Episode

Martin v. Burgess: The Right to Access Bond Records

Podcast
Swear on the Stand
Published
Apr 30, 2026
Duration seconds
2634
Processing state
not_requested
Canonical source
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/danielswear/episodes/Martin-v--Burgess-The-Right-to-Access-Bond-Records-e3ia5tl
Audio
https://anchor.fm/s/fddb5314/podcast/play/118871413/https%3A%2F%2Fd3ctxlq1ktw2nl.cloudfront.net%2Fstaging%2F2026-3-22%2Faf92ad05-d445-3ee8-907f-e069d811d4bb.m4a
JSON
/v1/public/podcasts/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/episodes/martin-v-burgess-the-right-to-access-bond-records
Markdown
/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/martin-v-burgess-the-right-to-access-bond-records.md

Actions

  • POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/episodes/martin-v-burgess-the-right-to-access-bond-records/transcription-requests
    Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.
  • GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/martin-v-burgess-the-right-to-access-bond-records.md
    Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.

Summary

This episode details a legal dispute involving Scott Martin , a marketer who sued Harris County officials after they restricted public access to criminal defendants' personal contact information in bail records. Martin argued that the administrative order hiding this data violated his First and Sixth Amendment rights by damaging his business of providing leads to defense attorneys. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected these claims, determining that the government is not constitutionally required to provide access to such internal information. The court further clarified that the order was a valid exercise of administrative authority rather than an illegal restraint on speech. Ultimately, the judges affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit, concluding that Martin possessed no protected property interest in the private data of defendants.