I’m tackling the twists and turns of the criminal appellate process—particularly the difference between direct and indirect appeals, also known as post-conviction or habeas corpus actions.

I’m drawing directly from my experiences and real questions that come up in my practice, breaking down what I call the “appellate ladder” that anyone must climb after a conviction, especially here in Ohio.

I’ll explain why you can’t just skip steps in the appeal process, even if it feels like it might save time or money. Skipping a rung can create procedural traps, especially if you’re hoping to take your case up to the federal courts later on. I know how tempting it can be to jump ahead, but I’ll show you why following every step is crucial if you want a real shot at relief.

I’m here to cut through the legal jargon and share practical advice for anyone facing an appeal—or just curious about how the process really works. And yes, I’ll even throw in a Mario Bros. analogy to make it all a bit more fun. Stick around if you want to understand the true “appeal” of appeals!

Moments

00:00 Consider indirect appeal first; it's often more successful and cost-effective than the direct appeal, saving time and legal resources.

03:30 Habeas corpus in federal court is complex; missing technicalities at the state level can lead to case dismissal.

Here are 3 key takeaways from the episode:

• There Are Two Appellate Ladders: The criminal appellate process includes a direct appeal (challenging errors from the trial as recorded in the official record) and an indirect or post-conviction appeal (addressing issues outside the record). Both play crucial roles.
• Don’t Skip Steps: As tempting as it is to save time and money by jumping straight to the “stronger” argument, skipping any step in the ladder can lead to procedural default—meaning federal courts may not even consider your case.
• Strategic Foresight is Vital: Allowing each court level to rule preserves your right to seek relief at the federal level (like habeas corpus). Shortcuts, unfortunately, just aren’t an option in appellate law.

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 2025 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...

In this Q&A episode, I answer a question about search warrants and explain the difference between a standard motion to suppress and the all-important Franks motion.

Responding to a listener’s question, I break down how police affidavits are used to obtain search warrants, what happens when there’s a lack of probable cause, and what it means if law enforcement lies—or leaves out key information—when seeking a warrant.

I walk you through how the Fourth Amendment protects your privacy, how courtroom strategies develop, and why it’s so important to keep solid communication with your defense attorney if you’re ever facing criminal charges.

Whether you’re caught up in your own case or just curious how all this plays out in real life, this episode gives you a practical, step-by-step guide straight from my experience in the trenches.

Moments

00:00 Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement must present a sworn statement or affidavit to a judge, establishing probable cause and a nexus between the search location and evidence of criminal activity.

03:41 Exclusionary rule: Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in court; supports motions like suppressing evidence or Frank's motion.

08:35 Discuss police report discrepancies at Frank's hearings; consult your lawyer for strategy and communication.

Here are my top 3 takeaways:

Know the Difference:

A traditional motion to suppress focuses exclusively on what’s contained within the “four corners” of the search warrant affidavit. If the affidavit lacks probable cause, that’s your argument.

A Franks motion takes it a step further—challenging the truthfulness of the statements in that affidavit. If police knowingly lied or omitted critical information, the entire warrant (and seized evidence) can be thrown out.

Procedural Impact Matters:

Motion to suppress hearings are mostly decided on the documents—you don’t typically get to call witnesses or present new evidence.

Franks motions can turn into full-blown evidentiary hearings, where you get to subpoena officers, cross-examine them, and introduce evidence showing intentional falsehoods or omissions.

Strategic Use:

Skilled defense attorneys often file both types—creating multiple avenues to contest the evidence and strengthen your client’s 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 2025 Stephen E....

Whether you’re curious about the details of the preliminary hearing, how the defense will handle the mountain of evidence, or why even the most reviled defendants still deserve a robust legal defense, this episode will unpack the complexities and answer your pressing questions as the case unfolds.

This is what you NEED to know about how the justice system will handle the country’s highest-profile case right now.

The Basics: No Grand Jury in Utah

Utah does things differently—there’s NO grand jury. Prosecutors file charges directly, supported by a probable cause affidavit. This initial phase is all about protecting everyone’s rights, even for the accused in horrific crimes.

Why Probable Cause Matters

A probable cause statement lays out the evidence/accusations, so prosecutors can’t just grab anyone off the street. It’s a paper trail under oath of what the State knows so far.

Initial Appearance: Enter the Accused

The defendant’s first court appearance was done over Zoom/WebEx for safety (think: avoid any “Jack Ruby” moments; if you know, you know). At this appearance, charges are read out loud to give proper notice.

No Bond—And Why

Because the DA is seeking the death penalty, Utah law doesn’t allow for bond in these cases. The defense can’t even make a pitch for release.

Next Up: The Preliminary Hearing Showdown

This is the big one! It’s a live mini-trial where prosecutors have to show the judge enough evidence (probable cause) to move forward. Unlike secret grand juries, this is an open court. If prosecutors flop, the case is dismissed. Expect this hearing to be highly watched.

Public Defenders = Real Lawyers

Don’t knock court-appointed counsel! Death penalty cases require certified, highly trained lawyers. The defense gets the budget for experts—think DNA, ballistics, cyber-forensics.

Mountains of Evidence = Slow Process

With “truckloads of discovery”—every text, Discord chat, DNA swab—review takes TIME. The right to a speedy trial is for the defendant, but in reality, you can’t prep a case of this scale in a few months.

Constitutional Protections Are for Everyone

“This case exemplifies why we have these rights”—even for those accused of monstrous acts. The goal: avoid botched trials, which can lead to appeals and more pain for everyone.

Strategy Talk: What Will the Defense Do?

Expect the defense to check the client’s competency, dig into all the digital evidence, and build rapport (trust is HARD when the system appoints your lawyer). Every fact counts.

Will the Public See Everything?

Not likely. Much discovery stays in the hands of lawyers—public interest is huge, but releasing it all risks poisoning the jury pool and jeopardizing witnesses.

What’s Next? Possible Outcomes…

• Dismissal at preliminary hearing (unlikely, but possible if evidence falls short)
• Plea deal (maybe in exchange for info on other involved parties)
• Full-blown jury trial (with a death penalty phase if convicted)

The Emotional Toll on Lawyers

Even veteran defense attorneys admit: Sometimes a case hits too close to home. If emotions might interfere, you step aside. The system only works if both sides are at their best.

Bottom line:

This is the justice system in the public eye—every step under scrutiny. Don’t let the info vacuum fuel wild theories; wait for facts, demand answers, watch the legal process unfold.

Moments

00:00 Understanding Probable Cause Statements

08:12 Reduced Risks in Prisoner Transport

14:17 "Aggravating Circumstances in Question"

18:21 Court-Appointed Death Penalty