Donald Trump’s criminal case problems may not be in his rear-view mirror. The Stormy Daniels case is history, but the Florida, Georgia and Washington, D.C. cases could be revived after he leaves the White House. Plus, could Trump’s pardon of a man whose mom donated $1 million to Trump days before the pardon lead to a bribery charge?

The prosecution says Sean Combs is a racketeer. The defense says he’s a mean guy who’s hit some women but the sex was consensual. Will he walk, or will he spend the rest of his life in prison?

The Menendez Brothers have been waiting 35 years to be sprung. They were on the brink, but now they’re back on hold for another month. But is the handwriting on the wall? Will you be seeing them shopping on Rodeo Drive this summer? And, I’ll tell the story of my most unforgettable jury trial!

There’s a lot of hand-wringing going on over the idea Donald Trump’s response to some federal court orders has put us in a soup called “constitutional crisis.” Well the soup may soon be heated up and served, but so far it’s still in Andy Warhol’s Campbell’s can. Trump hasn’t spit in the eye of a judge yet, he’s more or less playing by the rules. If he gets a “NO” from SCOTUS in a case and ignores them, yes, we’ll be in hot water (and Trump will probably in a trifecta – three impeachments! – and this time might be convicted). But not yet, so everybody should take a chill pill.

Some Americans are suffering from a severe case of premature pearl-clutching. Donald Trump may at some point trigger a constitutional crisis by defying federal court orders. But, that hasn’t happened yet, so his critics may fall prey to “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” syndrome. Plus, a California jury is struggling with its verdict in the case of a judge who shot his wife to death after she dared him to pull the trigger. After the shooting he texted his bailiff to say he wouldn’t be in court the next day – he’ll be in custody.

The “trial of the century” resulted in “the worst jury verdict of the century.” How did it happen? What better source to consult than Marcia Clark, the lead prosecutor. Why did a downtown LA jury vote for OJ? And, did the DA’s office blow the case by insisting that the trial be held in downtown LA, instead of a courthouse in West LA, where the crime occurred? Clark’s answers may shock you.

This year is the 30th anniversary of the not guilty verdict in O.J. Simpson’s murder case. How did a guy facing overwhelming evidence of guilt beat the rap?

In this report you’ll learn how the Los Angeles County DA had a sure win if he’d just chosen to try the case in West Los Angeles, where the crime occurred.

Instead, overconfidence and a desire for a conviction by a diverse jury led the DA to commit a colossal blunder.