UNBIASED - Hunter Biden, FTC Sues Amazon…Again, New SCOTUS Decisions, Titan’s Catastrophic Implosion, and More.

Episode Date: June 23, 2023

1. Hunter Biden: the Charges, the Agreement, Plea Deal v. Pretrial Diversion, and the Judge Overseeing the Case (2:02)2. FTC Sues Amazon for Nonconsensual Enrollment in Amazon Prime and Intentionally Complicating the Cancellation Process (8:46)3. SCOTUS Released New Decisions on Thursday; Here’s What They Say (17:50)4. U.S. Coast Guard Deems All Five on Board Submersible Deceased Due to Catastrophic Implosion (26:58)5. Special Counsel John Durham Testifies Before Congress Re: His Findings Surrounding the FBI Probe into Election Meddling (29:01)6. Fed Chair, Jerome Powell, Testifies Before Congress About Inflation and Future Interest Rate Hikes (29:44)7. Pentagon Announces It Overestimated Value of Military Supplies Sent to Ukraine by $6.2B (30:20)8. Investigators Say Bryan Kohberger’s DNA Swab is a Statistical Match to DNA Found at Murder Scene (31:43)If you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a review and share it with those you know that also appreciate unbiased news!Subscribe to Jordan's weekly free newsletter featuring hot topics in the news, trending lawsuits, and more.Follow Jordan on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube.All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario Helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

You are listening to the Jordan Is My Lawyer podcast, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Enjoy the show. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast. I have quite the episode for you today. So not only do I have three full length stories, but because there's so much going on in the news right now, I'm doing a segment called notable mentions where it's basically just a run through of five stories. I mean, it could change depending on the day, but today it's five and I'm going to cover them in two minutes or less. So I'll have three full stories. I'm going

to start with the latest on Hunter Biden, his charges, the agreement, a little bit about the judge, what a plea is, what a pretrial diversion is, all of that stuff. Then we'll move into the FTC's lawsuit against Amazon. And then we'll talk about the Supreme Court decisions that were just released on Thursday before we dive into those notable mentions. Before we get into today's stories, let me just please remind you to leave me a review on whatever platform you listen. It really helps support my show and just podcasters in general.

Reviews and word of mouth are truly everything to us and also sharing the show. So that goes in line with word of mouth. The more you share our shows with your friends and your family and colleagues, the more eyes and ears we get, which in turn helps us in the long run. One last note, if by the end of this episode, you're still craving more unbiased news, I do have a newsletter going out tomorrow on Saturday. So you can always

subscribe to that on my website, jordanismylawyer.com slash subscribe. And as long as you're subscribed before tomorrow at 8am, it'll hit your inbox and you'll get more unbiased news. Without further ado, let's get into today's stories. The news broke on Tuesday that Hunter Biden agreed to plead guilty to two charges of willful failure to pay federal income tax and also enter into a pretrial diversion for a separate charge of an individual in possession with a firearm who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. On Wednesday, the federal judge that's assigned to the case set a court date of July 26th for Hunter to make his initial court appearance related to that plea deal. At that time, the judge can either accept or reject the plea agreement that Hunter had reached

with the prosecutors. So let's go over the charges, who brought the charges, what the deal looks like, the pretrial diversion, the difference between the two, and a little bit about the judge overseeing the case. So the charges are, as I said, it's two charges for willful failure to pay federal income tax. This stems from 2017 and 2018 when he allegedly made over a million and a half dollars in taxable income but didn't pay taxes for those years. This crime carries a max sentence of 12 months in prison, though he likely won't see prison time because the U.S. attorney that brought these charges actually recommended himself to the judge that Hunter only serve probation. As for the gun charge, this stems specifically from an 11-day period in October of 2018. He had possessed a Colt Cobra.38 caliber revolver,

despite knowing he was an unlawful user of and addicted to a controlled substance, that being cocaine. Allegedly, at the time, in October 2018, his girlfriend, who also happened to be his brother's widow, found the gun in Hunter's truck and threw it away in a dumpster behind a grocery store in Delaware. She later went back to get it, but the gun wasn't there anymore. A few days later, a man who apparently regularly went through the trash, not sure if he was homeless or what, but he ended up turning the gun into the police. The Secret Service then visited the gun store where the gun had been purchased from and asked for purchase records. The owner would not provide

them to the Secret Service, saying that this was a matter under the jurisdiction of ATF, but when ATF later came to the store owner, the store owner did cooperate. At that point is when it became known that on the background check questionnaire that had to be filled out in order to buy the gun, Hunter had responded no to the question that asks if you're an unlawful user of or addicted to either marijuana, a depressant, a stimulant, a narcotic, or any other controlled substance. However, we know that he was discharged from the Navy Reserve after testing positive for cocaine. He also acknowledged his history of drug use in his book. So it was clear to officials that

he had lied on that form. Now, notably, the charge isn't lying on the document, right? The charge is possessing a gun as someone who was an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. So it's actually a little bit different. The max sentence for this charge is 10 years, though again, he won't see prison time for this because of that pretrial diversion, which we will talk more about in a minute. These charges were actually filed in two separate informations. For those unfamiliar, an information is the same as an indictment in the sense that it's a formal accusation of a crime, but it differs in the sense that it's brought by a public official rather than a grand jury. So in this case, U.S. Attorney David Weiss was the one who brought these charges, brought these informations. He's actually a Trump appointee, and the reason for that is so that there's no conflict of interest issue.

Now let's talk a little bit about the deal and the pretrial diversion. We don't know much about the terms of either of these because they haven't been made public yet, but they will be made public soon. In a letter written to the court clerk, one of the prosecutors wrote that there will be a memo summarizing the terms of the plea agreement as well as the details of the pretrial diversion that will be filed publicly by the time he appears for his plea hearing at the end of July. So we can talk more about it then, but we can talk now about them generally. The deal is in regard, the plea deal that is, is in regard to the two charges of willful failure to pay federal income tax.

Essentially what's going to happen is he's going to admit guilt in exchange for a lesser sentence or lesser punishment. Of course, we don't know what that lesser sentence or lesser punishment is. We don't know the specifics of the agreement, but that's the whole point of a plea deal. A pretrial diversion, on the other hand, differs from a plea deal in the sense that it's not an admission of guilt. A pretrial diversion actually avoids conviction altogether. So you don't go through that traditional criminal justice system. You're never convicted. Instead, you enter into sort of a supervised release program as your agreement with the prosecutors, and you have to agree to do things like community service, probation, certain education requirements, or a combination of those things. And if he abides by the terms of that pretrial diversion,

that charge will eventually be dismissed. It won't ever appear on his record. So a plea is an admission of guilt. You are deemed guilty of the crime, whereas a pretrial diversion is an alternate program that avoids prosecution and a conviction and results in the charges being dropped if the conditions are complied with. So I hope maybe that clears things up for you if you were confused as to the difference. Now let's finish by talking a little bit about the judge. The judge is Mary Ellen Noriega. She is the judge overseeing this case. She is a U.S. District Court judge of the District of Delaware. She was appointed by President Trump, again, likely to avoid any

sort of conflict of interest issues. But she does have a history, despite being appointed by Trump, of supporting both sides of the aisle. So prior to her appointment by Trump, she was actually endorsed by two Democratic senators from Delaware. And in the past, she's contributed to both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, which is always nice to see from a judge because we do see that even judges who are meant to be impartial do have a political affiliation. So she's given money to Mitt Romney. That was in 2012. She's given money to John McCain. That was in 2008. Also in 2008,'s given money to Mitt Romney. That was in 2012. She's given money to John McCain. That was in 2008. Also in 2008, she gave money to Hillary Clinton, but she has not made

any federal contributions, political contributions in the last nine years. So that's a little bit about the judge. And that sums up the Hunter Biden story. Again, we will know more once that public memo is filed, but this is what we know as of now. That takes us into story number two, which is that the FTC sued Amazon over Prime subscriptions. So on Wednesday, the FTC filed this lawsuit against Amazon for enrolling customers into its Prime program without their consent, while also making it difficult for those customers to cancel once they were enrolled. This is an 87-page complaint that I doubt you want to read, so I did the reading for

you, though I will say the majority of the complaint is actually redacted. The FTC did tell the court that there is no need for it to be redacted if the court does want to agree to unseal it. But for now, it is redacted. If you want to read the complaint for yourself, you certainly can. It's on my website, jordanismylawyer.com, also where I keep all of my sources. So the complaint says that for years, Amazon has knowingly duped millions of customers into unknowingly enrolling into its prime service. And they do this by using manipulative, coercive, and deceptive designs that the FTC calls dark patterns. And this is

intentionally to trick customers into enrolling into the automatically renewing subscriptions. The complaint also cites to some internal memos and communications. Those are redacted. But what you can see is that it says some employees kind of pushed Amazon executives to address the non-consensual enrollment and implement changes to avoid tricking customers, but the executives said no. Not only that, but the FTC also accuses Amazon of intentionally complicating the cancellation process. So again, by using these dark practices, they were tricking users into making decisions that they otherwise wouldn't have made. And in support of this claim, the FTC said that Amazon actually internally, they referred to their cancellation process as Iliad, which for those that may not know,

this is a reference to a very long poem written by Homer about the Trojan War. The poem is set over 24 books. It's 16,000 lines. It's very lengthy. So what the FTC is saying is that the use of the word Iliad was sort of a code word for how labyrinth-like the checkout process actually was. So how did Amazon do this? The complaint says that during Amazon's online checkout process, consumers were faced with numerous opportunities to subscribe to Amazon Prime at $14.99 a month. And in many cases, the option to buy items on Amazon without subscribing was actually more difficult for consumers to locate than subscribing. In other cases, the button that was presented to consumers to complete their transaction didn't clearly state that in choosing that option, they were also agreeing to join

Amazon Prime. Then when consumers attempted to cancel their Prime subscription, consumers were confronted with multiple steps to actually cancel. So they had to kind of jump through hoops, so to speak. First, they had to locate the cancellation flow, as the complaint calls it. And Amazon allegedly made this cancellation flow intentionally difficult. Then once they located the cancellation flow, they were redirected to multiple other pages that presented offers aside from canceling, right? So one of the offers was continue the subscription at a discounted price. Another option was turn off the auto renew feature. And another option was decide not to cancel. So there wasn't actually a conspicuous option that said cancel. Only after getting through all of these pages, so the cancellation flow, the offers, only

after that could consumers finally cancel their subscription. So that's what the FTC is alleging. There are four counts in total in this complaint, and all of them deal with violations of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive practices which affect commerce. The counts also deal with ROSCA, which stands for Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act. And this was passed by Congress in 2010. And Congress's intention in passing this legislation was to mandate clear, accurate information to online customers while also giving sellers

an opportunity to fairly compete with one another for consumers' business. Congress was really focused on transparency for online consumers because consumer confidence, they realized, is and was essential to the growth of online commerce. So in comes the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act, which I will refer to as ROSCA. In online commerce, there are these things called negative option features. And basically, you've seen these before. I'll give you an example.

But the idea is that if a consumer is silent as to whether they agree to purchase something or they don't affirmatively reject the thing that they're being offered, the seller will interpret that silence or lack of affirmative action as acceptance. So as an example, you sign up for a free trial. We've all been there. You don't realize that once that free trial expires, you're charged that subscription amount because you didn't affirmatively cancel. That's a negative option feature. And what section four of Rosca says regarding these negative option features is that if a seller chooses to use them, the seller must one, clearly and conspicuously disclose the material terms of a transaction before ever getting the consumer's billing information. Two, they have to get the consumer's express

informed consent before they make the charge. And three, the seller has to provide a simple process to stop the reoccurring charges. So the FTC alleges that both the non-consensual enrollment that Amazon was partaking in and the Iliad cancellation process, both of these things violated Rosca and the FTC Act. So now that you know a little bit about Rosca and the FTC Act, let's go through the counts briefly. Count one is unfairly charging consumers without consent. Of course, this stems from the allegation that Amazon was enrolling consumers in Prime without them knowing it by using those dark patterns. Count two is violation of Rosca as it pertains to inadequate disclosures. So it stems from the fact that Amazon was failing to clearly and conspicuously

disclose the material terms of signing up for Prime as is required by section four, that section I just went over with you. The terms that Amazon failed to disclose prior to getting consumer billing info were things like the price of Amazon Prime, its auto renewal provision, its cancellation requirements, things like that. Count three is a violation of ROSCA as it pertains to non-consensual enrollment. So this stems from Amazon failing to obtain the consumer's express informed consent before charging the credit card, debit card, or whatever it was on file. Lastly, count four is another violation of Rosca, failure to provide a simple cancellation

mechanism. Again, the FTC alleges Amazon failed to provide a simple mechanism for consumers to stop the reoccurring charges and instead had that Iliad process in place that was extremely complex. So one last thing to note about this is that the FTC has exclusive rulemaking authority under the FTC Act. These rules are known as trade regulation rules. And an example of this is that the FTC actually has the authority to require octane labels on gas pumps. This is a trade regulation rule.

Once the FTC creates a trade regulation rule, anyone who violates that rule with either actual knowledge or implied knowledge based on the objective circumstances, that individual or that entity is liable for civil penalties for each violation. So monetary penalties. For this reason, the FTC is asking for civil penalties amounting to roughly $50,000 for each of Amazon's violations. Now, the complaint doesn't specify how many customers were involved in this, but I would imagine it's a pretty big number. And then you have to take into account that each count is for a new violation. I would imagine that adds up to a large sum of money. The FTC's press release did

note, and this is just a reminder, that the lawsuit is filed on reason to believe that Amazon is violating the law and that filing of the suit is in the public's interest. So of course, this case will have to be heard and decided by a court, just like any other case. On Thursday, the Supreme Court released new decisions. Let's recap them. The first decision was Arizona versus Navajo Nation. This was a five to four decision. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. This was a case brought by the Navajo tribe against the United States, and it arises from the obligations of the government under an 1868 peace treaty, which established the Navajo tribe. Today, the Navajo tribe is almost entirely based in the Colorado Basin area, and that will come into play when we talk about the actual issue

of the case. But something else to note is that when the government reserves land for an Indian tribe, as it did in that 1868 peace treaty, it also implicitly reserves the right to use the water from the various sources on that land. So whenever the United States allocates land to a tribe, both the United States and the tribe have the right to the water. The issue in this case, though, deals with water scarcity. Obviously, the government being the government can fix water issues for its people. It can get water from many other sources within our country. But the Navajo tribe doesn't have the same luxury. They're limited to the area that

they're in. Now, the government has helped them, but the Navajos say that the efforts to help them didn't fully satisfy the obligations of the government under the 1868 treaty. In filing this lawsuit, the Navajos wanted to compel the government to actually take affirmative steps to obtain water for the tribe. So these were things like assessing the tribe's water needs, developing a plan to secure the needed water, and potentially even building things like pipelines, pumps, whatever needed to be built in order to increase access to water. Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado intervene in the lawsuit because they're trying to protect their own interests in the water from the Colorado River. So this makes its way to the

Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court held that in order for the United States to be required to take the affirmative steps that the Navajo Nation contends it has to, the 1868 treaty would have to impose that duty on the United States, which it does not. So Kavanaugh says an alternative resolution is that Congress or the president can enact, and they often have done this, laws to assist the citizens of the Western United States, including the Navajos, with their water needs. But it is not a duty imposed by the treaty at issue. The justices in the majority were Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Barrett, Justice Alito, and Justice Thomas.

The four dissenting justices were Gorsuch, Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor. The second decision that was released on Thursday was Pugin v. Garland. This was a 6-3 decision. Again, Kavanaugh writing for the majority. For this case, here's what you need to know. You need to know that section 1227 of the U.S. Code states that non-citizens who are convicted of a federal or state crime that constitute an aggravated felony are removable from the United States. And this definition of aggravated felony was later expanded by Congress to include offenses relating to obstruction of justice. So if you are a non-citizen and you are convicted of an aggravated felony, including an offense related to the obstruction ofizens that were determined removable by the U.S. in their immigration proceedings. The reason that they were removable was due to their convictions for aggravated felonies that related to obstruction of justice.

The one non-citizen was convicted of dissuading a witness from reporting a crime. But at the appellate level, the court said that the conviction didn't relate to obstruction of justice because the offense didn't require that an investigation was pending. The other non-citizen was convicted of accessory after the fact. At the appellate level, the court said that the conviction did constitute an offense relating to the obstruction of justice, whether or not the offense required an investigation pending. So the question for the court became, does an investigation need to be pending for an offense to be related to obstruction of justice, thereby triggering a potential removal? And the court said, no, an offense can relate to the obstruction of justice, even if the offense doesn't require that an investigation or proceeding is pending.

So in effect, what this means is that the two non-citizens can now be removed for their convictions. Writing for the majority was Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kavanaugh, Barrett, Alito, Thomas, and Jackson. Dissenting was Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Kagan. The third decision that was released was also a 6-3 decision written by Justice Sotomayor. It's called Yigazarian v. Smoggin, and it stems from the RICO Act. The RICO Act is otherwise known as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. It was enacted to combat criminal organizations, but more specifically,

organizations that were involved in racketeering. So racketeering activities are just really dishonest and fraudulent business dealings. It can include things like mail fraud, wire fraud, arson, bribery, even murder for hire. There are many more. The RICO Act actually defines 35 offenses that constitute racketeering. So under the RICO Act, prosecutors are able to bring charges against an entire organization at once. Whereas before the RICO Act, prosecutors would have had to charge each member of the organization individually. But the thing is, is that the RICO Act also allows for private rights of action, meaning that any person, not just prosecutors, can bring a suit under the RICO Act if they are injured by way of a RICO

violation. So those things that I just mentioned, mail fraud, wire fraud, arson, bribery, the list goes on. Another thing to note for this case is that because this is a United States law, the injury has to be domestic, meaning it occurred in the United States. Well, in this case, one Russian citizen sued another Russian citizen. So the question came down to whether this was a domestic injury. What happened was Smoggin had previously won a lawsuit against Yegozarian in which he was awarded millions of dollars. The lawsuit stemmed from the misappropriation of investment funds in a real estate venture in Moscow. However, despite living in Russia, Smoggin was living in Russia, he brought suit in California to enforce the judgment because that's where Yegazarian lived since 2010. The California court enters a judgment against Yagazarian and froze his assets.

At the same time, Yagazarian wins a multi-million dollar case of his own, an entirely separate case, and decides to conceal those funds so that the California court wouldn't freeze those as well. So Smoggin then files a new lawsuit in 2020 under the RICO Act. And in that case, he argued that Yagazarian had violated the RICO Act through wire fraud, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and the district court actually dismisses the case. And the reasoning was that Smoggin failed to plead a domestic injury, mainly because Smoggin himself lived in Russia. It was Yagazarian who lived in California. Well, the Ninth Circuit reverses this. And rather than using a residency-based approach,

the Ninth Circuit used a context-specific approach. And what the court said is, no, Smoggin is trying to execute a California judgment in California against a California resident due to racketeering that largely occurred in California. This is a domestic injury and Smoggin has a right of action. And the Supreme Court agreed and held that a plaintiff alleges a domestic injury when the circumstances surrounding the injury arose in the United States. Writing for the majority was Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Barrett, Jackson, and Kagan. In the dissent was Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch. As always, all of these decisions are linked on

my website in the sources section of this episode. The Supreme Court has 14 cases left to decide after Thursday, but they are scheduled to release more decisions on Friday, so the day you're listening to this. Potentially some controversial ones too, so stay tuned for that. And also, I will be recapping the Supreme Court decisions for Friday on my Saturday newsletter, so that's also a good reason to subscribe. I give you very, you know, like one sentence nonpartisan recaps of each decision. So the link again to subscribe can be found in my podcast description. Otherwise, it's jordanismylawyer.com slash subscribe. Let's move on to notable mentions. Remember I said at the beginning of this episode, there's way too much happening in the news. So I'm going to do

five notable mentions. These are two minute or less stories. The first one is going to be an update on the submersible. The Titan submersible has been deemed catastrophically destroyed. This is according to a press conference by the United States Coast Guard at 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Thursday. Essentially, a remote-operated vehicle called an ROV went down to the seafloor, and at about 8.55 a.m. on Thursday, it discovered the tail cone of the Titan. It was approximately 1,600 feet from the bow of the Titanic on the seafloor. Subsequently, it found some more major pieces. So it then found the nose cone. Both of those are on the exterior of the Titan, but then it found a large debris field. And within that, the ROV found the front end bell of the pressure hull.

And this was the first indication of a catastrophic event because that pressure chamber is what those crew members needed in order to survive. It then found a smaller debris field. And within that, the other end of the pressure hull was found, and that essentially compromised the totality of that pressure chamber. So they said the debris is consistent with the catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber. The families were immediately notified. The ROVs are going to remain on scene and continue to gather information, but they will start demobilizing the nine vessels that are currently out there. When Mauger was asked about the likelihood of recovering bodies, he did call this a catastrophic implosion and implied that no bodies would be found. He said

this was an extremely unforgiving environment. When asked about the timing of the implosion, he implied that he believes the implosion happened early on before the rescue efforts started because those sonar buoys that can detect noise have been in the water since the rescue mission started and no catastrophic event was heard. And he said something like that definitely would have been picked up. There will be no further press briefings by the United States Coast Guard, but they did say that all further updates will be on their Twitter page. The next notable mention is John Durham's testimony. Special Counsel John Durham testified before Congress on Wednesday for just under six hours regarding his four- motivated, that the FBI launched this probe despite not having sufficient evidence to do so, while at the same time ignoring countervailing

evidence. He essentially just reiterated that in his testimony. If you're interested in reading Durham's report or watching his testimony, again, just click the sources can be found here link in the podcast description, or just go to my website. Third notable mention is Jerome Powell's testimony. The Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell testified before the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday and the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday as part of his semi-annual report to Congress. Here's what you need to know in three bullet points. One, he said it was a pretty good guess that the central bank would hike rates twice more this year. He said the process of getting inflation back down to the target rate of 2%

is a long way away, though they are inching closer. And third, he said that the focus of the new banking regulation would likely be on the biggest banks, not the smaller banks. The fourth notable mention is about the Pentagon's announcement surrounding an overestimation of the weapons provided to Ukraine. So the news originally broke in May that the Pentagon had overvalued the military equipment that it sent to Ukraine by about $3 billion. But just this week, the Pentagon announced that that number reached $6.2 billion, specifically $3.6 billion for fiscal year 2022 and $2.6 billion for fiscal year 2023. How did that happen? Rather than using the book value of the equipment, the department used the replacement cost. So the Pentagon says that this $6.2 billion surplus will be used for future support for Ukraine. And just as a side note, just a little fun fact, for the last two years, the Pentagon has been using what's called the Presidential Drawdown Authority to essentially pull weapons off the shelf and send them over to Ukraine rather than going through the purchasing process,

which can take quite a bit of time. The purpose for the Presidential Drawdown Authority was for instances in which there are unforeseen emergencies and our country needs to help out some foreign nations in a short amount of time and deliver them equipment quickly. So that's the presidential drawdown authority. If you want to hear more about it, I did talk more about it on both my TikTok and Instagram this week. So you can always follow me on there if you don't already. My username is just Jordan is my lawyer. One word. The fifth and final notable mention is Brian Koberger's DNA match.

So according to new DNA evidence, a cheek swab of Brian Koberger, the suspected murderer of the four college students in Idaho, is a statistical match to the DNA found at the crime scene. The DNA was 5.37 octillion times more likely to be Koberger's DNA than a random person from the general population. Last month, the judge entered a not guilty plea on his behalf because he chose to stand silent when he was asked for his plea, and his trial is scheduled for October 2nd. That concludes this episode. Don't forget to leave me a review. Please share my show with your friends, and don't forget to subscribe to that newsletter so you can get more news in your inbox Saturday morning. Have a great weekend and I will talk to you next week.