S2, The State v. Joey Watkins - Addendum 22 – Undisclosed at Emory Law
Undisclosed: Toward Justice
mital
4.2 • 10.5K Ratings
🗓️ 5 January 2017
⏱️ 60 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Summary
January 5, 2017 / Emory Law Professor Julie Seaman uses the Joey Watkins case to teach the rules of evidence, with an assist from Susan Simpson and Jon Cryer.
Episode scoring music by Patrick Cortes, Ramiro Marquez and Blue Dot Sessions.
#undisclosed #UDaddendum #justiceforjoey
Transcript
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
| 0:00.0 | In this week's episode, we discussed Joey's trial and two pieces of surprise evidence that |
| 0:22.3 | the prosecution introduced that trial. The testimony of the mother of one of Isaac's close friends, |
| 0:27.3 | Yvonne Agan, and the Grave Dog. In this addendum, we'll get to hear a review of some of the |
| 0:31.3 | legal implications of this evidence because it was covered in a class at the Emory University School |
| 0:35.6 | of Law. Julie Seaman, a member of the Georgia |
| 0:38.1 | Innocence Projects Board, is an evidence professor at Emory and has been using season two |
| 0:42.3 | of undisclosed throughout this past semester to teach her students about how the evidence |
| 0:46.2 | rules can work in the real world. The panel at the class consisted of Susan, as well as Joey's |
| 0:51.2 | attorneys, Claire Gilbert and Ben Goldberg. John Cryer was there to via Skype, so you'll hear him, but we apologize for the poor quality. |
| 0:58.0 | Also, as a warning, there will be a throw of discussion of the dogs in this case. |
| 1:07.8 | The way that this really came about was I'm the current board chair of the Georgia Innocence Project. |
| 1:14.1 | And so when I learned that we were going to be partnering with the undisclosed podcast on this case, I thought, wow, that could be kind of a fun thing. |
| 1:23.9 | I hesitate to use the word fun, both in connection with law school and also in connection with, you know, what's a very serious thing. I hesitate to use the word fun, both in connection with law school and also in |
| 1:28.8 | connection with, you know, what's a very serious case because obviously someone's life is at stake |
| 1:34.3 | and someone's freedom's at stake. Nonetheless, we try to make law school fun sometimes. |
| 1:39.0 | And so I thought it would be fun since we do in evidence, in the evidence, of course, |
| 1:43.5 | we take a problem approach and we read the |
| 1:46.2 | rules and we read the cases but then we look at problems and we say how would the rules apply to |
| 1:51.2 | this hypothetical problem. And sometimes we look to real cases in the real world because that's |
| 1:56.4 | kind of interesting and more fun for the students. So I thought, well, let's use this case and see how that works. |
| 2:03.6 | So it was a bit of an experiment, partly because I didn't know and still don't know exactly |
| 2:09.6 | when any item of evidence is going to be covered by the podcast, if at all. And so we couldn't |
... |
Please login to see the full transcript.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from mital, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of mital and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.

