Legal Showdowns: Venezuela Crisis and Minneapolis Tragedy

You're listening to Civic Media.

You can tune into any of our live shows on any radio station across the state with the Civic Media app.

Find us in your phone's app store and listen anytime, anywhere.

This is Amicus, a lot of you, and my name is Jim Santel.

I am your host this hour and also next hour here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.

I thank you, as always, for spending some time during your busy weekend in discussion and review with me of those major issues in the areas of rule of law, administration of justice, and the operation of our government.

all of those things, all of those concepts animating our major stories from this past week.

Let me tell you a little bit about those even as I invite you during the course of this hour and next hour as well to be a part of our conversation.

You can call in to my producer Max.

or me at 855-752-4842.

That phone number, once again, is 855-752-4842.

You can be a part of our discussion here on amicus, a lot of you, as you identify those questions, those concerns, those inquiries, those things that prompt you to scratch your head.

about what is going on in America, what is going on in the world, we will make our best effort to try to answer those questions.

And indeed, in ways that we have seen in the past here on this broadcast, this broadcast is going to be focusing a lot on standards and practices, the rule of law, the guardrails, the principles that guide our understanding of basic events in our lives.

We are going to begin with

major event that was breaking during the course of our broadcast just last weekend, and that is the invasion of Venezuela, the apprehension of its leader, Nicolas Maduro, his return to the United States along with his wife to face criminal charges here.

We have lots and lots of questions coming out of that reporting from just last week.

And throughout this past week, as we've gotten more information, not necessarily clarifying exactly what the basis for our being there, for going in, for doing the things that we have done may be a lot of dispute, a lot of disagreement, a lot of argument about the legal and constitutional predicates for going into Venezuela and doing what we have done and what we are doing, apparently, to this day in that sovereign nation.

back some of the facts of that story and talk a lot about international law.

We'll talk about what the United Nations Charter says about sovereign nations.

We'll talk about immunities that may in fact attach to

Leaders of foreign countries even when they're back in America will talk about the capacity of a sitting president to engage in the kinds of things the President Trump has done not deciding those issues necessarily but giving you the legal standards the touchstones the guidelines for determining

the kinds of things that America is doing today, the legitimacy of those as we go forward, a lot of focus this weekend on the situation in Venezuela, and in particular, once again, law school, as we often do on this broadcast, having to do with international law, certainly not addressing every aspect of it, but raising the questions and providing you with the information, the basic standards that may help you.

As this story develops further in figuring out what the legal trappings of it are all about second much related to that also legal trappings also legal standards the other kind of thing that's also going to be a part of our law school this broadcast the events the tragic events the human tragedy in Minneapolis the death there as we know well of Renee Good

at the hands of an agent of the immigration customs enforcement there in Minneapolis.

We'll talk a little bit about the facts of that case.

They are still developing, as you well know, as more and more video comes out, as there is perhaps a bit more clarity on exactly what did and did not happen there, even as the administration puts its cast on the facts of that horrific event.

We'll talk about what kinds of standards, what legal standards there are.

for law enforcement, not just ICE agents, but for law enforcement generally, when it comes to the use of deadly force, of lethal force in America, it turns out that there are constitutional standards for this.

There are legal standards for this.

The Supreme Court has weighed in on this matter as late as May of last year.

You may recall, we talked a bit about a case coming out of the Supreme Court just last year called Barnes versus Felix in May of 2025, in which the question

deadly force under what circumstances can law enforcement officers use deadly force addressed in part by the Supreme Court way back in the 1980s and again about eight months or so ago.

We'll talk about the standard for the application of deadly force and then also all sorts of other things that are both constitutional and legal when it comes to proportionality, when it comes to the situation where you may have a target

an event in which someone is fleeing the scene a suspect is fleeing different standards for that standards for firing into a moving automobile standards related to the obligation of law enforcement to de-escalate a situation that a part of the practice and policy a most if not all law enforcement authorities

nationwide, we'll talk about verbal warnings, we'll talk about the obligation to use nonviolent means, the least intrusive means and methods to address the nature of the law enforcement matter in front of a police officer.

We'll talk about the fact that again, DOJ policy, the Department of Justice policy, which is still in effect, it is still applicable, even as the department seems to be suggesting that in this case, these standards are not applicable here,

Using only that force that's reasonable, that's effective, that's safe, and that's feasible under the circumstances.

We'll talk about the obligation of law enforcement to intervene in situations where other members of law enforcement are engaging in conduct, which may indeed be illegal.

We'll talk about all of those standards, including those Department of Justice policies on the use of force.

And we will talk.

We'll give you some sense of this issue of immunity, which was raised by our vice president late this past week when he suggested that federal officers under all circumstances have immunity from prosecution by state officials.

You may recall the vice president fans.

commenting about that, affirming that law enforcement, federal law enforcement, has complete immunity.

We'll talk about why that's not accurate, why the situation, as is always the case, is much more nuanced, much less clear, and all of that, all of that in combination with our general understanding of the rule of law in America.

When it comes to the use of force by law enforcement on the streets of our cities,

and our villages and our towns.

A lot of that coming up, not to decide the issues, those things may well be the subjects of court hearings and trials and jury deliberations in the next months and even years coming up.

We'll talk about civil and criminal remedies as well.

But to give you some sense about how to understand what we have seen to this point when it comes to, again, that horrific shooting of Renee Good.

on the streets of Minneapolis just this past week.

What sense do we make of that?

What do we make of what has happened?

What do we make of the representations about the law accurate and accurate somewhere in between?

Then we're going to talk as well about various other cases pending in the federal courts.

Yes, we're going to revisit a bit.

The United States Supreme Court issued its first big decision.

of this term just this past week in a case involving criminal constitutional procedure.

We'll talk about the effect of the shadow docket on the likely delay in the issuance of cases by the Supreme Court.

Normally at this time in its term, we are in the 2025, 2026 term of the Supreme Court.

Normally you begin to get opinions as early as November and December.

First one came out last week.

in the early days of January.

We'll talk as well about some appeals court decisions in the areas of those national institutes of health grants.

We'll talk about something that they decide in connection with one of the masterminds of 9-11 coming out of and still incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay.

And time permitting, we'll also return to the Department of Justice itself.

Some major things going on there with respect to

policies and practices not just related, not just related to the rule of law for law enforcement officers, but also the announcement by the vice president and the president of a new Department of Justice fraud unit that's going to be located

inside the White House, breaking down any, any sense that there is a separation between the White House and the Department of Justice.

That was announced this past week.

We'll talk about a new appointment at the FBI.

And we'll talk about what's going on inside the Manhattan U.S.

Attorney's Office in terms of allocations.

There is a lot.

There is a lot to get to as always.

We will do our best to get to all of that.

And as always, Max and I invite you.

to be a part of our conversation about these matters as questions and comments and inquiries.

As you scratch your head and wonder more about these things, be a part of our conversation.

Call in to us at 855-752-4842.

You can also drop a text to Max and me.

You can also be a part of our conversation by dropping some comments, your questions in the chat box for Civic Media.

All of that coming up on the next two hours of this broadcast, we begin now.

We begin now.

We're stopped last broadcast.

And that is some analysis of what is going on in Venezuela.

We all know well.

We all know well what has happened in Venezuela, although the on the ground news far from clear about exactly what the nature of the involvement is.

We know that the United States seizure of President Nicholas Maduro a week ago this weekend.

and his spouse as well, accompanied the President's declaration that the United States of America is now going to run the country.

Those are his words live.

We reported on that in the broadcast last week and will address, at least in part, what that means.

What kinds of authorities does the president have to run a foreign country?

What kind of extraordinary legal issues are raised by that?

What is the intersection of international law and presidential-powered domestic law?

What does the Constitution say about all that?

And although the Trump administration has not yet specifically identified what its legal reasoning has been,

It has changed from time to time, even over the course of the last seven to eight days.

The reality is, it is not too early to begin to invoke history.

And yes, we're going to be doing that in connection with reviewing what happened way back in 1989, when the Bush administration invaded Panama to capture its leader, Manuel Noriega.

We'll talk a little bit more about what that happened as a presidential matter.

We'll talk about why that particular president may or may not be applicable here.

We necessarily need to talk about what occupation means.

What does it mean when the president says we are running the country and we are now in control of perhaps not just its oil reserves and its oil resources, but also the government.

We don't know if that is true or not.

We'll talk about the international law and in particular something called Article 2 subsection.

for the United Nations Charter, which is where we're going to begin in making some understanding, attempting some understanding of what's going on there.

We'll talk about whether that prohibition about involvement of foreign nations into sovereign countries, what the implications of that are.

We'll talk about those bombings in Venezuela.

We'll talk about something called the inherent protective power, the inherent protective power, another international theory, the involvement of

the Constitution itself, the obligation of the president to support the Constitution, does that include, does that include treaties like the United Nations Charter, all of that, all of that in the midst of what the Supreme Court has also weighed in on in not all but some of these matters.

History and law combined will get to all of that as Amicus, a lot of you, continues after this.

You're listening to Civic Media.

Stay up to date on the latest news and information for your local community and Wisconsin by signing up for our free email newsletter.

Visit civicmedia.us slash email to get started.

My name is Jim Santel.

This is Amicus, a lot of you on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.

I am joined here in Radio Park in Racine by my excellent producer Max and together we're taking your phone calls, your comments, your questions, your inquiries.

That phone number is 855-752-4842.

You can also drop a text to Max and me.

You can be a part of our conversation this weekend as we address these major rule of law issues.

One of them having to do with Venezuela,

broke last week, one of them having to do with the use of force by ICE agents that resulted in the death of a citizen, an American, a resident of our nation in Minneapolis.

We're going to be talking about both of those.

installment of amicus a lot of you partaking especially of a law school class as we often do because we've been talking a lot about the standards practices the policies the legal procedures for international law

as it is applied to Venezuela and then also the policies and practices and the constitutional dimensions of use of force by law enforcement officers domestically in our nation.

It's a lot to cover.

We invite your involvement with Max and me on those questions.

Let's begin as promised with Venezuela.

You know well what has happened there.

You know that Nicolas Maduro and his wife are now in the custody of the United States Department of Justice in the federal court system.

returned here a week ago based upon what is called a superseding indictment, charging them with crimes in violation of the federal criminal code.

We'll get back to that in just a moment as we think about immunities.

But let's begin with some fundamental principles where a lot of the discussion has proceeded in recent weeks, and that is the United Nations.

United Nations, a charter.

not only signed by other nations, but also the United States ratifying that United Nations Charter, including Article 2 sub-4 of that Charter.

That's where we're going to begin.

What does that Charter say in Article 2, Section 4, it says this,

Without a self-defense rationale or the authorization of the United Nations Security Council, let me repeat that.

Article two, subsection four of the United Nations Charter.

We are members of the United Nations.

We ratified this charter.

It is applicable, as we'll speak in just a few moments, to the conduct of our government here in our country.

United Nations Charter says, a nation.

a country may not not use force on the sovereign territory of another country without its consent without a self-defense rationale or the authorization of the United Nations Security Council that's the standard and everything else flows from that at least we would like to think so because we are still a

country in which we observe the rule of law, including, yes, international law as well.

Now, most of the time, when the United States, through the President, and perhaps if Congress authorizes it, uses force abroad, and you recognize well that we have done this repeatedly recently in past years, in the distant past as well, when we use force abroad in other nations, you might think, gee, doesn't the charter prohibit that at all?

Well, the answer is that it usually does.

that.

We usually do that with the permission of the host government and sometimes under a claim of self-defense.

Typically our involvement is also limited in nature.

We'll talk about the Panama history which supports that notion as well.

We'll talk about the ways in which the Panama situation back in 1989 may and may not.

provide some precedent for what's going on.

But we begin with article two, section four.

Now, the Constitution makes ratified treaties, which the UN Charter is, part of the supreme law of the land.

Treaties are the supreme law of our land, and so we are subject to it.

And it also requires, that is the Constitution, as we know well, we've talked a lot about this.

requires presidents to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

That's the take care clause of the Constitution that imposes upon the president the obligation to follow the law, yes indeed, and to take care on behalf of whom?

On behalf of all the people of the United States, residents, citizens, does not mean just citizens of our nation.

Take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

That's in the Constitution.

The laws include

the treaties that the Congress has adopted.

Executive branch lawyers over time, Democrats, Republicans, have put forward various theories that the Constitution sometimes empowers presidents to lawfully override.

the limits, the restrictions, the standards, the guardrails of international law on using force abroad.

So let's go back and combine this legal law school class in which we're engaging with a little bit of history because it's also a part of our recent discussions about Venezuela.

You know this well perhaps from your own recollection, but certainly from the conversation of just this past week.

In 1989, George Bush is the president of the United States of America.

We invaded Panama, remember this?

And we were doing that to capture its leader, a man named Manuel Noriega.

Manuel Noriega, and it styled the operation as military support, undeniably going in military support for the purpose of law enforcement, combining those two things, which again have been mixed an awful lot when it comes to the Venezuelan boats, and even our conversation about the ways in which our government can and maybe cannot do some of the things it is doing.

Like Nicholas Maduro in the present Venezuelan situation,

was also indicted by a grand jury back here in the United States for drug trafficking.

similarities there, undeniably.

The Pentagon, at the time, way back in 1989, George Bush as the president, seemingly described the Maduro operation as support for the Justice Department.

And so there is precedent for this notion of mixing a military operation with law enforcement, debates about whether or not that's accurate, whether that's right, whether that is consistent, that's what things are all about today.

So Panama provides a little bit of precedent, but not completely

president.

It's only sort of a limited standard.

In 1989, there was an opposition candidate also present.

When we come back, I'll tell you more about who that was and how the situation is both like and unlike what happened in Panama back then.

Here on Amicus, a lot of you.

This is Amicus, a lot of you.

My name is Jim Santelus.

Always we appreciate the calls, the inquiries, the questions of our listeners and includes Mark who texted in affirming the articulation of the basic law here related to the Constitution of the United States of America and indeed that the Constitution makes ratified treaties part of the supreme law of our land, the take care clause, the take care clause of the Constitution requiring observance and adherence to

I appreciate those comments, Mark, as well.

And it's based upon that that we continue to both invoke the law and some history.

Talking about Panama, the situation where way back in 1989, the Bush administration went in and abducted, if you will, arrested Manuel Noriega as both a military operation and a law enforcement initiative.

Panama, as I said, offers something of a precedent for this, but only limited.

It is not complete.

In 1989, there was a villain named Guillermo Andara.

He was an opposition candidate who was seen as the winner of the presidential election that May when Noriega nullified the results of that election and swore himself in as president of Panama on a U.S.

military base.

It was Guillermo Andara.

Whoever who then ran Panama again that use of that that word that verb running a nation It was Endera who then ran Panama including taking steps like abolishing the Panamanian military and building a new National police force you still had Panamanian authorities in control doing those kinds of things then it states undeniably under the Bush administration helped helped Endara to do that, but did not purport to directly run Panama

as an occupying power.

Question whether the things that the president has said, the secretary of state has said about running the country and remaining there for a long, long period of time, whether that is consistent with the president of Panama, almost certainly not.

We have talked about the constitution and the implications of a UN charter.

The Panamanian intervention, however, is also relevant because of what happened

at the time inside the Department of Justice.

At that time, an opinion by the Department of Justice, something called the Office of Legal Counsel.

We've talked about that unit a lot on this broadcast.

These are the folks, these are lawyers inside the Department of Justice.

They're the lawyers' lawyers, if you will.

They decide what the policy of the Department of Justice and the departments generally in the government are.

The Office of Legal Counsel, they will issue memorandums on everything from, oh, say for example, when you can and cannot prosecute a sitting...

president.

These are the folks who do that kind of thing.

at the time, OLC, the Office of Legal Counsel, wrote a memorandum.

And that memorandum stated that the president, at that time George Bush, has inherent constitutional power to deploy the FBI abroad, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, law enforcement unit abroad, to arrest a fugitive from U.S.

criminal charges.

Okay, that's the statement of the Office of Legal Counsel way back in 1989.

We're not to say that's true.

even if that operation violates international law.

Fascinating, right?

Given what we've said about the Constitution and the interplay with something like the UN Charter.

The opinion, interestingly, that statement was signed by a future Attorney General named William Barr.

Bill Barr was the one who wrote that.

Barr's reasoning, which was later disclosed, has attracted some significant criticism, as in violation of those fundamental principles we described before, some folks saying that the position that was articulated

in that memorandum simply wrong, a misstatement of international law, a misstatement of constitutional law in our nation, and that the president is indeed bound by the UN Charter no matter what.

And that at the time that it was ratified and to this day, even if no court can order presidents to obey it, charters like those of the United Nations have to be followed.

Interestingly, in that connection, although we've gotten a lot of other areas where the Supreme Court

ways in, we don't have any definitive Supreme Court ruling on the UN Charter question and this tension raised by what I'll call the bar memorandum between the authority of the president to use law enforcement to go in and seize a foreign leader.

and the capacity of the UN to enforce this notion that every country is sovereign and therefore you cannot do that by virtue of international law.

What about those bombings that have been going on in Venezuela?

We know that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said the United States has destroyed air defenses in Venezuela and that there are plainly an awful lot of videos out there showing explosions happening in Venezuela.

There are statements, of course, that the action, that kind of violent action, explosions, and what are viewed probably not as law enforcement, but military actions, fall within the president's inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution.

protect us personnel from an actual or imminent attack again lots of questions about that were the personnel that you're protecting under what circumstances what are the limits of that power yet that is some of the argument being made to support the military action there

All of that, all of that, this interplay between law enforcement and military power, sounds an off-light like an invitation of something called another concept here.

You're going to learn on this broadcast the doctrine of inherent protective power.

Let me say that again.

It's inherent protective power.

This is something, this is another concept like many of these that we've talked about on this broadcast goes back to the late 19th century.

It is not new.

It has not been made up just in the past week or so to justify what's going on in Venezuela.

The concept, once again, inherent protective power.

says the Constitution does empower the president without any need for a specific statutory authorization from Congress to apply military force to protect federal personnel as they enforce federal law.

Lots to unpack there, obviously.

Whether or not this inherent protective power is applicable here is the president using military power to protect

federal law enforcement in that part of the world?

That's one of the factual questions.

The Trump administration has recently invoked that doctrine, not only with respect to Venezuela, but also, yes indeed, right in Los Angeles.

We know that the president has pretty much pulled back from these deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles, but also when it comes to protecting immigration agents from protesters in Los Angeles, presumably other places as well.

The White House has invoked this principle inherent protective power to act without specific authorization of Congress when you've got to protect federal personnel enforcing federal law.

The concept plainly has now domestic and international applications

Or maybe not, depending upon how the argument plays out here once again.

We've got no Supreme Court cases that tell us what's right and what is wrong here.

Lots of questions to be answered.

I mentioned last week that there was another question about whether or not Maduro's wife, her name is Cecilia Flores, whether she could have been apprehended as well.

Turns out we already had an indictment, a superseding indictment that was released literally while we were on air last weekend.

by a federal district court announced by the Attorney General and describing this new indictment against Nicholas Maduro and his wife Celia Flores alleging once again crimes against the United States of America.

arguably using all of these principles, justifying her apprehension, bringing her out of Venezuela, bringing her back to the United States to face that prosecution.

The court has unsealed that indictment, which means it's now public.

You can take a look at it online.

And that's the indictment that added her, dropped some other people, added some new counts.

And that is the document that now guides the criminal federal prosecution of

meticulous Maduro and his wife Celia Flores.

What about the two of them?

What about the circumstances under which they were arrested?

They plainly maintained that they were kidnapped, that the United States came in, military power, law enforcement power, describe it as you will, depending upon what standard you invoke.

They maintained plainly that they were kidnapped.

They are victims of a kidnapping.

Interestingly, even if Maduro and his wife can make that case,

that his arrest was unlawful under the United Nations Charter, that the president had no capacity to do this from the start, subsection four of section two of the United Nations Charter.

United States courts are still going to be presented with the issue about whether or not they're kidnapping, basically they're taking them by force out of a sovereign nation.

Does that grant jurisdiction to the federal court in America to reside over the case?

is the manner by which these defendants, in this case, Maduro and his wife, Ms.

Flores, are appearing now in federal court, does the manner by which they got there make a difference?

And believe it or not, there is a fair amount of authority on this.

Several cases going back to 1992 and 1952 and even back to 1886 have for the most part cast doubt or at least rejected challenges by criminal defendants who have said,

that they were unlawfully brought here.

They're in the custody of the United States government, the Department of Justice, based upon illegal means, processes, maybe a UN charter.

For the most part, the courts have rejected that.

The principle that most of the courts have applied in this instant is that a defendant's presence is what matters.

A defendant's presence here in the court, in the jurisdiction of the United States is what matters, not.

not how he or she or they got there.

An interesting concept, right?

We'll see.

We'll see because once again, undeniably, Nicholas Maduro and his wife will raise that issue before the federal district court, challenging the jurisdiction of the court here in the United States based upon their apprehension, they're being brought here contrary to their will.

And in that connection, let's take a look at one or two other principles here.

What about immunity?

Aside from the circumstances under which the president and his spouse were brought here, what about immunities?

Does a foreign leader have immunity when it comes to appearing in a federal district court in the United States of America?

Long-standing historical principle of international law that heads of state do have immunity in foreign courts.

Period.

Supreme Court, our Supreme Court has recognized that constraint goes way back to an 1812 opinion that says that the person of the sovereign, the person of the sovereign, meaning the foreign nation, is exempt from arrest or detention within a foreign territory.

There's a lot to unpack there once again.

The person of the country from which they're coming, the leader of that country, exempt from arrest or detention within another country, therefore immunity.

And it appears at least that in an 18-12 opinion, the Supreme Court supported that.

The issue gets more complicated with respect to Maduro.

whether he is entitled to that immunity is another question that his attorneys will also raise and they will argue certainly that there is a potential difference between merely being the de facto leader of a country and being its politically recognized head of state.

His attorneys will say he was in fact the head of state and therefore therefore

He is immune from prosecution, also brought here illegally, and therefore you need to dismiss the charges as the politically recognized head of state.

Others, including this administration, will certainly say no.

He may be the de facto leader, but indeed it is the position of our government based upon history, which we'll get to, that Maduro is there improperly.

that he is not the legitimately elected leader of that country.

And indeed, that's also getting some support from the Panamanian situation way back in 1989 involving Manuel Noriega.

When we come back, we'll address more related to that notion and talk about some final issues that we think about when we consider what our nation is doing and not doing in Venezuela as amicus, a lot of you, continues here on the broadcast stations of civic media.

You're listening to Civic Media.

Find the latest news, information, and archives of all your favorite shows on the Civic Media website, civicmedia.us.

My name is Jim Santel and this is AMICA's Solar Review on the Broadcast Stations of Civic Media.

We are talking about Venezuela necessarily, not answering questions, not answering a lot of the factual questions that we like to know more about in connection with the nature of our running the country as the President and the Secretary of State have said.

More questions about our continued presence there, our engagement with the present leadership, which is a residual portion of the Maduro

administration there, questions about whether or not our nation will recognize the opposition leader, the recent recipient of the Nobel Prize, lots and lots of factual questions to be addressed as we go forward in understanding or attempting to understand exactly what it is our involvement in Venezuela is.

But along the way, focusing not only upon the defendants who are now in our nation and those other questions,

What about this issue related to the immunities of a head of state?

Again, Supreme Court has said that the person of the sovereign, a leader of a foreign nation is exempt from arrest or detention within a foreign territory, exemption, immunity basically.

And again, Maduro, back in 1989 and the implication,

of the case from back in 1980 and he will certainly invoke some of that and draw some distinctions between that and Panama.

Defense lawyers are certainly going to argue that Maduro remains the leader of Venezuela and therefore immunity supply.

Complete stop.

And the question once again is whether or not that's accurate, or as the Secretary of State has indicated, Maduro is not, is not the legitimate president of Venezuela, but is instead simply, as dramatic as this is, simply a criminal offender.

He is the head, not of a nation, the administration will argue, but the head of a major drug trafficking organization that was masquerading, masquerading as a government, and indeed he made that claim already.

shortly after his apprehension.

The situation again with respect to Noriega back in 1989 is both the same and different, but this also could be telling.

Way back in 1989, Noriega coming out of Panama, we went in, we seized him, brought him back into the federal court here.

He also invoked immunity as a foreign head of state.

But the Bush administration at that time, just like the Trump administration is maintaining now, argued that he was not entitled to that immunity.

Why?

Why?

Because he was not the legitimately elected leader of Panama.

In fact, a district court that addressed this issue, giving us some sense of what's going to happen, not here as well.

In this case involving Nicholas Maduro, a federal district court,

way back in the 1990s, early 1990s, in connection with Manuel Noriega's arrest, specifically found against Noriega on that issue, and appeals court upheld that ruling finding, nope, the immunity does not apply, why?

Because you're not the officially elected, you're not the actual head of that government.

The reasoning at that time, if you dig back into the legal aspects of this,

replied in major ways on two major concepts.

One is that the president, George Bush of the time, declined to recognize Noriega as Panama's head of state.

We'll get back to that in just a moment or so.

George Bush saying, no, I don't recognize you as the head of state.

Also, turns on Panama's own law at the time, way back in the early 1990s, the Panamadian Constitution made its head of state an elected president while Noriega was a military leader and never claimed to be its president.

Again, some specific, very significant differences in the Noriega versus the Maduro situations.

The situation with respect to Maduro also requires not only the application of history when it comes to the law and precedent, everything from the UN Charter to international law to these concepts that may or may not apply with respect to immunities, the powers of the president to do things there in Venezuela, but also relies upon history once again, an awful lot of people looking back to what happened back in 1989.

Undeniably, Maduro's status more complicated in many ways than Noriega's was.

Here's the history on Maduro.

He was a former vice president of Venezuela.

He became its interim president after his predecessor

You know the name of this leader.

His name is Hugo Chavez.

He died while in office.

So what happens is Maduro becomes the president and then won a very close election in 2013, about 12, 13 years or so ago.

The United States initially recognized him for years.

for years as the president of Venezuela.

My civil G, what happened?

How did that change?

Well, Venezuela's National Electoral Council formally declared Maduro the winner of elections then in 2018 and 24.

But as we noted last week and again in this broadcast, the results of those more recent elections were seen as being marred by widespread fraud.

And since 2019, the United States under both Donald Trump in his first term and President Biden under his term have not recognized Maduro as the legitimate president.

Not the real leader, we have said, of this foreign country.

And a 2015 Supreme Court case also says the president, including now Donald Trump, has the power

to deny recognition to someone like Maduro for the purpose of head of state immunity.

So it may well be that the president's affirmation that Maduro is not the head of state has a legal consequence when it comes to the immunity that Maduro will certainly raise.

Again, all of that, it is a lot.

But it's important to begin to think about these things because they're going to animate not only what's going on inside our federal courts, but plainly what's going on in Venezuela.

And that's where the big questions are going to be.

What about the UN Charter?

What about these policies that say the president has some authority to do these kinds of things under inherent protective powers?

What does that mean?

What is the capacity of a president to follow the Constitution that also implicitly adopts?

treaties that we have ratified.

We'll talk more about that in the future when we come back.

We're going to talk about back home here in the United States, Minneapolis as well.

Stay with us for that discussion.

This is Amicus, a lot of you.

My name is Jim Santel.

This is the second hour of our weekly weekend broadcast addressing all things related to the rule of law, the administration of justice, the operation of your government,

in our nation and beyond as well.

As always, my terrific producer, Max, and I are taking your phone calls, your questions, your texts at 855-752-4842.

That number, once again, is 855-752-4842.

Be a part of our discussion in this hour, once again, engaging in the law school syllabus

about what the law is and necessarily providing you with information about the standards, the touchstones, the applicable laws when it comes to, yes indeed, that horrific tragic shooting in Minneapolis.

We spent most of our first hour talking about Venezuela, providing you with a mini law school class on the law of international engagement, what presidents can and cannot do, the arguments that will and will not be made with respect to what we have done

done there and are doing there in Venezuela.

We turn now domestically, we turn now back to our nation, the streets of Minneapolis where we witnessed this past week, this absolutely horrific death in an American city, Minneapolis.

of a person who was the victim of a shooting by the Immigration Customs Enforcement Force and an agent there in particular.

You have seen the videos, now plural, many of them coming out and an awful lot of analysis about exactly what happened, what did not happen.

Those videos, hugely important, not only as the investigation goes forward, we'll talk about who's doing that, where that happens.

and what happens next, videos very important as our interviews with people on the street.

And in addition to that, analysis, analysis of exactly what happened by these kinds of folks, these crash and these incident experts, the reconstruction experts who analyze these kinds of things in great detail.

It is not too much to say.

at every single second before, during, and after the fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis.

All of that will be the subject of inch by inch, second by second analysis.

Where were the shots fired?

Where were people located?

Where was Ms.

Good at the time of those shots?

Physically, how did her car move forward?

Where did it remain afterwards?

All those kinds of things going to be the subject of an awful lot, a meticulous.

and analysis by law enforcement should be doing that right now.

We'll get back in just a moment to this question, also very troubling about the decision of the United States Department of Justice, apparently to exclude local, state, and other authorities there in Minneapolis from investigative results.

not at all consistent with the cooperative spirit that actually promotes a greater understanding.

We'll get back to that in just a few moments, but let's get back to fundamental notions about the use of force.

And again, all of this provided to you on this broadcast so that you can intelligently

not only come to your own conclusions about what did and did not happen here but that you can have intelligent discussions based upon what the law is, what the Supreme Court has said, what federal courts and state courts around the nation have said frankly for decades about the use of lethal deadly force by law enforcement on the streets of America.

Let's begin right there with a very general proposition and we'll also note that much if not all of this kind of

in the very standards adopted by and advanced by, taught by the United States Department of Justice, by the federal government, remember again that ICE agents are federal agents, they're not state agents, and therefore subject to the rules and regulations, the policies by which deadly force is used, any force is used in America.

Let's begin with a fundamental proposition that is premised upon,

A major Supreme Court case, deadly force, lethal force is constitutionally permissible.

It is okay under the Constitution only, emphasize only, when an officer, a law enforcement officer on the street has

objectively reasonable belief, let me repeat that, and objectively, not subjectively, objectively reasonable belief, some probable cause to believe objectively, the kind of thing that, again, an objective person, not the person right there who's making the decision, not a subjective analysis premised upon the individual, but what objectively you and I and others looking at this might determine.

only if the officer has an objectively reasonable belief that there is, and here's the other portion of it, an imminent threat, an immediate, it's present right there right now, an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Then repeat all of that because it should guide all of the discussion going forward about what happened here and the debate underway now, both publicly and presumably inside law enforcement, about whether or not this shooting

Renee Good this past week is permissible under the law, whether the officer was exercising proper authority, we'll get to all of that beginning with this fundamental proposition once again.

Deadly force, lethal force is constitutionally permissible only when the officer has an objectively reasonable belief, some probable cause to believe that there is an imminent threat of death or serious

bodily injury.

That's the standard.

That's the law.

And that was articulated in a case called Graham versus Connor.

Let me read some of that decision of the United States Supreme Court in Graham.

It provides again some insight into what this means.

And again, there is a lot here.

The decision to use force, the Supreme Court said.

requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue.

What are they talking about there?

They're saying, you know, if there's a situation where there's a very severe crime, people's lives are at stake, then the circumstances may dictate a different law enforcement result if the crime is not that serious.

if it is a misdemeanor, for example.

If it's something that plainly would not strike you or me or others as threatening the safety and security in the moment, imminently, the public safety and security, then likely, then likely, the response by law enforcement should be measured based upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

Supreme Court goes on to say whether the suspect poses an immediate threat

to the safety of the officer or others and whether the suspect is actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

That is a longer exposition of the principle that I just described.

Let me repeat that again.

A part of the consequences of the circumstances resulting in the consequences of what an agent does

is dependent upon whether the suspect, the person you're responding to, in this case, in this particular case, the person, again, her name is Renee Good, who is driving that vehicle, whether she poses an immediate threat, immediate, right there, an imminent threat to the safety of the officer or just some other people in the area.

And making that determination is all important, the Supreme Court says.

Also important is whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest.

Is there something about the conduct that suggests that this particular person is actively stopping law enforcement from achieving its goal of bringing somebody into custody or attempting to do something else?

Whether or not that person is attempting overtly, clearly, by the facts of the case to evade arrest by flight.

Are you trying to leave?

Are you fleeing the scene?

All of those things are very important and they determine the level of response by law enforcement.

You can see where all this is going.

Supreme Court goes on to say, the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowances for the fact that police officers are indeed often forced to make split second judgments.

We know that.

We know that in every instance.

Split second judgments.

The Supreme Court acknowledges that.

In circumstances, they say that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly involving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.

The Supreme Court acknowledges that there is a burden on law enforcement posed by the Constitution, posed by the Supreme Court, posed by the leaders of law enforcement on those beat cops.

on the police officers who are out there.

Yes indeed, it's not an easy job, but they go on to say that doesn't lift from law enforcement the obligation to make this analysis, to assess the circumstances to determine not only the severity of the situation, but also whether there is an immediate inherent threat.

that is presented, whether the person is fleeing all those kinds of things.

In addition, the Supreme Court goes on to say, the reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of the reasonable officer on the scene rather than 20-20 vision or hindsight.

The question, therefore, and this is what we affirmed just a few moments ago, is whether the officer's actions are objectively reasonable.

in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them.

Are these circumstances dictating that the use of force is appropriate or not?

The Department of Justice, interestingly, has not only adopted that all important statement,

another language in this case called Graham.

It's a case from 1989 to the Supreme Court, but it's also said some other things that are also part of our understanding of what happened in Minneapolis and should be understood and applied by law enforcement, yes, by prosecutors, by investigators, and by the public.

Nothing wrong with your understanding and applying these fundamental principles that are out there so that people can understand them.

Applying these to the things that we know, the things that we see, the evidence gathered, the statements made, the forensics coming out of this situation.

And it is significant that the Department of Justice begins its statement of use of force, including deadly force, with this fundamental notion.

It is the policy of the Department of Justice to value and preserve human life.

Let me repeat that once again.

The Department of Justice has as its policy the goal of valuing and preserving human life.

That's what our attorney general, this attorney general and other attorneys general have had.

Officers, again, affirming this for yet a third time, the policy says, may only use that force that is objectively reasonable to effectively gain control of an incident.

while protecting the safety of the officer and others in keeping with the standards set forth by the Supreme Court.

That's the basic threshold affirmation by your Department of Justice affirming the importance of human life, valuing it and preserving it, something that should be considered and should be viewed by our Attorney General, by, frankly, the Vice President who is weighing in an awful lot of this, by the President.

who is also plainly going to be pontificating about this case as well, has already

done so.

Let's talk about other standards that are out there beyond this objective reasonableness.

I will note as well that Graham v. Connor is the seminal.

That's the basic case.

Reaffirmed, actually established in a set of its initial ways.

Another case called Tennessee v. Garner.

Tennessee v. Garner got two Supreme Court cases that talk about just that.

all of them, all of them talking about the totality of the circumstances, and that notion that you look at everything before, during, and after the particular incident, that was affirmed by our Supreme Court in May of just this past year.

We talked about Barnes versus Felix.

We'll talk about it more when we come back and describe more of these standards applicable to Minneapolis here on Amicus, a law review.

My name is Jim Santel and this is Amica Solaroview on the Broadcast Stations of Civic Media.

I'm joined here in the Racine Studios by my...

Outstanding producer and together we're taking your phone calls your questions your comments Talking now in this the second hour of our weekly weekend broadcast all about Minneapolis the other major rule of law justice story Operation of government story that is so animated our discussions of these past couple of weeks We know well about the tragedy the tragic death of Renee Good on the streets of Minneapolis the victim of a gunshot two or three

three gunshots perhaps by the agent who was arguably responding to the situation.

That's what this analysis is all about.

Focusing upon this fundamental notion coming out of Graham versus Connor, that you use deadly force, lethal force only.

Only when you've got this objectively reasonable sense that there is an imminent threat of death or a serious bodily injury.

If you do come to that conclusion, you can use deadly force, but if you don't, even in those seconds, or if you put yourself in a position where this kind of thing is presented to you, then you cannot.

That's the implication not only of Graham versus Conor, but that's the policy of law enforcement agencies around the nation, including here in Wisconsin, including Minneapolis and Minnesota generally, including agents of the United States Department of Justice.

justice, including agents of the Department of Homeland Security, all of them.

required to abide by that fundamental principle.

Other principles out there, what do you look to to determine the nature of the imminent threat?

Was there in fact a threat of lethal conduct here by the subject, the target, who you're trying to stop or apprehend?

What do you do?

You look at the totality of the circumstances, right?

And in fact, in the case called Barnes versus Felix, we talked about this case way back in May of last year, 2025.

Supreme Court said you do not

Just look at the seconds, maybe even the moments surrounding the lethal shots.

We've got three of them here that we know of.

You don't just look at that.

You look at...

all of the circumstances surrounding.

You look at those things that we've seen on the video already, the officers approaching Ms.

Goode's vehicle.

We look at the ways in which they're approaching it, the things that were said, their behavior, their conduct.

Yes, you indeed, you look at exactly what happened in this catastrophic moment during which Ms.

Goode was shot and killed.

And then you also look at the circumstances following that.

Why?

Because the conduct of law enforcement and of other people

are also relevant, all of that conduct, relevant to understanding the totality of the circumstances.

That's what Barnes versus Felix says, these kinds of issues on the docket of the Supreme Court in our time.

The upshot, of course, these fundamental notions is the force used by law enforcement has to be proportionate to the threat.

And in fact, if the threat is not one of a lethal dimension, not a fear of death,

You do not use deadly force, lethal force in response.

There's got to be a legitimate objective that is protecting life.

as the Department of Justice says, and absent that, you do not have permission to do what apparently was done on the streets of Minneapolis.

Some other things, some other standards, both set forth by the Department of Justice and also in other cases and in other policy statements of law enforcement around the country, in Minnesota, in Wisconsin, in virtually every other town, village, and city.

county, state of the United States of America.

Again, applying to citizens, yes, but also residents.

Again, you get the protections of our Constitution regardless of whether you are a citizen or not.

That too is the Supreme Court's clear statement about the applicability of our Constitution.

What else do we know?

We also know that deadly force is not to be used to prevent a suspect from fleeing.

The Department of Justice says expressly that

and goes on to say that if feasible and to do so would not increase the danger to the officer or others, a verbal warning to submit to the authority of the officer should be given prior to the use of any deadly force.

So a couple of things to unpack there.

One is, again, if the suspect is fleeing, whether it's on foot in a vehicle, if the suspect is leaving the scene, deadly force is not permissible.

That's our standard in America.

That's the guideline by which federal agents, including ICE agents, are obliged to follow.

And oh, by the way, you're also required to pursue other remedies short of lethal force, including things like verbal warnings.

We know that there were some exchanges between the officers approaching Ms.

Good's car.

and Ms.

Good herself, right before this horrific thing happened, the law requires, the Constitution requires, the least intrusive mechanism for responding to what the law enforcement officers are responding to, including a verbal warning, to submit to the officers, stop it.

Stop doing what you're doing, saying that verbally.

It is important to note, although probably not applicable here, but in the context of all of this kind of thing, again, lots of courts, lots of policies setting all this forward, warning shots, again, not applicable here, presumably, but are not permitted outside of the prison context, period.

We do not do warning shots in America, not constitutionally.

And once again,

Deadly force cannot be used against any person whose actions are a threat solely to themselves or property unless that individual poses an imminent immediate present danger of death.

or serious bodily physical injury to the officer or others in close proximity.

That's a long way of saying, can't use deadly force unless you're presented with deadly force or the threat of serious bodily injury.

There are other aspects of this as well that are important to note, and they may well be applicable to what happened in the death of Renee Good.

And they have to do once again to this notion of balance between how law enforcement responds, how we expect them to respond, even as the Supreme Court has said under these highly tense, these immediate circumstances, we still expect them to do other things.

We expect them to de-escalate the situation.

We expect them to use nonviolent means, and we expect them to intervene.

And when we come back, I'll unpack all three of those concepts here on Amicus, a lot of you.

This is Amicus, a law review on the broadcast stations of Civic Media.

My name is Jim Santel, and we're going to be taking some callers in just a few moments as I conclude this law school exposition and this discussion of some of the basic standards that apply to all law enforcement when it comes to the use of lethal force, which we saw.

plainly unmistakably on the streets of Minneapolis this past week, resulting in the death of Renee Good, an awful lot appropriate, an awful lot of discussion and review analysis of the tapes, the videos that are coming out of that incident, and all of the principles we're discussing will be applied to those

views, the other evidence, and appropriately invoked by Americans as well, even though we're not all on the investigative teams, investigators, prosecutors need to be focused upon this inside the Department of Justice, also others who are out there.

But the reality is that Americans should also understand the reason for this particular law school exposition, should also understand the standards by which we can and should

and are obliged to judge the conduct of law enforcement, including ICE officers.

We're talking an awful lot about this requirement that deadly force be used only in situations where there's an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injuries.

Three other, three other important things to note, and then some discussion about what happens next, including...

callers here.

There is an obligation under the law, again, much of this in policy and practice, also to de-escalate a situation.

If you've got a situation where the concern about perhaps lethal activity, deadly activity is happening, officers should be, and are trained routinely in de-escalation tactics, techniques designed to do what?

To gain voluntary compliance before using force.

including deadly force, those tactics, those techniques should be employed legally, lawfully, if it is objectively feasible to do so.

And if they would not increase the danger to the officer or others, when feasible, reducing the need for force, de-escalating the situation allows officers to secure their own safety as well as the safety of the public.

De-escalation.

Again, question whether that was done here.

an important part of our understanding about what law enforcement on the streets should and should not be doing.

There is also, there is also, as we saw in the George Floyd case, again, his death in 2020 within a mile of where Ms.

Good was killed just this past week.

There's also an affirmative duty of other law enforcement to intervene, again, based upon the facts and the circumstances, capacity to do so, understanding of what's going on.

and understanding once again that you're making split second decisions.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court, the federal courts, state courts, and policies across the country of law enforcement command, dictate that officers have an affirmative duty, a positive duty to intervene to prevent or stop any other officer for engaging in excessive force

or any other use of force that violates the Constitution, other federal laws, or policies of the particular law enforcement entity.

Let me say that again.

There is an affirmative duty to intervene, and that is why, that's precisely why, some of the officers who were there with Derek Chauvin at the time of the horrific death

the civil rights deprivation of his life of George Floyd.

That's why they were also charged with federal and state crimes because they failed to follow up on their affirmative duty to intervene to stop.

to stop another officer from doing something that they knew or could be perceived to know was unconstitutional.

That too may in fact have some applicability here.

We don't know as the investigation goes on.

And yet there's another one that's also come out of all of this.

And that is an affirmative duty to render medical aid.

Law enforcement has that duty.

There's a constitutional obligation, policies of our law enforcement in Wisconsin, in Minnesota, in every state of the union.

require that officers, again, they be trained in, that they understand.

They have to recognize and they have to act in the moment on the affirmative duty to request and render medical aid as appropriate to the circumstances where it's needed.

You cannot simply stand around and say, I have fulfilled my law enforcement responsibility.

You have an affirmative duty to render medical aid.

That is a part of the law of our nation.

That's a part of the law that applies to every law enforcement officer in situations where individuals, residents, citizens need aid, need medical aid.

Again, likely much a part of the attention in this situation where we apparently saw a medical doctor coming forward and saying, help, let me help this person.

And the...

law enforcement authorities apparently rejected that, rebuffed that and said no, stand back.

That is arguably, like many of these other principles, in violation of the basic understandings by which law enforcement works on the streets of America and should work on behalf of the safety and security of all of us.

That's a lot, once again, I know.

But it's important to understand all of this as we think and go forward as more information comes out, as we see more of the tapes, and do ourselves

undertake the analysis that Americans should undertake in determining whether their government, in this case the federal government, the Department of Homeland Security, these ICE officers engaged in conduct that is violative of the Constitution of the United States of America.

We have some callers on the line and we're going to go to them right now.

Both of them are talking with us about this very issue.

Dick, we appreciate your being a part of our conversation this morning.

What do you have for us?

Well, Jim, first of all, I got a real question about why this man was even still, he had another incident prior to this.

That's been, you know, let out.

Yes, right.

Part of his history,

right?

Right.

And so I think you're somewhat compromised right there.

But my question too is this, normally any police department, when there's a shooting, even a non-lethal one, you get the edict out there that, oh, this person is no longer, he's put on the shelf.

Place an administrative leave, right?

We're not going to fire them yet until we find out what happened.

We're placing administrative leave no longer out there.

That is routine practice.

Absolutely, Dick.

And I have got to hear that even from this administration.

And I'm glad that that second video is there because I think it's even more damning personally than the other one, the one that the actual officer or whatever you want to call him was taking it.

And

as

far as cash Patel being in charge of it from here on out, what are they going to do?

Put together an AI video that makes it into something totally different.

Lots of reasons to be very concerned about the investigation going forward.

All good point stick.

And yes, indeed, we have at least two, maybe even a third video as this plays out.

The second one that you're talking about, the one in which the officer has some direct communication, presumably the officer who engaged in the shooting speaks directly to Ms.

Good.

And she says, I'm not mad at you.

You're not the focus of my concern.

And moments later, she is dead.

That is again, a very compelling video.

going to be analyzed at great length should be analyzed by federal law enforcement.

And that connection, Dick, the other thing that I'll comment about and make it very clear, it is a source of disappointment and of dismay and of complete, complete lack of understanding about why it is that the federal government, your federal government, the Department of Justice, Homeland Security would be telling local and state law enforcement, you're no longer a part of this, restricting law enforcement locally from having access

materials.

Every single investigation.

Dick, you know this, listeners know this generally.

benefits from the contributions of law enforcement at the federal, state, local, county level, every way up and down.

Now, do you make decisions about who's in charge?

Absolutely.

Do you sit down around a table and discuss who is going to take the lead?

Routinely, you do that.

You decide who is going to be responsible for interviewing witnesses for following up on forensics, doing all these other things.

But this notion that you would restrict and exclude local law enforcement that all

also does have jurisdiction over this.

From that portion of the investigation that's so critical going forward right now, not only does it limit the effectiveness of the investigation, limited resources, right?

We benefit from having more bodies doing these kinds of things that get to the truth.

It also suggests that somehow, as you've indicated, Dick, the federal government, if it takes on exclusive jurisdiction of this, may or may not come to the right result.

And that's the concern that you have when you mention Kashpatel, the head of the FBI.

We know already, for example, that the vice president has talked about the general immunity of ICE agents.

He's overstated the immunity that they do have.

It's not an absolute immunity.

It can be challenged under circumstances.

They may enjoy some basic immunity from state prosecution, but it applies when their actions are authorized under federal law and by the Constitution.

And they're necessary and proper.

And so necessarily they can get back to this fundamental notion where you look at what it is they did, whether their behavior was constitutionally permissible.

And that determines whether or not immunities at the federal level apply.

And so we've got those issues as well.

All of them, all of them a part of your concern, including, including these issues related to who is going to make the decisions here.

That is why the governor of Minnesota, that is why others in positions of political

responsibility law enforcement authority in Minnesota are bemoaning the fact that apparently my federal government your federal government is excluding local law enforcement hugely troubling that that would happen especially early on in this stage dick thank you so much for the observations the call appreciate you're being part of our discussion tremendously mark is also on the line mark thank you for participating with us in our discussion this morning

Yeah, good morning, Jim.

Aside from the fact that the federal government apparently is engaged in a widespread, you know, defaming this woman, calling her a domestic terrorist and all sorts of other things that she just ran, you know, the president claiming, oh, he ran and she ran the guy over, which is not, is absolutely not true.

I mean, all the guy would have needed to do is take a step back.

I mean, I learned that back when I pumped a gap in the late 70s.

You know, when cars are moving in, you know, this is when, you know, you were

I was a guy pumping the gas.

And there's people coming in and sometimes they're kind of oblivious to the people.

You take a step back.

There's no reason this woman needed that he needed to even take his weapon out of the holster.

And I think they were mad because they're being a little inconvenienced and getting their vehicles out.

And the snow that was there, I mean, for goodness sakes, I've dealt with that snow since I started driving because I grew up in far northern Wisconsin.

And you just

Because she inconvenienced them they're they're mad probably about that

And Mark, all of those things, those two items that you just identified, are those relevant?

You bet they are, right?

You determine whether or not the officer, officer's plural, all of them will be, should be under investigation, including the shooter himself.

Circumstances, what was, what were the ground conditions like?

And significantly to your first point, that's what de-escalation is about.

You've described it as simply stepping aside,

Yes, that's the kind of thing we anticipate that law enforcement officers will do de-escalating a situation so they're not

creating the very situation where lethal force might otherwise be used.

You can't defend yourself if indeed you've caused the very circumstances that prompt the use of lethal or deadly force.

Great comments Mark, appreciate your contributions as well to our discussion this morning.

All of that, all of that highly relevant going forward.

And again, as I indicated in connection with our discussion with Dick just a moment or so.

There are immunities out there.

There's one called qualified immunity that applies in a civil setting.

If indeed, it can be shown that their conduct was consistent with constitutional rights.

If it's not consistent, then in a civil remedy, a civil lawsuit, there can be remedies against agents.

And that underscores the other point that I will make, which is that there can be civil and criminal procedures that will follow on.

on any investigation, state or federal, as this matter goes forward.

When we come back, we'll take yet another caller, and then some final thoughts here on Amicus, a law review.

This is Amicus, a law review.

My name is Jim Santel.

We are taking callers who are calling in to express concerns, articulate questions about this.

loss of life in Minneapolis involving a shooting by an ice officer there.

Appreciate very much the callers.

Richard now on the line with another observation or question about this incident.

Richard, glad to have you with us.

Hi, good to be here.

Go right ahead with your comment or question.

I'm interested in, does this case go to a jury or judgment?

All right, so yep, sure.

Go ahead.

Yep.

Also, since the administration is so intent on almost like trying the case in the public already, is there anything that would constitute some theoretical posture of it being a war against the citizenry in this case?

Okay, good, good questions.

Both let's take the first one and then offer an opinion generally on the second one.

The answer is it depends, does this case go to a jury?

Again, what are the options here?

There is a possibility of a criminal prosecution.

That could be a federal prosecution and indeed there have been instances in which the US Department of Justice has prosecuted federally.

They're very difficult to do as I indicated before.

There are immunities that apply, but it has been done.

It is not clear, given the situation right now with the Department of Justice and its basic support for this particular ICE agent, whether that will happen, could there also be a criminal prosecution by state authorities of a federal agent?

They're once again, not an easy thing to do, a state entity prosecuting federal law enforcement.

Has it been done?

Yes, it has.

And again, it's premised upon this finding, at least as a threshold matter.

And ultimately, before a jury or before a court, on whether or not the individual or individuals have engaged in violations of the Constitution, deprivations of rights to life.

We saw, for example, different circumstances, different kinds of prosecutions, but in the case of George Floyd, both federal and state prosecutions,

of a state agent and the others involved with Derek Chauvin.

All kinds of possibilities out there, any one of those could go to a jury as could a civil lawsuit.

If the family, if the family of Ms.

Good brings a civil lawsuit alleging deprivations of her right to life under the Constitution, that too could go to a jury in a civil setting, could be a state proceeding, a federal proceeding.

That's where you get the likely imposition or

at least invocation of qualified immunity.

Once again, determining whether or not there is something about the conduct of the agents that is so violative of the Constitution, the case must go forward.

All kinds of possibilities here.

And that's why at these early stages, all of them should remain open.

The investigation should involve state and federal law enforcement as well.

And yes, indeed, the families undeniably should be

focused upon their remedies in a civil setting as well.

As to your second question about being at war, that's the kind of thing, obviously, that you, Richard, and others may want to consider and review as all of this goes forward.

Difficult to maintain, I suspect, that there is an affirmative declaration of war against the people of the United States of America, but perhaps, perhaps again, rhetorically, rhetorically, that kind of thing.

kind of thing that you're talking about, the subject of debate, the subject of exposition, and most importantly, what you're describing there is a way of codifying if it is consistent with your views, the conduct of our government.

All of that, all of that, no easy answers, and once again, no easy paths forward on any of that at all.

We've been talking during, Richard, thank you so much for your involvement in our broadcast here today as well.

We've been talking all about these major issues, the law school class here that is Amicus, a lot of you, about these major issues involving Venezuela.

and also involving the Minneapolis shooting.

A couple of very brief rule of law snapshots.

We know that the Supreme Court is going to be back in business again in this coming week.

It's going to be entertaining oral arguments on the 13th about women's sports and in particular transgender women in women's sports.

More cases coming up regarding Title IX and the power of the presidency in the weeks ahead.

We know as well that the Supreme Court just this past

issued the first major decision of this docket in a case called Bowie, B-O-W-E versus the United States.

It has to do with post-conviction relief and post-conviction petitions by a defendant.

in a statutory scheme that otherwise contemplates that you only get limited opportunities to appeal and to challenge convictions.

The court this past week, giving the defendant the opportunity and establishing in the federal district court under section 2244 and 2255, or those are the habeas corpus statutes, the capacity of a federal prisoner to file a second or a successive petition challenging, challenging,

his conviction and the custody of the United States of America.

The course of appeals have also been busy this past week, one of them finding that the Trump administration could not make drastic cuts to federal funding, supporting much of the country's medical and scientific research, that coming out of the Fourth Circuit, the DC Circuit declining to consider whether to reinstate a plea deal in the September 11th case out of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

And that case, of course, involving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed accused of being the mastermind of the plot

opening up the possibility now absent supreme court intervention of a trial and refusing the court of appeals refusing to do so refusing to become involved and reinstate a plea deal that would have permitted him to remain in prison for the rest of his life in exchange for his plea of guilty taking effectively the death penalty off of the table instead pretrial hearings likely to resume resume in the

weeks and months ahead, courts of appeals doing lots of things in our nation, in the rule of law, the administration of justice, and the operation of government.

I thank you so much for being with me this weekend.

Tune in next weekend when more of those topics will be on our docket here on Amicus, a lot of you.

Have a good

weekend, everybody.

but it can be hard to find news about your local community.

Civic Media is dedicated to providing quality local and state news coverage across Wisconsin.

With the Civic Media app, you can get notifications about local stories that matter to you and your community.

Find the free Civic Media app in your phone's app store and choose notifications from the menu to tell us what kind of news you want to hear about.