Whether you’re studying law or just curious about how these cases unfold, I’ll help you understand the real steps, strategy, and legal framework that govern state and federal lawsuits.

Welcome back to Lawyer Talk! I’m Steve Palmer, and in this episode, Troy and I look into a great listener question:

According to the Constitution, if a state is a party in a case, does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction?

I walk through how Article III of the Constitution lays out the Supreme Court’s authority—especially when two states are involved in a dispute, like boundary issues or environmental matters.

But most cases where a state is suing the federal government, especially those we saw during COVID, actually start in lower federal courts. Troy jumps in with insights about venue selection and how lawyers can “forum shop” for a friendly judge.

We break down the process that gets a case from your local Ohio court all the way up to the US Supreme Court, highlighting the difference between preliminary injunctions and final decisions on the merits. I clarify why the Supreme Court isn’t there to fix mistakes, but to interpret and shape constitutional law.

Here are 3 key takeaways from our conversation:

• Original jurisdiction is limited: The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction in very specific cases, such as disputes between two or more states, not just when any state is involved.
• Most cases climb a long ladder: State litigation usually starts in the lowest courts and works its way up. Even after reaching the state’s highest court (like the Ohio Supreme Court), cases might move to the U.S. Supreme Court under strict requirements, especially needing a substantial constitutional issue.
• Habeas corpus offers another path, but it’s rare: After state appeals are exhausted, federal habeas corpus proceedings can be used—starting in district court, up to the circuit court, and possibly, the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court rarely takes these cases.

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

If you’ve ever wondered what happens if you fail a polygraph, whether it can ever help your case, or why a test you take privately doesn’t have to be shared with the government, you’re in the right place.

I’m Steve Palmer, and in this episode, I’m joined by Troy as we talk about the world of polygraphs, or as most people call them, lie detector tests.

With all the legal myths and pop-culture legends swirling around, we wanted to cut through the confusion and talk candidly about how polygraphs are actually used in the legal system, why they’re usually not admissible in court, and how they can still play a significant role behind the scenes—whether we’re talking about the investigative phase, plea negotiations, or proffers.

We’ll swap stories from high-profile cases, unpack what really happens during a polygraph exam, and have some fun busting a few of the old wives’ tales that tend to come up—like whether squeezing your sphincter can actually help you pass a test (spoiler alert: probably not). I’ll also explain my own philosophy on when it makes sense to use polygraphs as a defense tool, and when it’s better to steer clear.

Here are 3 key takeaways:

• Polygraphs are mostly inadmissible in court: Despite their pop culture appeal, polygraph results typically can’t be presented as evidence during trial. However, they do play a role during investigations and negotiations.
• Strategic tool for defense (with big caveats): Defense attorneys may use polygraphs to sway prosecutors, influence sentencing decisions, or avoid charges altogether, but the risks are significant—especially if a “stipulated polygraph” is involved.
• Importance of question clarity and an experienced examiner: Success or failure hinges on how questions are phrased and who administers the test. Ambiguity in questions often leads to unreliable results.

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

So whether you’re concerned about wrongful convictions, fascinated by courtroom strategy, or just curious about how the law really works, join Troy and me for an honest, practical look at how much “say so” is really enough to change a person’s life.

Welcome back to Lawyer Talk. I’m Steve Palmer, and in this episode, I’m joined by Troy to dig into a question that comes up all the time, both in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion:

Can someone really be convicted on another person's word alone?

We kick things off by exploring real-world scenarios where convictions happen with nothing more than a single person’s say-so—cases I’ve defended, like child sex abuse allegations, where there’s no physical evidence or eyewitnesses, just the testimony of an alleged victim.

We don’t shy away from controversy; instead, we get right to the heart of why this happens, how common it is, and what it means for those accused.

On the flip side, I break down the “corpus delicti” rule—why your own confession can’t always put you behind bars unless there’s at least a shred of independent evidence that a crime actually occurred. We talk about what counts as enough supporting proof, and why these legal rules exist in the first place.

For those thinking about going to law school, I get into the nuts and bolts of what you really need to do to prep—like learning Latin, reading the news, and, above all, building up your reading stamina for the mountain of case law ahead.

Key Takeaways:

• Convictions on Accusation Alone: It’s more common than you think for convictions to rely solely on an accuser’s testimony, especially in child abuse cases where physical evidence is lacking. Society’s standards often shift depending on the nature of the allegations.
• The Corpus Delicti Rule: In Ohio and many jurisdictions, a defendant’s confession alone is not enough for prosecution. There must be independent evidence that a crime actually occurred, though the amount of evidence needed is surprisingly minimal.
• Prepping Future Lawyers: Understanding legal Latin and developing strong reading habits are foundational for aspiring attorneys. Legal study is as much about language and context as it is about facts.

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

If you’re curious about the behind-the-scenes challenges of criminal defense or just want to understand why open discovery matters, this episode gives you an inside look at both the history and the practical realities of justice in Ohio.

Welcome back to Lawyer Talk! I’m Steve Palmer, and in this episode, Troy and I talk about the history and evolution of Ohio’s open discovery rules in criminal law—a topic that’s stirred up a lot of strong reactions and plenty of questions from you, our listeners.

I break down what it was really like to practice before 2010, back when, as a defense attorney, I didn’t have access to police reports, witness statements, or much of anything before trial.

We talk about the old days—how Brady v. Maryland and similar cases shaped what we could and couldn’t see, and how every state, and sometimes every court, had its own quirky rules.

We mix in stories from the trenches, from prosecutors blacking out documents with Sharpies to me scrambling for prior inconsistent statements on the fly.

It was a different world, and open discovery truly changed the game for defense lawyers like me. Plus, Troy and I tackle your Facebook comments and questions directly, busting myths and clarifying how things worked back then versus now.

Key takeaways:

• Pre-2010, defense lawyers in Ohio often went to trial with very limited access to police reports and investigative material. It sometimes meant not seeing the details of witness statements until court was in session.
• Brady v. Maryland required prosecutors to hand over only exculpatory or impeaching evidence—not the entire investigative file. This left defense teams navigating with bare-bones information, relying heavily on motions and courtroom strategy.
• The law changed in 2010, opening discovery and leveling the playing field. Today’s young lawyers might take access for granted, but the old ways forced attorneys to think on their feet and sharpen their trial skills.

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

If you’ve ever wondered who holds the real power in criminal cases, federal authorities or state courts, this episode is for you.

Welcome to Lawyer Talk! In this episode, I dig into the age-old debate of federal versus state law, joined by Troy Henricksen, a sharp law student who’s not afraid to challenge the status quo.

We kick things off with a real case where police violated Miranda rights during a custodial interrogation—and we ask the tough question: if someone gives their DNA during an illegal interrogation, can that evidence still be used in court?

Together, Troy and I discuss the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine and examine major Supreme Court cases to see how physical evidence is treated differently from statements.

I explain how Ohio’s constitution sometimes offers protections that go beyond what federal law guarantees, and why it’s critical for lawyers to know their state’s specific rules.

We get into the nitty-gritty of the Supremacy Clause, what counts as valid consent, and why reading Miranda rights—or just getting a warrant—could save everyone a lot of trouble.

3 Key Takeaways:

• State Constitutions Can Set Higher Standards: While the federal constitution sets the minimum standard, states can offer more rights and protections, not fewer. Ohio, for example, allows suppression of physical evidence (like DNA) if obtained during an interrogation in violation of Miranda, even when federal law might not (Steve Palmer explains this difference).
• Supremacy Clause Doesn’t Always Mean “Federal Wins”: The Supremacy Clause means states can’t do less than the federal minimum, but they’re free to offer greater protection to defendants (Steve Palmer, Troy Henricksen). This is why it’s crucial to check your state constitution, not just federal law.
• Thorough Lawyering Pays Off: Many lawyers overlook state constitutional protections, but careful research can make a huge difference in tough cases. As Steve Palmer notes, always check state law for potentially stronger rights.

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 legal strategies or just want a better understanding of the system, join me as I dive into the realities and nuances of DUI law. And, as always, I’ll remind you—never drink and drive.

Welcome back to Lawyer Talk—I’m Steve Palmer, and today I’m tackling the Tiger Woods DUI arrest. As a veteran DUI defense attorney with over thirty years in the trenches, I know these cases aren’t as cut-and-dry as the headlines make them seem.

In this episode, I’ll walk you through what really happens during a DUI investigation, from constitutional challenges and scientific evidence to administrative details most people overlook.

With Troy, we’ll break down Tiger’s rollover accident and why injuries or disorientation can easily be mistaken for signs of impairment. I’ll share how I approach field sobriety testing, highlight the flaws in breath and urine tests, and explore what happens when drug recognition experts get involved.

3 Key Takeaways:

• DUI Law Is More Complex Than You Think. DUI cases involve constitutional law (e.g., Fourth Amendment rights), scientific evidence (breath, blood, and urine testing), and administrative procedures such as license suspensions—making them far more intricate than many realize.
• Accident Cases Can Be a Defense Opportunity. The aftermath of a crash, like a rollover with airbag deployment, can create symptoms (disorientation, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech) often mistaken for impairment, granting defense attorneys more avenues to argue their case.
• Field Sobriety Tests Aren’t Always Reliable. Injuries, past surgeries, or trauma from an accident can greatly affect the results of standardized field sobriety tests. The law requires officers to consider these factors, but tests are still often administered regardless.

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

If you’re curious about how the law works behind the scenes, why this case matters for free speech, and what the Supreme Court’s decision could mean going forward, stick around for the breakdown right here on Lawyer Talk.

Welcome back to Lawyer Talk. I’m Steve Palmer, and today I’m breaking down one of the hottest Supreme Court cases out there: Chiles v. Salazar. Everyone’s been talking about Colorado’s law banning conversion therapy, the constitutional debates it set off, and all the political banter that comes with it. But on this episode, I’m cutting through the noise to look at what this case really means from a lawyer’s perspective.

I’ll walk you through how this case landed in front of the Supreme Court, the legal hurdles and arguments both sides faced, and what makes the ruling so significant—not just for the political headlines, but for anyone who cares about free speech and First Amendment rights.

Along the way, I’ll explain how courts actually judge laws that touch on constitutional freedoms, break down the difference between rational basis and strict scrutiny, and highlight why this Court’s decision matters to all of us.

3 key takeaways from the case:

• Strict Scrutiny Reigns: When laws touch on free speech—even in professional settings like therapy—courts should apply strict scrutiny. That means the government needs a compelling reason to regulate, and the law must be as narrowly tailored as possible, as discussed at 08:15.
• Content-Based Regulation Is Dangerous: Colorado’s law allowed affirming one viewpoint (supporting gender transition) but banned therapists from supporting the opposite. The Supreme Court made it clear that picking and choosing which viewpoints are allowed is “the worst of all” under the First Amendment at 13:04.
• You Can’t Just Relabel Speech as Conduct: Lower courts tried to justify the law by calling talk therapy “professional conduct” instead of speech. The Supreme Court wasn’t buying it—regulation of talk is still regulation of speech (10:15).

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

How do you make sure every defendant gets a fair trial when the stakes couldn’t be higher?

Welcome back to Lawyer Talk. I’m Steve Palmer, and today I’m taking on a question that comes up all the time—both in my legal practice and right here on the podcast: when can the state link up, or consolidate, separate criminal cases into one trial?

And, maybe more importantly, when should they be kept apart?

I’m joined by Troy, our resident law student, as we dig into why courts might want to handle cases together—saving time and money sounds good in theory, right?

But, as I explain, there are real risks for the accused when multiple charges get bundled, especially the threat of “spillover evidence” that might unfairly sway a jury.

We walk through the legal rules in Ohio, talk about why the evidence of past acts is sometimes— but not always—allowed, and use examples from date rape allegations to safecracking capers to show where the lines get drawn.

I’ve argued some of these issues in the Ohio Supreme Court myself, so you’re getting an inside look at how advocates actually fight to keep things fair.

If you want to know what makes cases “simple and direct” enough for consolidation, and why fairness means sometimes putting extra work on the prosecution, this is the episode for you.

Here are three key takeaways for legal professionals and curious minds:

1. Consolidation vs. Prejudice: While the law allows separate cases to be joined for efficiency if they're of a similar nature, defense attorneys must argue "prejudice"—meaning it's unfair for a defendant to face multiple allegations together because the jury might assume guilt based on repeating accusations.
2. Evidence Exceptions Matter: Prior bad acts (404(b)) can't generally be used to simply show character or propensity, but they may be admissible if they establish things like identity, intent, or plan. The details of how and WHY evidence comes in are crucial.
3. Simple & Direct Evidence Isn't Always So Simple: Prosecutors argue "simple and direct" evidence can keep cases joined, but Steve Palmer insists that the more inflammatory and similar the cases, the harder it is for a jury to keep them separate—especially in emotionally charged crimes like sexual assault.

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