I understand the purpose of a statute of limitations. You don't want to have stale evidence and, you know, weakened memories of what happened and risk people being sent to jail on flimsy evidence as time has passed. But I do think that for some really, really horrific crimes, and I would include awful sexual assault in that. I think often in jurisdictions, the statute of limitations on sexual assault is too short, and maybe there need not be some. Often there's not one for things like murder. But I would be in favor of extending at least the statute of limitations on some of the Other really serious crimes for which victims would be disincentivized from coming forward, or it may just take them a long time to process it. And that can actually work against justice as opposed to for it.

[B]

And, you know, that is a trend. I think at least it was during the MeToo era. Maybe that era is over.

[A]

Remember that? Remember me, too. That was great.

[B]

But this idea that, you know, if you were a child victim and there was this five year statute of limitations, you know, it. It might take you more than that to kind of piece together what happened and get yourself in a place where you're strong enough to want to pursue these kinds of actions. And so that's been a trend to say there's no statute of limitations for child sexual assault, murder. I'd support that in certain kinds of things. But, you know, Walter's question makes me wonder if Walter isn't maybe wanting to get something off his chest. Walter, if you've got something to confess to, you can let us know. As long as the statute has run. Most crimes have a five year statute of limitations. So if the statute has run, you can always come on the show and get it off your chest.

[A]

Hey, Barb. Yeah. I checked this book out of the Boston public library in 2000, 26 years ago.

[B]

Oh, I think you're good. What's the book?

[A]

What's the Power broker?

[B]

Oh, get out. Hilarious. Well, I can understand why you're still not through it. That is a long book. You're probably at, like, you know, page 1000, and you still have a few more to go, so.

[A]

I probably violated at least some ordinance in the city of Boston. I'm so sorry.

[B]

The statute is probably run. I think it's your book.

[A]

All right. I feel so much better.

[B]

You are to be forgiven. That book's just too long, you know, I think you bring it back when you finish it.

[A]

I'm not even sure they wanted that.

[B]

Finally finished it.

[A]

I'm gonna do that next time I'm in Boston. I'll be like, here you go. Thanks. It was great.

[B]

They'll say, you know, the last person who checked it out took 45 years, so well done. Well, thank you for listening to Sister Sidebar with Kimberly Atkinstor and me, Barbara Quaid. Keep sending in more great questions for next week's show, and if you send in a voice memo, we'll try to play your question during our next episode. Follow Sisters sidebar and Sisters in Law. Wherever you listen. And please give us a five star review. It really helps others to find the show and please show some love to this week's sponsors, Fast Growing Trees and IQ Bar. The links are in the show notes. Please, please support them because they make this podcast possible. Don't forget to pick up SistersInLawmerch and other [e-mail] merch and see you every week on Wednesdays and Saturdays for new episodes of SistersinLaw and Sisters. Sidebar See you next week with another episode. Sister Sidebar.

[A]

I'm a scoff law, y'. All.

[B]

Statute of limitations my clients is is, but it was beyond the statute of limitations. Ah,

[A]

with verbo care, help is always ready before, during and after your stay. We've planned for the plot twists, so support is always available because a great trip starts with peace of mind.