{"podcast":{"title":"Swear on the Stand","slug":"swear-on-the-stand-7111404","podcast_index_feed_id":7111404,"rss_url":"https://anchor.fm/s/fddb5314/podcast/rss","website_url":"https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/danielswear","image_url":"https://d3t3ozftmdmh3i.cloudfront.net/staging/podcast_uploaded_nologo/42490093/42490093-1732466737482-64af1021e8b8d.jpg","author":"Daniel W. Swear","episode_count":193,"summary":"Court decisions are complex and difficult to digest. This podcast is designed to educating listeners on current legal decisions in a fun and interesting way. Researched by me and produced with the assistance of AI.","last_synced_at":"2026-07-10T22:18:10.447360+00:00","page_url":"https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404"},"episode":{"title":"Abouammo v. United States: Venue for Document Falsification","slug":"abouammo-v-united-states-venue-for-document-falsification","published_at":"2026-06-25T12:00:00+00:00","page_url":"https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/abouammo-v-united-states-venue-for-document-falsification","show_page_url":"https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404","url":"https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/danielswear/episodes/Abouammo-v--United-States-Venue-for-Document-Falsification-e3ks2k2","audio_url":"https://anchor.fm/s/fddb5314/podcast/play/121555010/https%3A%2F%2Fd3ctxlq1ktw2nl.cloudfront.net%2Fstaging%2F2026-5-16%2Fab20633a-2400-be67-3161-49142d6813b0.m4a","summary":"This episode contains a Supreme Court opinion from June 2026 regarding the case Abouammo v. United States , which centers on the legal requirements for criminal venue . The dispute arose after Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter employee, was convicted of falsifying a document with the intent to obstruct a federal investigation under 18 U. S. C. §1519 . Although the investigation was based in San Francisco , the actual act of creating the fraudulent invoice took place at the defendant's home in Seattle . Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Kagan clarified that the Sixth Amendment and Article III require trials to be held where the essential conduct of the crime occurred. The Court concluded that because the statute only proscribes the act of falsification , venue is restricted to the location of that act regardless of where the intended effects of the obstruction were felt. Consequently, the Court reversed the appellate ruling, maintaining that the government cannot prosecute a defendant in a remote district simply because a mens rea element connects the crime to that location.","meta_description":"This episode contains a Supreme Court opinion from June 2026 regarding the case Abouammo v. United States , which centers on the legal requirements for cr…","key_points":[],"chapters":[],"topics":[],"duration_seconds":2401,"processing_state":"not_requested","actions":[{"name":"request_transcript","method":"POST","url":"https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/episodes/abouammo-v-united-states-venue-for-document-falsification/transcription-requests","description":"Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode."},{"name":"read_markdown","method":"GET","url":"https://stenobird.com/podcast/swear-on-the-stand-7111404/abouammo-v-united-states-venue-for-document-falsification.md","description":"Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource."}]}}