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

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

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