Steve Palmer sits down with Troy Hendrickson, our resident law student, for a deep dive into what law school doesn’t always teach you—this time, focusing on the mysterious world of grand juries.

They break down what a grand jury is, the differences between grand and trial (petit) juries, and why the standard of proof is much lower at the indictment stage than at trial.

Steve and Troy use the recent Epstein case as a jumping-off point, discussing the secrecy surrounding grand jury proceedings, why those records are generally kept under wraps, and who gets to peek behind the curtain (hint: it’s a very short list).

They unpack the legal and historical reasons for keeping grand jury information confidential, the ongoing court battles about whether transcripts should be released for so-called 'public interest' reasons, and the potential for the Supreme Court to settle this debate once and for all.

Plus, the conversation veers into attorney-client privilege, conspiracy theories about the Epstein case, and how high-profile cases influence the direction of legal rules. And, as always, they share their thoughts on what law school could do better—hint: more real-life cases, less rote memorization.

Moments

00:00 Probable Cause and Legal Standards

03:19 Grand Jury Process Explained

06:44 Memory Lapses in Consent Cases

12:47 Judge Denies Release of Transcripts

15:44 National Injunctions and Judicial Authority

19:11 SCOTUS on Judicial Authority Limits

21:35 Epstein's Suicide Theories Discussed

25:48 Nixon, Pentagon Papers, Legal Precedents

28:12 Beyond Law School Discussions

Here are three key takeaways:

Grand Jury Process Is Often Misunderstood: Many people—even in law school—mistake the role of a grand jury. Unlike the trial jury (“petit jury”), the grand jury’s only job is to decide if there’s enough evidence (probable cause) to indict, not to convict. Defense attorneys are usually kept in the dark and rarely present evidence or have the right to transcripts.

Grand Jury Testimony Is Highly Confidential: The secrecy rules are strict—defense can only access transcripts upon showing a “particularized need.” The rationale goes back to witness safety, protection of ongoing investigations, and safeguarding victim identities—concerns that remain deeply relevant today.

Legal Precedents Shape Access—Not Public Interest: While there’s massive public interest around cases like Epstein, courts have repeatedly ruled that historical or public curiosity is not enough to override the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. Real reform, if any, must come from Congress, not the courts.

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,...