{"href":"https://api.simplecast.com/oembed?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdividedargument.com%2Fepisodes%2Flibertarian-legal-morality-tales-nVer_ugo","width":444,"version":"1.0","type":"rich","title":"Libertarian Legal Morality Tales","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_url":"https://image.simplecastcdn.com/images/9f48e94e-1ea8-4f54-a58c-27e99971f8cb/eee54104-48c1-4f2d-a7cd-5ba681b4656f/dividedargument-fotor.jpg","thumbnail_height":300,"provider_url":"https://simplecast.com","provider_name":"Simplecast","html":"<iframe src=\"https://player.simplecast.com/9e23a64e-dea9-4014-acc6-93718bd8685b\" height=\"200\" width=\"100%\" title=\"Libertarian Legal Morality Tales\" frameborder=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"></iframe>","height":200,"description":"As the dust settles on the end of the term, we look back to examine two of the Court's criminal procedure cases: Smith v. Arizona (applying the Confrontation Clause to expert testimony) and Diaz v. United States (interpreting Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b)) after a brief discussion of AI, political developments, and judicial robes.\n"}