Clear, informative, and straight to the point. The Prosecutor Legal Briefs podcast breaks down complex legal topics in a way that’s easy to understand without losing depth. A must-listen for anyone interested in how the justice system really works.

I truly love this podcast. You get so much right that many other true crime casts get wrong because you are actually in the field and know your stuff. As a fellow lawyer I appreciate this. But re Karen Read- (and btw I’m quite certain she was guilty) typical prosecutor talk. Why do we only respect a jury’s verdict when they convict? Why is “justice was done for the victim” only when a defendant is found guilty? When it’s not guilty, it must be because of some underhanded, unscrupulous method the defense used. And the defendant “escapes justice.” We as a society have decided that a jury of 12 of our peers is basically the final say in guilt or innocence for all of us. But why is there no re-investigation when the defendant is not guilty? Because prosecutors seem to ONLY respect the verdict when it’s guilty. Juries convict approx. 9 of 10 defendants that go to trial in criminal cases. If anything there is a presumption of guilt a defendant has to overcome. Not the other way round. So why is a guilty defendant the only way justice is served? Karen Read very very likely killed this man. But a jury thought otherwise. The jury who saw every minute of testimony and piece of evidence. Why do prosecutors always say they got it wrong? We hold up guilty verdicts as the truth, vindication, justice at last. But not-guilty verdicts are too often, nearly always, looked at as a sleight to the victim and their family, the success of sleazy defense lawyers, and a the result of jury who got it wrong?

Alice and Brett, when you willfully ignore the fact that this trial occurred in MA, where law enforcement and political corruption are woven throughout our history, you completely misunderstand how this verdict came to pass. Put this trial into context and do better.

Best podcast ever. Wouldn’t change a thing.

I just love, love, love Brett and Alice. They are incredibly adept at making the layperson understand and appreciate the nuances of the legal system. I'm consistently entertained and always eager to learn from them. Thank you for making me look forward to taking my makeup off and doing my whole night routine at the end of the day while I listen to you. They are brilliant legal minds and even better humans, always willing to challenge their perspectives and encourage me to do the same. My five-star question is: what law would you implement if you ruled the world? Most if not all practicality aside, what law do we need to make the world (or your world) a better place? This can be satirical or sincere.

Hearing a smart, impartial take like this is a breath of fresh air.

They throw shade at Lawyer You Know for generating a following talking about the Karen Read case, yet they do the same thing. They insulted online journalists and FKR supporters for having an opinion. And in the end their opinion of a guilty verdict just made them seem even more smug when they turned out to be wrong.

Why bother having a defense attorney on to just tell you what you want to hear? What a joke. There’s so much grifting to go around surrounding KR trial.

Thank you Alice & Brett for giving your honest & unbiased analysis on true crime cases. I have learned so much from listening to you both! Question: is it common for a defendant to go to every side bar in a trial?

I really loved them for many many cases. I thought it was thorough and unbiased. But….um, now it seems extremely biased and extremely one-sided, so it’s much less of a must-listen for me. It’s interesting how they have the exact same opinion on every single case. Neither has an independent thought or ever disagrees with the other. Just kind of strange for very dividing cases. They are lockstep, so it makes you wonder.

They have no scruples for the actual truth. They go for the positive popular review!

I have learned so much about our judicial system by listening to you both. Thanks for your deep dives and authenticity. I have laughed and cried and contemplated with you. Keep up the good work!

I love how deep Brett and Alice go into details - one of my favorite podcasts!! I have a question/request/lighthearted podcast topic. Would you cover the Clayton echard/laura Owens case? She sued him for child support for unborn twins that are now assumed to have never existed and is being charged with fraud. Would love to know your thoughts on something kind of silly!

Brett and Alice continue to be the best! My question: why can’t a woman consent to sex when she’s drunk, but being under the influence doesn’t excuse you from anything else?

I am a LONG time fan and love Brett and Alice! They make my commute on the days I have to be on campus so much easier! However, I am not a fan of the new background music that comes and goes at weird times during the show. It’s distracting for those of us who are multitasking while listening to begin with! I will still be listening but cringing when the music comes on, lol!

OMG you had me literally laughing out loud at your commentary regarding the ARCCA video that the defense made! This case makes me so angry. I’ve already been warned by my husband that I’m not allowed to watch the verdict live lol. Here’s my question- what is your “go to” karaoke song?

Logical humans who are knowledgeable, intelligent and are not influenced by media trolls. Listen if you want authentic, truthful information based in fact. Question: who is next in your …”is guilty” series?? I think that could be podcast #3!

Yo, your boy Temujin is guilty. Listen to your peoples at The Murder Sheet. Even if he is innocent he still deserves to be in prison forever. Love your show tho.

If Brett had a history podcast I would love it. My question is:how do we get Brett to do a history podcast?

This podcast has great information and the explanations on current court cases has been excellent! My question is - do judges ever know ahead of time what the jury has decided and how does this play into their sentencing decisions. Do they have a stance ready to go? Also, can a judge not follow standard guidelines lines and give someone a lighter sentencing? For example - the Brock Turner case. The judge said he was following guidelines, but he ended up getting recalled. Why wasn’t anything done about Brock’s light unjust punished if the Judge got recalled? Can prosecutors do anything about it if they feel the punish isn’t right?

I have been a fan of this podcast for a long time. Bret and Alice have amazing insight to cases and great banter. I enjoy every minute of listening to them. My question: Do you have any helpful advice for my daughter who wants to become a prosecutor? She’s majoring in chemistry and history as an undergraduate at a state college and is worried she won’t look competitive enough for law school. She was valedictorian in HS and would love to eventually work on the east coast. Thanks!!!

I have been really impressed by the quality and content of the show! I know my political beliefs probably do not align with Brett or Alice’s, particularly in recent cases, but I’m singularly impressed by their ability to present both sides without taking an opinion or making me feel like I shouldn’t listen to them because I don’t agree with their conclusions. My question: have you ever been in a position as an attorney where you had to defend a position that you did not agree with and what do you do? For example - if you’re a part of the Karen Read legal team and you don’t agree with the “she was framed by everyone in Boston” defense and find their tactics morally ambiguous?

Hey y'all! Love the podcasts, avid listener of both of them over here. There was a "news story" circling on social medias - spoiler alert it ended up being AI created - but the plot sparked an ethical debate before realizing the whole thing was fake. Long story short the fake video claimed that four adult women got heavily and publicly intoxicated, ended up at the wrong apartment, and when they couldn't get the door open began to bang on and kick down the door at like 2am. Cut to the 80 year old man who wakes up to his door being kicked in at 2am, uses a firearm to defend himself and his home, and three of the four women are fatally shot and one loses a leg. Again, this did not really happen. If that was a real case that went to trial, with the remaining woman suing the man and wanting jail time for him, and the man maintaining his innocence and right to defend via castle doctrine, what do you think the outcome of that case would be? And if it was real, regardless of the confines of the law, what would you want it to be? Also, how close are we to living in a simulation with AI getting smarter and people becoming dumber? Will we eventually be able to sue AI? Or will AI create its own jury of AI peers and the human race just won't stand a chance at that point?

I worked as a social worker for DHR in Alabama for 18 years. What is your perspective on juvenile court dependency proceedings?

Hi, I love, love, love your podcast and was thrilled when you covered the Rosenberg case. I’ve lived in Guatemala since 1996 as a missionary and this case rocked the political scape tremendously. Did you know that the then president, Colom, had his wife divorce him so she could legally run for the presidency herself! Also, there is another case I hope maybe someday you would consider covering, it’s the Floridama Roque case. She traveled here for a cosmetic surgery and died in the recovery room. What happened afterward is horrific and shocking and her story should be told to help others be aware of seeking cosmetic treatments abroad. Thanks for reading and I wish your families many blessings!!!

I have been a huge fan of The Prosecutors from the beginning. I love the friendship between Brett, Alice, and their families. They take very complex legal information and break it down in a non-bias, no agenda way that is easy to understand. As they put it, they aren’t in it for the reviews, they just speak the truth no matter how many 1 star reviews they *cough-cough-Alice* get. ;) Although I encourage everyone to listen both podcasts, Legal Briefs is my favorite. This podcast is more laid back and in a way more informative because they break down the legal side of filings, how the law works, and why lawyers do what they do. The good, the bad, the ugly from true practitioners that love the law and love sharing their knowledge with others. Don’t quit y’all! You two are my favorite Podcasters! My question: all jokes aside, I love you Alice, listening to you is truly amazing how y’all balance life, kids, work and podcasting is inspiring. I also enjoy hearing the ups and downs along the way because it’s real and honest and completely relatable! You too Brett. :) So my daughter, Bree (shout out), is 15 and a Sophomore in high school. Her goal is to be the Valedictorian when she graduates and go to law school someday. What advice do you have for her about undergraduate studies and anything else you can think of for a highschooler interested in law- what should she study, should she try and go to the same school for undergrad that she wants to go to law school at? What schools would y’all recommend? We’re in your home state of Texas. Lastly, what can she do now to prepare? Thank you both!!!

These are federal prosecutors in your districts that don’t recognize reasonable doubt. I used to love this pod but these people represent you and your constituents in court, beware! Yikes. Brett and his connection to the Trump administration is disgusting. Alice is a sycophant which makes her even grosser. Don’t listen, and beware

thanks to both of you for all of the work you put into this podcast, it has truly deepened my appreciation for the law and its quirks. my question is: what is your advice for the LSAT? any hacks? thanks again!

I disagree with other reviewers who claim to hear your politics in your coverage- I think you guys do a great job of presenting facts without bias- and I can guarantee, our personal politics are very different :) It makes me appreciate you more! For my question: Do you agree with the Double Jeopardy clause in the 5th amendment, or would you like to see it change? I personally am fascinated by the UK’s Criminal Justice Act that allows for subsequent charges in serious cases,if new evidence surfaces. Thanks guys!

I love the banter the info and everything about the two of you But for real are we watching the same trial!

Alice and Brett are amazing hosts who take us through every episode with enthusiasm and professional opinions. They have a great co-host chemistry between them and always have interesting content. I always look forward to these episodes! Question for Alice and Brett: what is your favorite family vacation spot with kids? We went to Salem, MA last October and had a blast. Our other favorite is Chicago.

Lots of good true crime / housewives overlap! Maybe start w Tom Gerardi?

I’m new to the WM3 case and listening to your series. I also just finished episode one of Paradise Lost. So, I’m going in blind and have no preformed opinions. Why did they put Damien and Jason on trial at the same time? Shouldn’t they have received separate trials?

I am preparing to take my real estate license test and I am curious about something, how do you train your brain to read legalese??? I am struggling so much with the state statutes and law portions.

I absolutely love how Brett and Alice make law understandable and easy to listen to. Unlike others I adore their banter, rants, and side chatter. They get me through many 90 min pool running laps.

HERE’S MY QUESTION: “Do you take the polygraph or not?” “Do you lawyer up or not?” “ What’s an honest citizen who stumbles upon a dead body to do?” What’s would Brett and Alice do? You’re walking down the street and encounter an abandoned murder victim. You call 9-1-1. You guys always say the person who finds the body is an immediate suspect. So knowing this, do you speak to the police without a lawyer or not? Do you take a polygraph or not? If you don’t take it, you’re uncooperative and raise suspicions. If you do take it and it’s inconclusive or you fail - you’re suspicious. Or you could even pass and they could lie to you and say you didn’t.

I enjoy both of their podcasts. Question: What do you think are the most important ways that you have grown as individuals in the past ten years? What changes in yourselves are you most grateful for?

You guys are the true hero’s of the true crime world! You tell it straight and you tell it true! I cannot tell you how much I appreciate you both. Question : What was your favorite Halloween costume as a child? Myself, I had a blast dressing as a Cone Head from Saturday Night Live. I loved spending the whole day acting like an alien. It was a bonus to watch my teachers expressions. The smiles turning to puzzlement and shock when they realized a 3rd grader was dressing as a character from a late night comedy show. Priceless.

Brett and Alice are the best! I love their other podcast, The Prosecutors, and I’ve learned so much from Legal Briefs! Thank you for what you do, Brett and Alice!

Great podcast! Great job of explaining the processes and providing insight. I really love how the hosts present information, how they interact with each other and how their love of law is obvious. I would like to know if they think Melanie McGuire is guilty and how they think the crime was really carried out. That is my 5 star question 🥰

Terrible take on everything

Bret, what’s your favorite thing to order when you go to Texas Roadhouse ? I’m obsessed with TRH, I love their amazing boneless wings and that delicious chicken with the grilled onions and cheese 😭

Love the show but the episode with Gilbert King was really ignorant of the true victim .. He is so happy that Leo (the wife beater) is no longer upset with Jeremy the murderer ! What about Michelle’s family and the Cab drivers family ? It seems like he wants to give him a reward to confessing to ANOTHER murder

I love Alice and Brett! They are so smart and witty. Their easy going logic as well as succinct way of explaining confusing legal issues make listening to them easy and informative. Their shows are the equivalent of going out to dinner with friends and getting sucked into a great conversation. Listen to both podcasts - you will not be disappointed. I find myself replying out loud to what they are saying!!! You have to listen!!!! Question: you’ve made it to the end of your life and have arrived at the Pearly Gates: St. Peter says that before you enter he will give you the answer to one of life’s great mysteries. What are you asking him about? (Who killed JFK? What happens at the Dyatlov Pass? Who is the real Dan Cooper? Etc.)

I wish I could remember how I first heard about you guys! It was 4 kids ago (right before Brett’s baby boy) and it all just keeps getting better!! Q-With all of your travels; if you were made to move to another country, which one would it be and why?

Alice & Brett: Have you ever had Rocky Mountain Oysters? And if not, would you try them?

I love Brett and Alice’s straightforward legal analysis so I can keep up to date with the news. Can you guys please cover the disappearance of Jennifer Kesse?

I have truly fallen in love with your coverage of all the cases in your other podcast, and this one here is the cherry on top. Understanding the mechanics of the law and why things happen as they do is very refreshing. MY QUESTION: I have debated starting a podcast, or maybe a blog-turned podcast. Yet my insecurities often stop me, because why would anyone want to hear me speak (or write)? When I look to you, your insight makes sense considering your respective CVs. How do I determine if my idea is worth the effort or if it would fall on deaf (or non-listening) ears?

I’m a better communicator and understand issues that are important to me better because of this podcast! I love the passion without trying to convince any one of anything, just encouraging people to be informed and have educated opinions that include all the nuances of incredibly complicated issues. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and perspectives

If someone is convicted of two lengthy sentences that were committed in two separate states, in which state do they serve their sentence?