<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/stylesheet.xsl" type="text/xsl"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:podcast="https://podcastindex.org/namespace/1.0">
  <channel>
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://feeds.transistor.fm/turning-states" title="MP3 Audio"/>
    <atom:link rel="hub" href="https://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/"/>
    <podcast:podping usesPodping="true"/>
    <title>Turning State's</title>
    <generator>Transistor (https://transistor.fm)</generator>
    <itunes:new-feed-url>https://feeds.transistor.fm/turning-states</itunes:new-feed-url>
    <description>Turning State's is a podcast for North Carolina prosecutors and others interested in the criminal justice system in North Carolina. It is hosted by Joseph L. Hyde, prosecutor advisor with the University of North Carolina School of Government, and Jonathan Holbrook, director of training with the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys. The podcast follows the format of a case update. Each episode features Hyde and Holbrook discussing a few criminal cases recently decided by North Carolina appellate courts. Listeners can expect to stay up to date on relevant criminal caselaw and receive expert advice on how this caselaw can inform and advance other prosecutions.
 
Turning State's is produced in the recording studio at the University of North Carolina School of Government. The podcast is a collaboration between the School of Government and the Conference of District Attorneys.</description>
    <copyright>© SOG Podcasts</copyright>
    <podcast:guid>0da355f1-bb4d-522a-9a7e-9436fa74088a</podcast:guid>
    <podcast:locked>yes</podcast:locked>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 23:38:06 +0000</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 23:39:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/series/turning-states/</link>
    
    <itunes:category text="Education"/>
    <itunes:type>serial</itunes:type>
    <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
    <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/5Su_jr16G5q4RuJUTzvtf_Qk_PIC-wuq_U6RL-XnIJU/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9kNDU0/ZGI3MTE1YWM2Yjhl/YjY4NThlZDJkOTE5/ZTc2Zi5wbmc.jpg"/>
    <itunes:summary>Turning State's is a podcast for North Carolina prosecutors and others interested in the criminal justice system in North Carolina. It is hosted by Joseph L. Hyde, prosecutor advisor with the University of North Carolina School of Government, and Jonathan Holbrook, director of training with the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys. The podcast follows the format of a case update. Each episode features Hyde and Holbrook discussing a few criminal cases recently decided by North Carolina appellate courts. Listeners can expect to stay up to date on relevant criminal caselaw and receive expert advice on how this caselaw can inform and advance other prosecutions.
 
Turning State's is produced in the recording studio at the University of North Carolina School of Government. The podcast is a collaboration between the School of Government and the Conference of District Attorneys.</itunes:summary>
    <itunes:subtitle>Turning State's is a podcast for North Carolina prosecutors and others interested in the criminal justice system in North Carolina.</itunes:subtitle>
    <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
    <itunes:owner>
      <itunes:name>SOG Podcasts</itunes:name>
    </itunes:owner>
    <itunes:complete>No</itunes:complete>
    <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 1: Little, Pierce, and Thomas</title>
      <itunes:episode>1</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>1</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 1: Little, Pierce, and Thomas</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=871</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/a8d3925f</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 3, 2024. In State v. Little, COA23-410, the Court of Appeals held the odor and smell of marijuana alone provide probable cause for a search. In State v. Pierce, No COA23-348, the Court of Appeals [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 3, 2024. In State v. Little, COA23-410, the Court of Appeals held the odor and smell of marijuana alone provide probable cause for a search. In State v. Pierce, No COA23-348, the Court of Appeals [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:17:17 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/a8d3925f/538d0ff7.mp3" length="51062260" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/mitKvPPp-zqe_lJASce_lPMEJ13XYGGqoAhmLJ0f3a8/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS8xM2M0/NDViYjQxZjQzY2I2/ZTViMDNlOGIwNTI2/MGQ4NS5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2128</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 3, 2024. In State v. Little, COA23-410, the Court of Appeals held the odor and smell of marijuana alone provide probable cause for a search. In State v. Pierce, No COA23-348, the Court of Appeals [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 3, 2024. In State v. Little, COA23-410, the Court of Appeals held the odor and smell of marijuana alone provide probable cause for a search.</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 2: Evans and Wilkins</title>
      <itunes:episode>2</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>2</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 2: Evans and Wilkins</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=880</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/66783af6</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss two cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 17, 2024. In State v. Evans, COA23-1160, the Court of Appeals addressed the defendant’s challenge to the State’s evidence of larceny by an employee, concluding there was sufficient evidence of an intent [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss two cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 17, 2024. In State v. Evans, COA23-1160, the Court of Appeals addressed the defendant’s challenge to the State’s evidence of larceny by an employee, concluding there was sufficient evidence of an intent [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2024 17:02:47 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/66783af6/36f97c20.mp3" length="39611184" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/k1_jl4xHGW_ME5F5x5bSI_IqBrMpEh2Qef8F6n2lzwg/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9lYzg1/N2IwMDMzY2JlOGNj/ZTdkZWMwZTRiMmZl/ZDliMy5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1651</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss two cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 17, 2024. In State v. Evans, COA23-1160, the Court of Appeals addressed the defendant’s challenge to the State’s evidence of larceny by an employee, concluding there was sufficient evidence of an intent [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss two cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 17, 2024. In State v. Evans, COA23-1160, the Court of Appeals addressed the defendant’s challenge to the State’s evidence of larceny by an emp</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 3: Jackson, Reber, and Shiene</title>
      <itunes:episode>3</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>3</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 3: Jackson, Reber, and Shiene</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=887</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/b646e9cd</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on October 1, 2024, all of them involving issues of search and seizure. In State v. Jackson, COA23-637, the Court of Appeals concluded the defendant’s consent to search his car was not involuntary [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on October 1, 2024, all of them involving issues of search and seizure. In State v. Jackson, COA23-637, the Court of Appeals concluded the defendant’s consent to search his car was not involuntary [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2024 20:31:58 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/b646e9cd/e5e86253.mp3" length="45163167" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/E4fxMQJ2DS699iCSEGy6_cuZYlFZBJ8ewBcWjOwIlUQ/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS8xNjAw/NzNkM2ZkMzFhYWEw/NmE2MzNlYzk0ZjBm/Y2I2NS5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1882</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on October 1, 2024, all of them involving issues of search and seizure. In State v. Jackson, COA23-637, the Court of Appeals concluded the defendant’s consent to search his car was not involuntary [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on October 1, 2024, all of them involving issues of search and seizure. In State v. Jackson, COA23-637, the Court of Appeals concluded the defendant’s co</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 4: Ellison, Hunt, and Moore</title>
      <itunes:episode>4</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>4</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 4: Ellison, Hunt, and Moore</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=897</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/28a1359c</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on October 15, 2024. In State v. Ellison, COA24-30, the Court of Appeals upheld a search warrant despite the inclusion of photographs depicting the wrong address. In State v. Hunt, COA23-890, the Court [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on October 15, 2024. In State v. Ellison, COA24-30, the Court of Appeals upheld a search warrant despite the inclusion of photographs depicting the wrong address. In State v. Hunt, COA23-890, the Court [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2024 15:29:54 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/28a1359c/cac83da1.mp3" length="50032494" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/3dLtC7nEDD3bks9_fGKn48Q8-U1oY4RxZuxhbHwpnLM/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS8wNTBm/NDNmNDJhOTY0ZTI4/NzkyMjc2ZjJmODJm/Mjk4Ny5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2085</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on October 15, 2024. In State v. Ellison, COA24-30, the Court of Appeals upheld a search warrant despite the inclusion of photographs depicting the wrong address. In State v. Hunt, COA23-890, the Court [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on October 15, 2024. In State v. Ellison, COA24-30, the Court of Appeals upheld a search warrant despite the inclusion of photographs depicting the wrong</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 5: Burris, Graves, and Little</title>
      <itunes:episode>5</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>5</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 5: Burris, Graves, and Little</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=908</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/68191444</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina appellate courts in October and November 2024. In State v. Burris, 198A23, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed an opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals that found no error in the denial of the [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina appellate courts in October and November 2024. In State v. Burris, 198A23, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed an opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals that found no error in the denial of the [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2024 14:18:12 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/68191444/092956f9.mp3" length="48677656" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/GV4cKxKWT2WFYqPufp3NaMs1ram3E5z43yChRuxVBEY/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS85NTkw/ZDJlNjg4MTU2YmRj/N2UyZjI4MGNhY2Ux/MjgxYS5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2028</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina appellate courts in October and November 2024. In State v. Burris, 198A23, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed an opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals that found no error in the denial of the [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina appellate courts in October and November 2024. In State v. Burris, 198A23, the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed an opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals tha</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 6: Lancaster, Myers, and Teel</title>
      <itunes:episode>6</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>6</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 6: Lancaster, Myers, and Teel</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=912</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/3b6b328e</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[***Language Warning*** In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on November 19, 2024. In State v. Lancaster, COA24-152, the Court of Appeals found no error in the trial court’s holding the defendant in criminal contempt twice for swearing at the judge (the [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[***Language Warning*** In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on November 19, 2024. In State v. Lancaster, COA24-152, the Court of Appeals found no error in the trial court’s holding the defendant in criminal contempt twice for swearing at the judge (the [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2025 15:21:16 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/3b6b328e/436f9343.mp3" length="47013506" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/sULqDrRN_6zxrsrXOFxm_i7hUOjJzpu-0Z7iCp8O8AI/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9jZmZh/OTU5NzEyZjRjZjgw/Y2FhZWM1ZTg4Njc1/ZjE3Ny5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1959</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>***Language Warning*** In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on November 19, 2024. In State v. Lancaster, COA24-152, the Court of Appeals found no error in the trial court’s holding the defendant in criminal contempt twice for swearing at the judge (the [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>***Language Warning*** In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on November 19, 2024. In State v. Lancaster, COA24-152, the Court of Appeals found no error in the trial court’s holding the defen</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 7: Clark, Vaughn, and Garmon</title>
      <itunes:episode>7</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>7</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 7: Clark, Vaughn, and Garmon</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=915</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/2379c923</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 3, 2024. In State v. Clark, COA23-1133, the Court of Appeals applied Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024), and concluded the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of a [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 3, 2024. In State v. Clark, COA23-1133, the Court of Appeals applied Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024), and concluded the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of a [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2025 14:19:14 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/2379c923/65004be3.mp3" length="45789420" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/KKPOZo8Fuli-PTOGYZzB20k_goMR06Mio8vUEP2ax0A/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS8zZWRm/YWJhZWNhYjIwYzc3/YWNlYmQ3MDg5YWQy/NzAyMS5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1908</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 3, 2024. In State v. Clark, COA23-1133, the Court of Appeals applied Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024), and concluded the trial court erred by admitting the testimony of a [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 3, 2024. In State v. Clark, COA23-1133, the Court of Appeals applied Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024), and concluded the trial court err</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 8: Reel, Carwile, and Stollings</title>
      <itunes:episode>8</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>8</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 8: Reel, Carwile, and Stollings</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=928</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/4df2d8cc</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 17, 2024. In State v. Reel, COA23-711, the Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s challenge to a warrantless search of his home based on exigent circumstances. In State v. Carwile, COA23-885, [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 17, 2024. In State v. Reel, COA23-711, the Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s challenge to a warrantless search of his home based on exigent circumstances. In State v. Carwile, COA23-885, [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:10:05 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/4df2d8cc/beacee70.mp3" length="54209302" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/EkZbtHZJnV6eLKHAa4Z8vNKo_PatBG1BYBA2aTMseAk/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9iNGNh/NDgwYmM1YTlkZjgz/Mzk3NGY2NjE2NDgy/NDk0MS5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2259</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 17, 2024. In State v. Reel, COA23-711, the Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s challenge to a warrantless search of his home based on exigent circumstances. In State v. Carwile, COA23-885, [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 17, 2024. In State v. Reel, COA23-711, the Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s challenge to a warrantless search of his home based on e</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 9: Wilson, Farook, and Williams</title>
      <itunes:episode>9</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>9</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 9: Wilson, Farook, and Williams</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=937</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/66678278</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 31, 2024. In State v. Wilson, COA23-1031, the Court of Appeals awarded the defendant a new trial where the trial court instructed the jury on the theory of kidnapping that was not alleged [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 31, 2024. In State v. Wilson, COA23-1031, the Court of Appeals awarded the defendant a new trial where the trial court instructed the jury on the theory of kidnapping that was not alleged [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2025 14:30:43 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/66678278/d2f3ec4d.mp3" length="48077696" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/Ee34MyqPgOOr_IrgVyuuXlU9XeWpVhqsHdw_uvuzKf8/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS81Y2E2/NzllYjYxM2U0Yzdi/MWViZjRhMjI1NzQ5/M2QwYS5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2003</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 31, 2024. In State v. Wilson, COA23-1031, the Court of Appeals awarded the defendant a new trial where the trial court instructed the jury on the theory of kidnapping that was not alleged [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 31, 2024. In State v. Wilson, COA23-1031, the Court of Appeals awarded the defendant a new trial where the trial court instructed the jury on</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 10: Hicks, Davenport, and Lacure</title>
      <itunes:episode>10</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>10</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 10: Hicks, Davenport, and Lacure</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=942</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/0ee775e4</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases about digital evidence decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 31, 2024, and January 15, 2025. In State v. Hicks, COA20-665-2, the Court of Appeals held the defendant was entitled to a new trial based on the erroneous [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases about digital evidence decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 31, 2024, and January 15, 2025. In State v. Hicks, COA20-665-2, the Court of Appeals held the defendant was entitled to a new trial based on the erroneous [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2025 17:42:01 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/0ee775e4/1c4e480c.mp3" length="47357036" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/9LKIrIm03_VkMQRzvcFdPBExRGNHa3ESYwSG8lDeiBE/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS80Njdm/OWUzNzViOGUwZjFl/MDYzNmY2YTg0OWUy/NTg5NC5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1973</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases about digital evidence decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 31, 2024, and January 15, 2025. In State v. Hicks, COA20-665-2, the Court of Appeals held the defendant was entitled to a new trial based on the erroneous [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases about digital evidence decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 31, 2024, and January 15, 2025. In State v. Hicks, COA20-665-2, the Court of Appeals held the defendant was entitled t</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 11: Lester, Boyd, and Spry</title>
      <itunes:episode>11</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>11</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 11: Lester, Boyd, and Spry</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=953</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/7dcdc3df</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina appellate courts in January and February 2025. In State v. Lester, 293PA23-2, the North Carolina Supreme Court held the Confrontation Clause is not violated by the introduction of machine generated raw data, particularly call detail records. [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina appellate courts in January and February 2025. In State v. Lester, 293PA23-2, the North Carolina Supreme Court held the Confrontation Clause is not violated by the introduction of machine generated raw data, particularly call detail records. [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:46:01 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/7dcdc3df/03f95c08.mp3" length="48667926" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/TCiD1wFMevjU4g-Ivtis173hN2mswu0WSM--rn1ZqiM/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9jODA5/MzlhNjgzMWIzYTNl/MzI5MDJjMzYyYjlm/YmQ5ZS5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2028</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina appellate courts in January and February 2025. In State v. Lester, 293PA23-2, the North Carolina Supreme Court held the Confrontation Clause is not violated by the introduction of machine generated raw data, particularly call detail records. [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina appellate courts in January and February 2025. In State v. Lester, 293PA23-2, the North Carolina Supreme Court held the Confrontation Clause is not violated by the introd</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 12: Nanes, Greenfield, and Velasco</title>
      <itunes:episode>12</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>12</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 12: Nanes, Greenfield, and Velasco</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=958</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/b0d65bb9</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on February 19, 2025. In State v. Nanes, COA24-487, the Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of G.S. 14-415.1, criminalizing possession of a firearm by a felon. In State v. Greenfield, COA23-597, the [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on February 19, 2025. In State v. Nanes, COA24-487, the Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of G.S. 14-415.1, criminalizing possession of a firearm by a felon. In State v. Greenfield, COA23-597, the [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2025 18:49:43 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/b0d65bb9/da91219e.mp3" length="51636948" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/q-7QZ2c-AJp0qRWHhTfaDx2d8oExrn3Ye39OfSLLOEs/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS8wMTMy/MmY0OTZmMWFkZDQz/MmQ5ZGEyNjVkZjcx/ODI4My5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2151</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on February 19, 2025. In State v. Nanes, COA24-487, the Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of G.S. 14-415.1, criminalizing possession of a firearm by a felon. In State v. Greenfield, COA23-597, the [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on February 19, 2025. In State v. Nanes, COA24-487, the Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of G.S. 14-415.1, criminalizing possession of a fir</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 13: Fearns and Ruffin</title>
      <itunes:episode>13</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>13</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 13: Fearns and Ruffin</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=964</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/7d003b5b</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss two cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on March 5, 2025. In State v. Fearns, COA23-650, the Court of Appeals held that, when the defendant’s pretrial motion to dismiss was heard by one judge, who rendered a ruling from the bench [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss two cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on March 5, 2025. In State v. Fearns, COA23-650, the Court of Appeals held that, when the defendant’s pretrial motion to dismiss was heard by one judge, who rendered a ruling from the bench [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2025 17:52:24 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/7d003b5b/345b9a3a.mp3" length="45293288" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/4LSrd766vAgB_poigiTMpkpT_YfeVnSbOYjUL__Gnj0/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS83MDYz/YTkwY2E3M2NhNGE5/ZTNiNDQ3ODUyMTdj/OTdjMi5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1887</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss two cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on March 5, 2025. In State v. Fearns, COA23-650, the Court of Appeals held that, when the defendant’s pretrial motion to dismiss was heard by one judge, who rendered a ruling from the bench [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss two cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on March 5, 2025. In State v. Fearns, COA23-650, the Court of Appeals held that, when the defendant’s pretrial motion to dismiss was heard by one judge, wh</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 14: Windseth, Fuller, and McGirt</title>
      <itunes:episode>14</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>14</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 14: Windseth, Fuller, and McGirt</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=969</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/bae102c3</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on March 19, 2025. In State v. Windseth, COA24-718, the Court of Appeals found that still images from an ATM surveillance video were properly authenticated as a business record. In State v. Fuller, [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on March 19, 2025. In State v. Windseth, COA24-718, the Court of Appeals found that still images from an ATM surveillance video were properly authenticated as a business record. In State v. Fuller, [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2025 18:24:15 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/bae102c3/ee8aaee4.mp3" length="54156200" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/87H_6kD6bh_8307gXXvRpnrrGRUPjt4r30jyPb5J4Z8/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS80MDUz/ODMxMzcyZGQ2ZjVj/Y2QxZmE3MWQwZjNj/MzRkYS5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2256</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on March 19, 2025. In State v. Windseth, COA24-718, the Court of Appeals found that still images from an ATM surveillance video were properly authenticated as a business record. In State v. Fuller, [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on March 19, 2025. In State v. Windseth, COA24-718, the Court of Appeals found that still images from an ATM surveillance video were properly authenticat</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 15: Fenner, Capps, and Ervin</title>
      <itunes:episode>15</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>15</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 15: Fenner, Capps, and Ervin</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=974</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/788ea170</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Appellate Courts in March and April 2025. In State v. Fenner, 289PA23 (N.C. Mar. 21, 2025), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the trial court complied with the colloquy required by G.S. 15A-1242 despite a [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Appellate Courts in March and April 2025. In State v. Fenner, 289PA23 (N.C. Mar. 21, 2025), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the trial court complied with the colloquy required by G.S. 15A-1242 despite a [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2025 15:32:46 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/788ea170/997620ba.mp3" length="49721404" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/B2AxId1Y_uNPZztg8fJVtqXoTgcvq5Rop7uvw7zcuLo/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9jNWQ3/ZWIyZjc0Yjg0OTc4/NTYwYzI2ZDM2ZjFk/ZDM3ZC5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2071</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Appellate Courts in March and April 2025. In State v. Fenner, 289PA23 (N.C. Mar. 21, 2025), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the trial court complied with the colloquy required by G.S. 15A-1242 despite a [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Appellate Courts in March and April 2025. In State v. Fenner, 289PA23 (N.C. Mar. 21, 2025), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that the trial court complied with the c</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 16: Peters, Watlington, and Bryant</title>
      <itunes:episode>16</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>16</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 16: Peters, Watlington, and Bryant</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=980</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/3c827725</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on April 16, 2025. In State v. Peters, COA24-475, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court’s findings on the defendant’s motion to suppress did not resolve the question of whether the defendant [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on April 16, 2025. In State v. Peters, COA24-475, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court’s findings on the defendant’s motion to suppress did not resolve the question of whether the defendant [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2025 16:16:08 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/3c827725/e8083df8.mp3" length="47889062" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/3n08QsuJ61WruKzPuC8utTLHMw6A6Yx3sI-X4Lg9YI0/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS85ZGE3/NmY0YmI4MzhjNzli/M2I3YTg2ZGI4MTli/ZDk5Ny5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1995</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on April 16, 2025. In State v. Peters, COA24-475, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court’s findings on the defendant’s motion to suppress did not resolve the question of whether the defendant [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on April 16, 2025. In State v. Peters, COA24-475, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court’s findings on the defendant’s motion to suppress di</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 17: Meadows, Ducker, and Townsend</title>
      <itunes:episode>17</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>17</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 17: Meadows, Ducker, and Townsend</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=992</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/de06b091</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in May 2025. In State v. Meadows, COA24-149 (N.C. Ct. App. May 7, 2025), the Court of Appeals awarded a new trial where defense counsel impliedly admitted the defendant’s guilt to the jury [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in May 2025. In State v. Meadows, COA24-149 (N.C. Ct. App. May 7, 2025), the Court of Appeals awarded a new trial where defense counsel impliedly admitted the defendant’s guilt to the jury [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2025 14:01:52 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/de06b091/a7795966.mp3" length="50650234" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/B80peOnZFwUZ5N102Oros4AFmZRYrtKKGHpq9s0k2Wg/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS8xN2Q3/N2EwODE0OWRjMWVm/ODllNjM5ZTk3YWQy/NTRkZC5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2110</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in May 2025. In State v. Meadows, COA24-149 (N.C. Ct. App. May 7, 2025), the Court of Appeals awarded a new trial where defense counsel impliedly admitted the defendant’s guilt to the jury [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in May 2025. In State v. Meadows, COA24-149 (N.C. Ct. App. May 7, 2025), the Court of Appeals awarded a new trial where defense counsel impliedly admitte</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 18: Chambers, Bowman, and Joyner</title>
      <itunes:episode>18</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>18</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 18: Chambers, Bowman, and Joyner</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=998</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/a36a1b5a</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Appellate Courts in May 2025. In State v. Chambers, No. 56PA24 (N.C. May 23, 2025), the Supreme Court held that substitution of a juror after deliberations have begun (per G.S. 15A-1215(a)) does not violate a defendant’s [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Appellate Courts in May 2025. In State v. Chambers, No. 56PA24 (N.C. May 23, 2025), the Supreme Court held that substitution of a juror after deliberations have begun (per G.S. 15A-1215(a)) does not violate a defendant’s [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 14:33:08 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/a36a1b5a/214b7303.mp3" length="48445391" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/xuZLJPRhhpVHx3z8OEusAfGjth1m350uXRkWJQeExSY/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9kNGQ3/ZTM1NGUzZDM4MDA1/MTljMmM1NWZiNzY0/NjU3ZS5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2018</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Appellate Courts in May 2025. In State v. Chambers, No. 56PA24 (N.C. May 23, 2025), the Supreme Court held that substitution of a juror after deliberations have begun (per G.S. 15A-1215(a)) does not violate a defendant’s [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Appellate Courts in May 2025. In State v. Chambers, No. 56PA24 (N.C. May 23, 2025), the Supreme Court held that substitution of a juror after deliberations have begun (pe</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 19: Arrington, Gardner, and Owens</title>
      <itunes:episode>19</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>19</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 19: Arrington, Gardner, and Owens</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1010</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/b8b050f7</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on June 4, 2025. In State v. Arrington, COA24-688 (N.C. Ct. App. June 4, 2025), the Court of Appeals found no impropriety when the prosecutor told the jury that a State’s witness was [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on June 4, 2025. In State v. Arrington, COA24-688 (N.C. Ct. App. June 4, 2025), the Court of Appeals found no impropriety when the prosecutor told the jury that a State’s witness was [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2025 16:36:22 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/b8b050f7/dd347c7c.mp3" length="45016860" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/tVM4CnL5AbQsX_C6sdEI9Y-j5wJ6otIErNAS0xLOuOE/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS81ZjA2/ZDgyYTg0NGNhNGEz/ZDczMzI3NDVjZjg1/Zjk0MC5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1875</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on June 4, 2025. In State v. Arrington, COA24-688 (N.C. Ct. App. June 4, 2025), the Court of Appeals found no impropriety when the prosecutor told the jury that a State’s witness was [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on June 4, 2025. In State v. Arrington, COA24-688 (N.C. Ct. App. June 4, 2025), the Court of Appeals found no impropriety when the prosecutor told the ju</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 20: Tate and Gault</title>
      <itunes:episode>20</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>20</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 20: Tate and Gault</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1017</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/0de2ba94</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss two cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on June 18, 2025. In State v. Tate, COA24-450 (N.C. Ct. App. June 18, 2025), the Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s Confrontation Clause challenge to the trial court’s admission of DNA results absent an opportunity [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss two cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on June 18, 2025. In State v. Tate, COA24-450 (N.C. Ct. App. June 18, 2025), the Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s Confrontation Clause challenge to the trial court’s admission of DNA results absent an opportunity [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2025 18:51:29 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/0de2ba94/caad84ba.mp3" length="40078554" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/lpprNhn6JmrpKI78wggHJW3_juIO-GBuXhs3O4OQuyk/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS85MTQx/NTc2ZGEyNjYwZmUx/YmFkMmYwMzk3NDBk/ODc4ZC5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1670</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss two cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on June 18, 2025. In State v. Tate, COA24-450 (N.C. Ct. App. June 18, 2025), the Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s Confrontation Clause challenge to the trial court’s admission of DNA results absent an opportunity [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss two cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on June 18, 2025. In State v. Tate, COA24-450 (N.C. Ct. App. June 18, 2025), the Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s Confrontation Clause challenge t</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 21: Gilbert, Tadlock, and Wingate</title>
      <itunes:episode>21</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>21</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 21: Gilbert, Tadlock, and Wingate</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1027</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/6935039e</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on July 2, 2025. In State v. Gilbert, No. COA25-32 (N.C. Ct. App. July 2, 2025), the Court of Appeals held that it was improper for the prosecutor during closing argument to refer [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on July 2, 2025. In State v. Gilbert, No. COA25-32 (N.C. Ct. App. July 2, 2025), the Court of Appeals held that it was improper for the prosecutor during closing argument to refer [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:24:22 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/6935039e/e9ce33dd.mp3" length="51205550" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/ziaiwkiTL-eD9sa0WKDVK3TDmkwe-HATES9Q6JSwliI/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS83YmM2/ZmVhM2U4NWU2OWMx/YWY0ODcwZTNlZTBi/NDNiNS5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2133</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on July 2, 2025. In State v. Gilbert, No. COA25-32 (N.C. Ct. App. July 2, 2025), the Court of Appeals held that it was improper for the prosecutor during closing argument to refer [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on July 2, 2025. In State v. Gilbert, No. COA25-32 (N.C. Ct. App. July 2, 2025), the Court of Appeals held that it was improper for the prosecutor during</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 22: Upchurch, Venable, and Moore</title>
      <itunes:episode>22</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>22</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 22: Upchurch, Venable, and Moore</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1029</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/ffbf6c49</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on July 2 and July 16, 2025. In State v. Upchurch, No. COA24-460 (N.C. Ct. App. July 2, 2025), the Court of Appeals found no error in the denial of the defendant’s motion [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on July 2 and July 16, 2025. In State v. Upchurch, No. COA24-460 (N.C. Ct. App. July 2, 2025), the Court of Appeals found no error in the denial of the defendant’s motion [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 16:22:51 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/ffbf6c49/1f5cf331.mp3" length="50677590" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/n5XdZVgdUGOnP2lsDMsJP_32xgF4oMW2zkvo7mLUVWE/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS83YzNk/MzEzNzdmNTE2NDky/MDFhMWI2ZmJkMWM2/YjhjNS5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2111</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on July 2 and July 16, 2025. In State v. Upchurch, No. COA24-460 (N.C. Ct. App. July 2, 2025), the Court of Appeals found no error in the denial of the defendant’s motion [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on July 2 and July 16, 2025. In State v. Upchurch, No. COA24-460 (N.C. Ct. App. July 2, 2025), the Court of Appeals found no error in the denial of the d</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 23:  Jenkins, Jones, &amp; Wright</title>
      <itunes:episode>23</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>23</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 23:  Jenkins, Jones, &amp; Wright</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1037</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/231d092c</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on August 6, 2025. In State v. Jenkins, No. COA24-889 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2025), the Court of Appeals construed the some-other-provision-of-law clause of G.S. 14-34.10 to preclude sentencing a defendant on [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on August 6, 2025. In State v. Jenkins, No. COA24-889 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2025), the Court of Appeals construed the some-other-provision-of-law clause of G.S. 14-34.10 to preclude sentencing a defendant on [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 13:16:29 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/231d092c/ef414106.mp3" length="41772544" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/omT77TGNI-Z-2RAnCn9npCzxcBH90OwHkqfrNHGnwJI/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS85ZTU1/YjNiNWJlOWZlNDlm/M2MyMmU1OTNiZTll/MWM4Ni5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1740</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on August 6, 2025. In State v. Jenkins, No. COA24-889 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2025), the Court of Appeals construed the some-other-provision-of-law clause of G.S. 14-34.10 to preclude sentencing a defendant on [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on August 6, 2025. In State v. Jenkins, No. COA24-889 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2025), the Court of Appeals construed the some-other-provision-of-law clause</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 24: McCall, Council, and Wright</title>
      <itunes:episode>24</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>24</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 24: McCall, Council, and Wright</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1043</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/20829862</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by North Carolina appellate courts on August 20 and 22, 2025. In State v. McCall, COA24-779 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2025), the Court of Appeals held that the State may use evidence of the defendant’s pre-arrest silence as substantive evidence [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by North Carolina appellate courts on August 20 and 22, 2025. In State v. McCall, COA24-779 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2025), the Court of Appeals held that the State may use evidence of the defendant’s pre-arrest silence as substantive evidence [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2025 17:14:48 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/20829862/a40a3e3f.mp3" length="46173098" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/Nw8xs-c5vjKT0vma37MPfmbr4gLaEWq2Z9umZajZ5U8/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS85ODUy/MjhhZDI1NTg2NzBm/OTM3NWIzODk1MWM0/ZmY2OS5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1923</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by North Carolina appellate courts on August 20 and 22, 2025. In State v. McCall, COA24-779 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2025), the Court of Appeals held that the State may use evidence of the defendant’s pre-arrest silence as substantive evidence [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by North Carolina appellate courts on August 20 and 22, 2025. In State v. McCall, COA24-779 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2025), the Court of Appeals held that the State may use evidence of the defe</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 25: Powell, Watkins, and Quiterio-Morrison</title>
      <itunes:episode>25</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>25</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 25: Powell, Watkins, and Quiterio-Morrison</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1048</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/91fad838</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 3, 2025. In State v. Powell, No. COA24-556 (N.C. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2025), the Court of Appeals awarded the defendant a new trial when the trial court erred by failing [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 3, 2025. In State v. Powell, No. COA24-556 (N.C. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2025), the Court of Appeals awarded the defendant a new trial when the trial court erred by failing [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2025 19:10:33 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/91fad838/943fe1d7.mp3" length="44518426" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:duration>1854</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 3, 2025. In State v. Powell, No. COA24-556 (N.C. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2025), the Court of Appeals awarded the defendant a new trial when the trial court erred by failing [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 3, 2025. In State v. Powell, No. COA24-556 (N.C. Ct. App. Sept. 3, 2025), the Court of Appeals awarded the defendant a new trial when the tr</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 26: Chafen, Thomas, and Creed</title>
      <itunes:episode>26</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>26</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 26: Chafen, Thomas, and Creed</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1058</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/cc37d739</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 17, 2025. In State v. Chafen, No. COA24-1030 (N.C. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2025), the Court of Appeals found no error when there was insufficient evidence to raise a bona fide [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 17, 2025. In State v. Chafen, No. COA24-1030 (N.C. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2025), the Court of Appeals found no error when there was insufficient evidence to raise a bona fide [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 15:57:19 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/cc37d739/b36d9a60.mp3" length="47743940" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/Gd0bNReRSnnPPjpsgTK7b3UthLU43x9KNiJcLFgdVb0/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS81OWY5/YWIzZTQwMTEyNjIz/MzE5YzJkYzI4NzIy/YmQ2OS5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1989</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 17, 2025. In State v. Chafen, No. COA24-1030 (N.C. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2025), the Court of Appeals found no error when there was insufficient evidence to raise a bona fide [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on September 17, 2025. In State v. Chafen, No. COA24-1030 (N.C. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2025), the Court of Appeals found no error when there was insufficient</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 27: Lamm, Ramsey, and Pardo</title>
      <itunes:episode>27</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>27</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 27: Lamm, Ramsey, and Pardo</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1067</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/47f46812</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on Oct. 1, 2025. In State v. Lamm, No. COA24-982 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2025), the Court of Appeals held that a prior acquittal did not collaterally estop the State from presenting [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on Oct. 1, 2025. In State v. Lamm, No. COA24-982 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2025), the Court of Appeals held that a prior acquittal did not collaterally estop the State from presenting [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 16:24:49 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/47f46812/70b5a784.mp3" length="48630894" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/59Imi5QPGuS7wXEttHIH1r7rVz5JSr-7UXw7zbT7hiw/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS8zMWIw/NWJhYjZkZmFlMGQz/ZWIwODM0YmZjODkw/YmEyYS5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2026</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on Oct. 1, 2025. In State v. Lamm, No. COA24-982 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2025), the Court of Appeals held that a prior acquittal did not collaterally estop the State from presenting [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on Oct. 1, 2025. In State v. Lamm, No. COA24-982 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 1, 2025), the Court of Appeals held that a prior acquittal did not collaterally esto</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 28: Chemuti, Wilson, and Rogers</title>
      <itunes:episode>28</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>28</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 28: Chemuti, Wilson, and Rogers</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1071</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/ffb7f447</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Supreme Court on Oct. 17, 2025. In State v. Chemuti, No. 282PA24 (N.C. Oct. 17, 2025), the Supreme Court ruled that defendants cannot compel the production of body camera footage and other recordings in the custody [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Supreme Court on Oct. 17, 2025. In State v. Chemuti, No. 282PA24 (N.C. Oct. 17, 2025), the Supreme Court ruled that defendants cannot compel the production of body camera footage and other recordings in the custody [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2026 17:13:03 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/ffb7f447/ce3eb60c.mp3" length="55585432" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/posOx-WyzMzJEuq2mq51woaHJuQpkQGGhFP5PbS-u7E/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9jODIw/MmJkMzlkY2YxODdk/NDRkZDgzNjc2OGY1/OGViMS5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2315</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Supreme Court on Oct. 17, 2025. In State v. Chemuti, No. 282PA24 (N.C. Oct. 17, 2025), the Supreme Court ruled that defendants cannot compel the production of body camera footage and other recordings in the custody [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Supreme Court on Oct. 17, 2025. In State v. Chemuti, No. 282PA24 (N.C. Oct. 17, 2025), the Supreme Court ruled that defendants cannot compel the production of body camera</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 29: Barthel, Wilson, and Hickman</title>
      <itunes:episode>29</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>29</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 29: Barthel, Wilson, and Hickman</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1077</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/9e9286fa</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on November 5, 2025. In State v. Barthel, No. COA25-159 (N.C. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2025), the Court of Appeals vacated the defendant’s convictions arising from the display of a vulgar banner at [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on November 5, 2025. In State v. Barthel, No. COA25-159 (N.C. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2025), the Court of Appeals vacated the defendant’s convictions arising from the display of a vulgar banner at [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2026 13:46:09 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/9e9286fa/19b8652a.mp3" length="42037164" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/5j_x4HdzxoH3gzB62Fozd6Di4zjFG78mA00pgMqz9Fk/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9hYTYw/OWY0NjlkZmE1OTM3/MmVhZmY2NWNhYWU1/ZmQxNy5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1751</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on November 5, 2025. In State v. Barthel, No. COA25-159 (N.C. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2025), the Court of Appeals vacated the defendant’s convictions arising from the display of a vulgar banner at [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on November 5, 2025. In State v. Barthel, No. COA25-159 (N.C. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2025), the Court of Appeals vacated the defendant’s convictions arising fr</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 30: Johnson, Vaughn, and Mathews</title>
      <itunes:episode>30</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>30</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 30: Johnson, Vaughn, and Mathews</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1083</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/dbbd23e5</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on November 5 and 19, 2025. In State v. Johnson, No. COA24-1126 (N.C. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2025), the Court of Appeals found no error in the denial of the defendant’s request for [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on November 5 and 19, 2025. In State v. Johnson, No. COA24-1126 (N.C. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2025), the Court of Appeals found no error in the denial of the defendant’s request for [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2026 20:48:55 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/dbbd23e5/8420881e.mp3" length="39062038" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/1zj2eUyNufIvFy4bucFChU2EJgbUyqBlCLyHQr0qej0/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS82YmE1/MzQyYjkzOGFjMThj/ODMyYTI2MWI1MGZi/YjRhZS5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>1627</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on November 5 and 19, 2025. In State v. Johnson, No. COA24-1126 (N.C. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2025), the Court of Appeals found no error in the denial of the defendant’s request for [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on November 5 and 19, 2025. In State v. Johnson, No. COA24-1126 (N.C. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2025), the Court of Appeals found no error in the denial of the de</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 31: Kleist, Allen, and McKoy</title>
      <itunes:episode>31</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>31</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 31: Kleist, Allen, and McKoy</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1088</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/cefefc95</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 3, 2025. In State v. Kleist, No. COA24-677 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2025), the Court of Appeals found insufficient evidence of aiding and abetting child sex crimes and felony child [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 3, 2025. In State v. Kleist, No. COA24-677 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2025), the Court of Appeals found insufficient evidence of aiding and abetting child sex crimes and felony child [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2026 19:05:18 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/cefefc95/97d89d5f.mp3" length="50003072" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/C3xOC-WRIUxQrBVxsEJaGPoxtcahzpaizymEksimsCg/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9mYWYw/YjM5M2M1MzYyYTRi/YjVjNmY1Y2ZjNWFk/MWY5Yy5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2083</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 3, 2025. In State v. Kleist, No. COA24-677 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2025), the Court of Appeals found insufficient evidence of aiding and abetting child sex crimes and felony child [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on December 3, 2025. In State v. Kleist, No. COA24-677 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 3, 2025), the Court of Appeals found insufficient evidence of aiding and abett</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 32: Calderon, Allison, and Ford</title>
      <itunes:episode>32</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>32</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 32: Calderon, Allison, and Ford</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1098</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/7a6817b5</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Supreme Court on December 12, 2025. In State v. Calderon, No. 238A23 (N.C. Dec. 12, 2025), the Supreme Court applied the distinct-interruption test and found sufficient evidence to support three separate convictions for indecent liberties with [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Supreme Court on December 12, 2025. In State v. Calderon, No. 238A23 (N.C. Dec. 12, 2025), the Supreme Court applied the distinct-interruption test and found sufficient evidence to support three separate convictions for indecent liberties with [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2026 16:13:27 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/7a6817b5/197ce063.mp3" length="54180628" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/HTE7IQt0CUSsHICRb-hyR2X3zbMnBX0hVAVpc_iX5ds/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS8zZGQ5/Njg4NzBkMDZlY2Rk/MjM0Nzg3NmQ3NmE4/ZjgxZC5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2257</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Supreme Court on December 12, 2025. In State v. Calderon, No. 238A23 (N.C. Dec. 12, 2025), the Supreme Court applied the distinct-interruption test and found sufficient evidence to support three separate convictions for indecent liberties with [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Supreme Court on December 12, 2025. In State v. Calderon, No. 238A23 (N.C. Dec. 12, 2025), the Supreme Court applied the distinct-interruption test and found sufficient e</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 33: White, Leggett, and Phillips</title>
      <itunes:episode>33</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>33</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 33: White, Leggett, and Phillips</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1105</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/4ff47d9e</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on January 7, 2026. In State v. White, No. COA25-470 (N.C. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2026), the Court of Appeals found no error in the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress when [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on January 7, 2026. In State v. White, No. COA25-470 (N.C. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2026), the Court of Appeals found no error in the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress when [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 16:33:02 -0100</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/4ff47d9e/2028a969.mp3" length="56816894" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/1x5xY1qVGlZuP4Lpyice9aJYMlLQm1nla1wHXECfs0g/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS8xODcy/MzRkOTRjNjcxODFm/OWY4YjRhMDgzMjk5/NzA5ZC5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2366</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on January 7, 2026. In State v. White, No. COA25-470 (N.C. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2026), the Court of Appeals found no error in the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress when [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on January 7, 2026. In State v. White, No. COA25-470 (N.C. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2026), the Court of Appeals found no error in the denial of the defendant’s m</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 34: Oaks, Braswell, and Robinson</title>
      <itunes:episode>34</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>34</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 34: Oaks, Braswell, and Robinson</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1110</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/e6de746c</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on January 7 and January 21 of 2026. In State v. Oakes, No. COA25-247 (N.C. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2026), the Court of Appeals concluded that a voicemail was sufficiently authenticated by voice [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on January 7 and January 21 of 2026. In State v. Oakes, No. COA25-247 (N.C. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2026), the Court of Appeals concluded that a voicemail was sufficiently authenticated by voice [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 13:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/e6de746c/3e6efc39.mp3" length="58001640" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/4j3DkCT9he47Co6xOnr_dsEx4OoBe5a1HP_nf8mQRwk/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9jNDlh/MDMyOWZlOGFjZWQ1/MTVlMmZiM2JhZmNk/MGUwYi5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2416</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on January 7 and January 21 of 2026. In State v. Oakes, No. COA25-247 (N.C. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2026), the Court of Appeals concluded that a voicemail was sufficiently authenticated by voice [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on January 7 and January 21 of 2026. In State v. Oakes, No. COA25-247 (N.C. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2026), the Court of Appeals concluded that a voicemail was s</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 35: Gibbon, Toomer, and Julius</title>
      <itunes:episode>35</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>35</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 35: Gibbon, Toomer, and Julius</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1115</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/b3d5d278</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Caroline Court of Appeals on February 4, 2026. In State v. Gibbon, No. COA25-415 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb 4, 2026), the Court of Appeals found the prosecutor conducted the necessary investigation between presentment and indictment by reviewing [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Caroline Court of Appeals on February 4, 2026. In State v. Gibbon, No. COA25-415 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb 4, 2026), the Court of Appeals found the prosecutor conducted the necessary investigation between presentment and indictment by reviewing [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 18:30:53 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/b3d5d278/76d9cbec.mp3" length="54005756" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/mAgd92ntRxzxazPtT9ICl9Br3NrfpVZc7sn7NHqrspc/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS82Y2I2/ZmNmNjllZGYxMGI4/NTc5MTc0MGI2YTM3/YjNlMy5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2249</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Caroline Court of Appeals on February 4, 2026. In State v. Gibbon, No. COA25-415 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb 4, 2026), the Court of Appeals found the prosecutor conducted the necessary investigation between presentment and indictment by reviewing [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Caroline Court of Appeals on February 4, 2026. In State v. Gibbon, No. COA25-415 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb 4, 2026), the Court of Appeals found the prosecutor conducted the necessary inv</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 36: Cooke, Villareal, and Sanchez</title>
      <itunes:episode>36</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>36</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 36: Cooke, Villareal, and Sanchez</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1120</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/aaa53948</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on February 18, 2026. In State v. Cooke, No. COA25-527 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2026), the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment where the trial court proceeded without first determining that the [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on February 18, 2026. In State v. Cooke, No. COA25-527 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2026), the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment where the trial court proceeded without first determining that the [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 13:55:36 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/aaa53948/9c7f1ade.mp3" length="48300390" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/Zv0zd5z3_Ip2ywR-Jf77WS58MeVB0lTpviJ1K55tPpI/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS82MjRi/OTIwZTRhNmRlMzRl/ZDhiNTFmMmI2OTY5/MjljZS5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2012</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on February 18, 2026. In State v. Cooke, No. COA25-527 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2026), the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment where the trial court proceeded without first determining that the [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on February 18, 2026. In State v. Cooke, No. COA25-527 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2026), the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment where the trial court pro</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 37: Barbour, Hollis, and Hunt</title>
      <itunes:episode>37</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>37</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 37: Barbour, Hollis, and Hunt</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1129</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/4330ad4a</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on March 4, 2026. In State v. Barbour, COA24-664 (N.C. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2026), the Court of Appeals held the State presented sufficient evidence contradicting the defendant’s castle doctrine defense to warrant [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on March 4, 2026. In State v. Barbour, COA24-664 (N.C. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2026), the Court of Appeals held the State presented sufficient evidence contradicting the defendant’s castle doctrine defense to warrant [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 14:00:31 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/4330ad4a/75bc7c89.mp3" length="54304528" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/yQ6Xc_guDlbV81_uYCT5yQ2PixAF5lzsZEQr1_UFj6s/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS8yZjc4/ZjM2NjViYzI3NGZl/MmY2ODU4OWRmYmQ2/NzVmMi5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2262</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on March 4, 2026. In State v. Barbour, COA24-664 (N.C. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2026), the Court of Appeals held the State presented sufficient evidence contradicting the defendant’s castle doctrine defense to warrant [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on March 4, 2026. In State v. Barbour, COA24-664 (N.C. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2026), the Court of Appeals held the State presented sufficient evidence contradi</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 38: Butler, Smathers, and Sloan</title>
      <itunes:episode>38</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>38</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 38: Butler, Smathers, and Sloan</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1134</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/ba418949</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on March 18, 2026. In State v. Butler, No. COA25-9 (N.C. Ct. App. March 18, 2026), the Court of Appeals found insufficient evidence of serious bodily injury to support a conviction for assault [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on March 18, 2026. In State v. Butler, No. COA25-9 (N.C. Ct. App. March 18, 2026), the Court of Appeals found insufficient evidence of serious bodily injury to support a conviction for assault [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 14:32:29 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/ba418949/31820dcc.mp3" length="53362682" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/4HonloZJnTPXDOpWTbK4SgnpMzWPEs3CkKWMMeYEsFs/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS8zOGEz/ZjJjNTI4ODA0NDY1/ZTM3ZWU0ZTExMTc2/NzQ0OC5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2222</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on March 18, 2026. In State v. Butler, No. COA25-9 (N.C. Ct. App. March 18, 2026), the Court of Appeals found insufficient evidence of serious bodily injury to support a conviction for assault [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on March 18, 2026. In State v. Butler, No. COA25-9 (N.C. Ct. App. March 18, 2026), the Court of Appeals found insufficient evidence of serious bodily inj</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Episode 39: Cole, Williams, and Thomas</title>
      <itunes:episode>39</itunes:episode>
      <podcast:episode>39</podcast:episode>
      <itunes:title>Episode 39: Cole, Williams, and Thomas</itunes:title>
      <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&amp;p=1140</guid>
      <link>https://share.transistor.fm/s/f40d1096</link>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Appellate Courts in March and April 2026. In State v. Cole, No. COA24-563 (N.C. Ct. App. April 1, 2026), the Court of Appeals found no error in the trial court’s instructing the jury on the felony [...]]]>
      </description>
      <content:encoded>
        <![CDATA[In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Appellate Courts in March and April 2026. In State v. Cole, No. COA24-563 (N.C. Ct. App. April 1, 2026), the Court of Appeals found no error in the trial court’s instructing the jury on the felony [...]]]>
      </content:encoded>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 19:41:32 +0000</pubDate>
      <author>SOG Podcasts</author>
      <enclosure url="https://media.transistor.fm/f40d1096/9658fec6.mp3" length="50287908" type="audio/mpeg"/>
      <itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
      <itunes:image href="https://img.transistorcdn.com/r_mGYS5NfMYayt7Td2qqm0Z1M1KWxvxIMuCN7LAI748/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:1400/h:1400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS8zMjE1/NjhiYTcyMDhmNjdl/ZDkxNDM3NzFlOTc5/NmZkYS5wbmc.jpg"/>
      <itunes:duration>2094</itunes:duration>
      <itunes:summary>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Appellate Courts in March and April 2026. In State v. Cole, No. COA24-563 (N.C. Ct. App. April 1, 2026), the Court of Appeals found no error in the trial court’s instructing the jury on the felony [...]</itunes:summary>
      <itunes:subtitle>In this episode, Hyde and Holbrook discuss three cases decided by the North Carolina Appellate Courts in March and April 2026. In State v. Cole, No. COA24-563 (N.C. Ct. App. April 1, 2026), the Court of Appeals found no error in the trial court’s instruct</itunes:subtitle>
      <itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
      <itunes:explicit>No</itunes:explicit>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
