In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down the move nobody saw coming in the Luigi Mangione case: there will be no federal trial. Instead of the two trials everyone was waiting for, on August 14 Mangione pleaded guilty in federal court to the stalking-resulting-in-death charges — an open plea to the court, with no plea deal — and his lawyers immediately used that conviction to attack the New York murder case as double jeopardy.

Monica and Brandon walk through how it happened: the plea deal report that prosecutors shut down, what an open plea actually is and how federal plea practice differs from state court, and the carefully scripted allocution — the 3D-printed gun and suppressor, posing as an investor managing more than $50 billion to find UnitedHealthcare's investor conference, admitting he traveled to New York intending to shoot Brian Thompson, and tying his motive to his own experience with the healthcare system. Then why all that detail was the point: double jeopardy requires the same act, and the allocution erased any ambiguity. It's a calculated risk, because if the motion fails, his own words get used against him. The federal guidelines land between 24 and 30 years, the government is seeking life, and sentencing is set for December.

From a criminal defense perspective, they dig into the statute doing the work: New York's criminal procedure law bars separate prosecutions for the same act or criminal transaction — broader than the dual sovereignty rule they covered in Part 1, and triggered only by a conviction, which is exactly what the guilty plea created. They debate the exception that will decide the motion — whether stalking and murder are statutes designed to prevent "very different kinds of harm or evil" — through their own Florida stalking and injunction practice, cover the defense's due process argument that the prosecutions were sequenced to maximize punishment, and lay out the stakes: a potentially consecutive 25-to-life state sentence versus a single federal sentence and getting out in his 50s. Plus the supporters who were already a jury problem, and the hosts' split verdict: Monica is rooting for him to see daylight, while Brandon, the former prosecutor, can't get past the family who never gets their dad back.

Topics covered in this episode include: the Luigi Mangione guilty plea, open pleas, federal versus state plea practice, the allocution, the federal stalking resulting in death charges, New York's double jeopardy statute and dual sovereignty, the motion to dismiss the New York murder case, the "very different kinds of harm or evil" exception, stalking law and injunctions in Florida, the due process sequencing argument, federal sentencing guidelines, the December sentencing, the Pennsylvania case still pending, the Mangione supporters and the jury problem, and the smartest strategic plea they've covered.

Listen to Come Back with a Warrant for legal commentary, criminal defense insight, true crime breakdowns, and real conversations about the justice system. Subscribe, leave a five-star review, and sign up for our weekly newsletter for more criminal defense stories, legal insight, and unfiltered courtroom commentary.
🎧 Leave us a 5 Star Review! Follow us for legal hot takes, episode updates, and a peek into our lawyer lives.
📺 YouTube: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Podcast 📸 Instagram: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod 🎵 TikTok: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod
Find us everywhere and join the conversation!

In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down where the Luigi Mangione case actually stands as his murder trials approach — separating what the internet believes from what is really happening in court.
Mangione is charged in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, gunned down on a Manhattan sidewalk in one of the most polarizing prosecutions in America. He faces state murder and weapons charges in New York plus federal interstate stalking counts — and the landscape has shifted: the death penalty is off the table after the judge dismissed the death-eligible counts and the government declined to appeal, and the once-headline terrorism charge is gone too. Monica and Brandon explain dual sovereignty, why being prosecuted by the feds and the state for the same act is not double jeopardy, and which case carries the bigger risk now.
From a criminal defense perspective, they walk through the suppression rulings that reshaped the case: the backpack contents and key statements thrown out because of how eight officers surrounded him in a McDonald's — and the ghost gun, suppressor, and notebook the government calls a manifesto that stayed in. They cover when Miranda actually kicks in, the $1.5 million donated defense fund and its jury-image problem, the Free Luigi movement, and the very real talk of jury nullification when a defendant has a fan base.
Topics covered in this episode include: the Luigi Mangione case update, the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, state murder charges and federal interstate stalking charges, why the death penalty is off the table, dual sovereignty and double jeopardy explained, the McDonald's arrest and when Miranda rights kick in, suppressed evidence versus the ghost gun and manifesto, the Free Luigi movement and the donated defense fund, jury selection and jury nullification, and the criminal defense perspective on fighting two prosecutions at once.
Listen to Come Back with a Warrant for legal commentary, criminal defense insight, true crime breakdowns, and real conversations about the justice system. Subscribe, leave a five-star review, and sign up for our weekly newsletter for more criminal defense stories, legal insight, and unfiltered courtroom commentary.
🎧 Leave us a 5 Star Review! Follow us for legal hot takes, episode updates, and a peek into our lawyer lives.
📺 YouTube: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Podcast 📸 Instagram: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod 🎵 TikTok: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod
Find us everywhere and join the conversation!

In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down Part 2 of the Lindsay Clancy trial: the defense case in chief, the commonwealth's rebuttal experts, the closing arguments, and the deadlocked jury — recorded live on verdict watch, with a jury note landing just as the episode wrapped.
The defense built its case on experts. Dr. Paul Zeisel, the clinical and forensic psychologist who saw Lindsay within days of the killings and became her treating psychologist, delivered the money quote: she was unable to conform her behavior to the requirements of the law and had no appreciation for the wrongfulness of her act. Dr. Phillip Resnick — the country's leading expert on filicide and malingering — testified by Zoom that she was frankly psychotic at the time of the killings, like a puppet with someone else pulling the strings, and that standardized malingering testing showed she was minimizing her symptoms, not exaggerating them. A psychopharmacologist walked through the 13 medications and the missed signs of postpartum psychosis, a forensic pathologist legitimized the suicide attempt the state called performative and compressed the timeline, and the lay witnesses — her mother, her sister, and her former mother-in-law, who testified she was an excellent mother who was clearly sick — put a family's grief on the defense side of the courtroom. Plus the hospital chaplain who heard about the voices before any defense doctor ever did.
Monica and Brandon explain the Massachusetts criminal responsibility standard — cognitive or volitional, and the commonwealth's burden to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt, a minority rule nationally — then dig into the state's rebuttal experts, who contradicted each other's diagnoses, and the mic-drop moment when the defense read the prosecution's own opening statement to the state's final expert, who admitted it really minimizes what she was going through. From a criminal defense perspective, they break down both closings — the quarters on the prosecution's table, the family photographs, the "broken toys" line the state left the jury with — the three verdict slips and the lesser included offenses, and the Tuey-Rodriguez "dynamite" charge that reminds a deadlocked jury the burden sits entirely on the commonwealth. Then they each give their own verdict — and they don't match.
Topics covered in this episode include: the Lindsay Clancy trial verdict watch, the defense case in chief, not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility, postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder, the filicide and malingering experts, altruistic filicide, the MMPI malingering test, the 13 medications and the missed diagnoses, the compressed timeline, the ex-mother-in-law and chaplain testimony, the commonwealth's conflicting rebuttal experts, the mistrial motion over religious testimony, closing argument strategy and theatrics, the verdict slips and lesser included offenses, the Tuey-Rodriguez dynamite charge versus Florida's Allen charge, hung juries and what happens after a mistrial, and the criminal defense perspective on whether the state met its burden.
This is a heavy episode about mental illness, postpartum psychosis, and suicide. If you or someone you love is struggling, call or text 988, the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.
Listen to Come Back with a Warrant for legal commentary, criminal defense insight, true crime breakdowns, and real conversations about the justice system. Subscribe, leave a five-star review, and sign up for our weekly newsletter for more criminal defense stories, legal insight, and unfiltered courtroom commentary.
🎧 Leave us a 5 Star Review! Follow us for legal hot takes, episode updates, and a peek into our lawyer lives.
📺 YouTube: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Podcast 📸 Instagram: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod 🎵 TikTok: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod
Find us everywhere and join the conversation!

In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down Part 1 of the Lindsay Clancy trial: the state's case in chief, how the insanity defense actually works, and the question at the center of it all — was she criminally responsible?
Lindsay Clancy, a 36-year-old labor and delivery nurse, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the January 2023 deaths of her three young children at their Massachusetts home. Nobody disputes that she caused their deaths — this trial is about criminal responsibility: whether postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder, worsened by a cascade of psychiatric medications, left her unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or conform it to the law. Monica and Brandon explain how the insanity defense works in Massachusetts — once the defense raises it, the commonwealth must prove criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt — and why pleading it is anything but risk-free: it requires the client's actual consent, because the outcome is either prison or potentially decades in a psychiatric institution.
They walk through the commonwealth's 14-day, 71-witness case piece by piece: the digital forensics timeline built from Apple Watch data and internet searches, the takeout order and CVS run the state says was a plan to get her husband out of the house, the providers who testified she showed no psychosis at 20-minute telehealth visits, the toxicology report, and the state's claim that a suicide attempt that left her paralyzed was contrived. From a criminal defense perspective, they call out what worked, what backfired — playing the 911 call, the jury view of the house, the courtroom theatrics — and the strategic gamble they cannot explain: the state resting its case in chief without a single mental health expert. Plus the motion for a required finding of not guilty, the mistrial motion, and why closings — and maybe a verdict — are just days away. Part 2 covers the defense case, the rebuttal, and the verdict.
Topics covered in this episode include: the Lindsay Clancy trial in Massachusetts, three counts of first-degree murder, postpartum psychosis and bipolar disorder, the insanity defense and criminal responsibility, who really bears the burden of proof, Apple Watch data and digital forensics evidence, premeditation versus psychosis, HIPAA and why her medical records became fair game, the state's no-expert gamble, the contrived suicide argument, the 911 call and courtroom theatrics, the required finding of not guilty motion, the mistrial motion, and the criminal defense perspective on trying a mental health case.
This is a heavy episode about mental illness, postpartum psychosis, and suicide. If you or someone you love is struggling, call or text 988, the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.
Listen to Come Back with a Warrant for legal commentary, criminal defense insight, true crime breakdowns, and real conversations about the justice system. Subscribe, leave a five-star review, and sign up for our weekly newsletter for more criminal defense stories, legal insight, and unfiltered courtroom commentary.
🎧 Leave us a 5 Star Review! Follow us for legal hot takes, episode updates, and a peek into our lawyer lives.
📺 YouTube: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Podcast 📸 Instagram: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod 🎵 TikTok: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod
Find us everywhere and join the conversation!

In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down Michael Jackson: The Verdict, the Netflix docuseries revisiting the 2005 Michael Jackson trial, and the criminal defense strategy that ended in a full acquittal on every count.
The 2005 trial put the biggest star on the planet in front of a California jury on child molestation and conspiracy charges. After a trial that dominated worldwide media coverage, Michael Jackson was acquitted on every count. With the Netflix docuseries reigniting the debate and the billion-dollar Michael biopic bringing a new generation into the story, Monica and Brandon look at what actually happened inside that courtroom, not what the headlines said — including the cross-examination where a key witness swore by a magazine printed years after he ever saw Jackson.
From a criminal defense perspective, they examine how the defense dismantled the prosecution's case through the accuser family's credibility problems, why superfans lying their way onto celebrity juries is a real risk, and how reasonable doubt works when public opinion has already convicted the defendant. Then they turn to the fight that is still alive: Wade Robson and James Safechuck's civil lawsuit against Jackson's companies heading to trial in 2028, why the civil burden of proof is lower, why there is no right to remain silent in a civil case, and the estate's legal war that pulled Leaving Neverland from HBO.
Topics covered in this episode include: Michael Jackson: The Verdict on Netflix, the 2005 Michael Jackson trial explained, child molestation and conspiracy charges, the cross-examination that broke a key witness, jury selection and superfans on celebrity juries, reasonable doubt and the full acquittal, the Wade Robson and James Safechuck civil lawsuit and 2028 trial, civil versus criminal burdens of proof, no Fifth Amendment in civil court, the estate's fight over Leaving Neverland, and the Michael biopic's renewed interest in the case.
Listen to Come Back with a Warrant for legal commentary, criminal defense insight, true crime breakdowns, and real conversations about the justice system. Subscribe, leave a five-star review, and sign up for our weekly newsletter for more criminal defense stories, legal insight, and unfiltered courtroom commentary.
🎧 Leave us a 5 Star Review! Follow us for legal hot takes, episode updates, and a peek into our lawyer lives.
📺 YouTube: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Podcast 📸 Instagram: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod 🎵 TikTok: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod
Find us everywhere and join the conversation!

In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, Palm Beach County criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down one of the most infamous true crime cases in South Florida history: the Killer Clown murder of Marlene Warren.

This Palm Beach County cold case dates back to 1990, when Marlene Warren was shot at the front door of her Wellington-area home by someone dressed in a full clown costume and carrying balloons, including one that read “You’re the Greatest.” For decades, the case remained unsolved and became one of the most recognizable and unsettling murder cases in Palm Beach County, Florida.

Monica and Brandon discuss the facts surrounding Sheila Keen, the woman ultimately connected to the case, including the alleged affair with Marlene Warren’s husband, the white Chrysler LeBaron, the clown costume, the balloons, and the forensic evidence that helped revive the investigation years later. They also explain how cold case DNA testing changed the direction of the case and why advances in forensic technology can bring old South Florida homicide cases back to life.

From a criminal defense perspective, Monica and Brandon analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the Palm Beach County prosecution. They discuss circumstantial evidence, stale witness memories, motive, identity, old evidence, search warrants, DNA testing, and the difficulty of proving a murder case decades after it happened. They also explain why a 12-year plea deal for second-degree murder may have made sense when the alternative was risking life in prison at trial.

The episode also covers no contest pleas, best-interest pleas, appellate rights, gain time, Marsy’s Law, victim-next-of-kin issues, and the unusual legal issues created when the defendant later married the victim’s husband.

And, of course, Monica and Brandon ask the question everyone has about this Palm Beach County true crime case: why a clown costume?

Topics covered in this episode include:

Palm Beach County true crime

The Killer Clown murder case

Marlene Warren and Sheila Keen

Wellington, Florida cold case murder

South Florida cold case investigations

Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office investigations

Cold case DNA evidence

Circumstantial evidence in Florida murder cases

Eyewitness identification issues

Motive and affair-based homicide theories

Second-degree murder plea deals

No contest and best-interest pleas

Florida gain time and sentencing exposure

Marsy’s Law and victim rights in Florida

Why old cases are difficult to prove at trial

How forensic technology can reopen cold cases

Monica and Brandon bring their Palm Beach County criminal defense perspective, legal analysis, and signature humor to one of Florida’s strangest true crime cases involving murder, clowns, cold case evidence, plea negotiations, and a fact pattern that still shocks South Florida decades later.

🎧 Leave us a 5 Star Review! Follow us for legal hot takes, episode updates, and a peek into our lawyer lives. 📺 YouTube: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Podcast
📸 Instagram: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod
🎵 TikTok: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod
Find us everywhere and join the conversation! Subscribe to our newsletter for episode guides and latest pod updates: https://come-back-with-a-warrant-podcast.kit.com/fe483fdf18 📞 Need help with a case in West Palm Beach?
Contact The Ishak Law Firm or BD Law to discuss your options at (561) 316-8433 or (561)398-4683.

In this episode of Come Back With A Warrant, we dive deep into the shocking downfall of the Alexander brothers—Tal, Oren, and Alan—the high-flying celebrity real estate tycoons who built an empire selling ultra-luxury properties to billionaires. Once considered elite power brokers, they were recently convicted in Manhattan federal court on multiple counts, including federal sex trafficking. We break down how their horrific MO targeted well-situated, high-society women and college students under the guise of exclusive party culture. This isn't your typical sex trafficking case; it's a terrifying look at unchecked power, manipulation, and the brave survivors who brought them down. Key Topics Covered in This EpisodeThe Illusion of the "Locker Room": How the brothers used their wealth, influence, and attractive lifestyles to groom victims and text each other about their predatory behavior. An Unconventional Trafficking Case: Why the federal government stepped in, utilizing statutes that cover drugging, coercion, and minors without strictly requiring state-line crossing. Tracy Tudor's 2026 Civil Lawsuit: A look at the Million Dollar Listing Los Angeles star's legal action regarding a harrowing 2014 incident where she was allegedly drugged and assaulted by Oren Alexander. Inside the Manhattan Federal Court Trial: Why the defense's argument of "consensual party culture" completely collapsed under the weight of 11 testifying survivors. The Trophy Evidence: The chilling physical evidence—including saved videos and photos of incapacitated minors—that ultimately sealed the brothers' fate. Why Reporting Takes Years: An honest legal breakdown of late reporting, the power dynamics that silence victims, and the incoming wave of civil lawsuits. Federal Court Culture & Final Banter: Why we can't watch federal trials, the wild story of Michael Jackson's trial doves, and a peak behind the curtain of our podcast brainstorming sessions. Subscribe to Come Back With a Warrant, leave a five-star review, and sign up for our weekly newsletter for more criminal defense stories, legal insight, and unfiltered courtroom commentary.
🎧 Leave us a 5 Star Review! Follow us for legal hot takes, episode updates, and a peek into our lawyer lives.
📺 YouTube: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Podcast
📸 Instagram: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod
🎵 TikTok: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod
Find us everywhere and join the conversation!
Subscribe to our newsletter for episode guides and latest pod updates: https://come-back-with-a-warrant-podcast.kit.com/fe483fdf18
📞 Need help with a case in West Palm Beach?
Contact The Ishak Law Firm or BD Law to discuss your options at (561) 316-8433 or (561)398-4683.

In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down the arrest of Andrew Tate and Tristan Tate in Miami, the UK extradition request over rape and sex trafficking charges, and what really happens when three countries want the same defendants.
On July 18, 2026, U.S. Marshals arrested the Tate brothers in Miami on a request from the United Kingdom, where prosecutors have charged them with rape, sex trafficking, and related offenses stemming from allegations dating back to 2012 through 2015. Days later, the brothers appeared in Miami federal court, where they were ordered held in federal detention while they fight extradition. Monica and Brandon explain how an international extradition case actually works, from the U.S.-UK extradition treaty and the dual criminality requirement to the limited role a U.S. judge plays in deciding whether someone can be sent overseas.
The episode also covers the brothers' long-running legal saga in Romania, where a human trafficking case remains pending, why they left Romania for Florida in early 2025, and how the still-open Romanian charges complicate the UK request. From a criminal defense perspective, Monica and Brandon walk through the defense strategies available in an extradition fight, why these cases can take months or even years, what detention and bail look like in federal extradition proceedings, and what the Tates' legal team is likely to argue in a South Florida courtroom.
Topics covered in this episode include: the Andrew Tate and Tristan Tate arrest in Miami, the UK extradition request and the U.S.-UK extradition treaty, rape and sex trafficking charges in the United Kingdom, the international extradition process and dual criminality, federal detention and extradition hearings in Miami federal court, the Romania human trafficking case, Interpol and international arrest warrants, defense strategies in extradition proceedings, how long extradition cases take, and the criminal defense perspective on high-profile celebrity prosecutions.
Listen to Come Back with a Warrant for legal commentary, criminal defense insight, true crime breakdowns, and real conversations about the justice system. Subscribe, leave a five-star review, and sign up for our weekly newsletter for more criminal defense stories, legal insight, and unfiltered courtroom commentary.
🎧 Leave us a 5 Star Review! Follow us for legal hot takes, episode updates, and a peek into our lawyer lives.
📺 YouTube: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Podcast 📸 Instagram: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod 🎵 TikTok: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod
Find us everywhere and join the conversation!