<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/plugins/seriously-simple-podcasting/templates/feed-stylesheet.xsl"?><rss version="2.0"
	 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	 xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	 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:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	 xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	 xmlns:googleplay="http://www.google.com/schemas/play-podcasts/1.0"
	 xmlns:podcast="https://podcastindex.org/namespace/1.0"
	>
		<channel>
		<title>Turning State&#039;s</title>
		<atom:link href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/feed/podcast/turning-states/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
		<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/series/turning-states/</link>
		<description>Turning State&#039;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&#039;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>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 18:30:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<language>en-US</language>
		<copyright>© 2024 SOG Podcasts</copyright>
		<itunes:subtitle>Turning State&#039;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&#039;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:subtitle>
		<itunes:author>SOG Podcasts</itunes:author>
		<itunes:type>serial</itunes:type>
		<itunes:summary>Turning State&#039;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&#039;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:owner>
			<itunes:name>SOG Podcasts</itunes:name>
			<itunes:email>sog_apps@sog.unc.edu</itunes:email>
		</itunes:owner>
		<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a.png"></itunes:image>
			
		<itunes:category text="Education">
							</itunes:category>
		<podcast:locked owner="sog_apps@sog.unc.edu">yes</podcast:locked>
		<podcast:guid>0da355f1-bb4d-522a-9a7e-9436fa74088a</podcast:guid>
		
		<!-- podcast_generator="SSP by Castos/2.22.0" Seriously Simple Podcasting plugin for WordPress (https://wordpress.org/plugins/seriously-simple-podcasting/) -->
		<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2</generator>

<item>
	<title>Episode 35: Gibbon, Toomer, and Julius</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-35-gibbon-toomer-and-julius/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-35-gibbon-toomer-and-julius</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 18:30:53 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=1115</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 in]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>35</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/1115/episode-35-gibbon-toomer-and-julius.mp3" length="54005756" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>37:29</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 34: Oaks, Braswell, and Robinson</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-34-oaks-braswell-and-robinson/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-34-oaks-braswell-and-robinson</link>
	<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2026 13:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=1110</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>34</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/1110/episode-34-oaks-braswell-and-robinson.mp3" length="58001640" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>40:15</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 33: White, Leggett, and Phillips</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-33-white-leggett-and-phillips/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-33-white-leggett-and-phillips</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 17:33:02 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=1105</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>33</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/1105/episode-33-white-leggett-and-phillips.mp3" length="56816894" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>39:26</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 32: Calderon, Allison, and Ford</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-32-calderon-allison-and-ford/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-32-calderon-allison-and-ford</link>
	<pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2026 17:13:27 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=1098</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>32</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/1098/episode-32-calderon-allison-and-ford.mp3" length="54180628" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>37:36</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 31: Kleist, Allen, and McKoy</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-31-kleist-allen-and-mckoy/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-31-kleist-allen-and-mckoy</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2026 20:05:18 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=1088</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 abet]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>31</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/1088/episode-31-kleist-allen-and-mckoy.mp3" length="50003072" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>34:42</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 30: Johnson, Vaughn, and Mathews</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-30-johnson-vaughn-and-mathews/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-30-johnson-vaughn-and-mathews</link>
	<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2026 21:48:55 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=1083</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 d]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>30</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/1083/episode-30-johnson-vaughn-and-mathews.mp3" length="39062038" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>27:06</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 29: Barthel, Wilson, and Hickman</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-29-barthel-wilson-and-hickman/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-29-barthel-wilson-and-hickman</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2026 14:46:09 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=1077</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 f]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>29</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/1077/episode-29-barthel-wilson-and-hickman.mp3" length="42037164" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>29:10</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 28: Chemuti, Wilson, and Rogers</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-28-chemuti-wilson-and-rogers/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-28-chemuti-wilson-and-rogers</link>
	<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2026 18:13:03 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=1071</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 camer]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>28</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/1071/episode-28-chemuti-wilson-and-rogers.mp3" length="55585432" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>38:35</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title> Episode 27: Lamm, Ramsey, and Pardo</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-27-lamm-ramsey-and-pardo/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-27-lamm-ramsey-and-pardo</link>
	<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2026 17:24:49 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=1067</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 est]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>27</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/1067/episode-27-lamm-ramsey-and-pardo.mp3" length="48630894" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>33:45</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 26: Chafen, Thomas, and Creed</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-26-chafen-thomas-and-creed/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-26-chafen-thomas-and-creed</link>
	<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 16:57:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=1058</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 insufficien]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>26</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/1058/episode-26-chafen-thomas-and-creed.mp3" length="47743940" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>33:08</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 25: Powell, Watkins, and Quiterio-Morrison</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-25-powell-watkins-and-quiterio-morrison/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-25-powell-watkins-and-quiterio-morrison</link>
	<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2025 20:10:33 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=1048</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 t]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>25</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/1048/episode-25-powell-watkins-and-quiterio-morrison.mp3" length="44518426" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>30:54</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 24: McCall, Council, and Wright</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-24-mccall-council-and-wright/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-24-mccall-council-and-wright</link>
	<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2025 18:14:48 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=1043</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 def]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>24</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/1043/episode-24-mccall-council-and-wright.mp3" length="46173098" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>32:03</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 23:  Jenkins, Jones, &#038; Wright</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-23-jenkins-jones-wright/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-23-jenkins-jones-wright</link>
	<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2025 13:16:29 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=1037</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 claus]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>23</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/1037/episode-23-jenkins-jones-wright.mp3" length="41772544" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>28:59</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 22: Upchurch, Venable, and Moore</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-22-upchurch-venable-and-moore/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-22-upchurch-venable-and-moore</link>
	<pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2025 16:22:51 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=1029</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>22</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/1029/episode-22-upchurch-venable-and-moore.mp3" length="50677590" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>35:11</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 21: Gilbert, Tadlock, and Wingate</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-21-gilbert-tadlock-and-wingate/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-21-gilbert-tadlock-and-wingate</link>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:24:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=1027</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 durin]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>21</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/1027/episode-21-gilbert-tadlock-and-wingate.mp3" length="51205550" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>35:33</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 20: Tate and Gault</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-20-tate-and-gault/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-20-tate-and-gault</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2025 18:51:29 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=1017</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>20</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/1017/episode-20-tate-and-gault.mp3" length="40078554" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>27:49</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 19: Arrington, Gardner, and Owens</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-19-arrington-gardner-and-owens/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-19-arrington-gardner-and-owens</link>
	<pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2025 16:36:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=1010</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 j]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>19</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/1010/episode-19-arrington-gardner-and-owens.mp3" length="45016860" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>31:15</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 18: Chambers, Bowman, and Joyner</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-18-chambers-bowman-and-joyner/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-18-chambers-bowman-and-joyner</link>
	<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 14:33:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=998</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 (p]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>18</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/998/episode-18-chambers-bowman-and-joyner.mp3" length="48445391" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>33:38</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 17: Meadows, Ducker, and Townsend</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-17-meadows-ducker-and-townsend/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-17-meadows-ducker-and-townsend</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2025 14:01:52 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=992</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 admitt]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>17</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/992/episode-17-meadows-ducker-and-townsend.mp3" length="50650234" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>35:10</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 16: Peters, Watlington, and Bryant</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-16-peters-watlington-and-bryant/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-16-peters-watlington-and-bryant</link>
	<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2025 16:16:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=980</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 d]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>16</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/980/episode-16-peters-watlington-and-bryant.mp3" length="47889062" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>33:15</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 15: Fenner, Capps, and Ervin</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-15-fenner-capps-and-ervin/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-15-fenner-capps-and-ervin</link>
	<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2025 15:32:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=974</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>15</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/974/episode-15-fenner-capps-and-ervin.mp3" length="49721404" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>34:31</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 14: Windseth, Fuller, and McGirt</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-14-windseth-fuller-and-mcgirt/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-14-windseth-fuller-and-mcgirt</link>
	<pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2025 18:24:15 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=969</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 authentica]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>14</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/969/episode-14-windseth-fuller-and-mcgirt.mp3" length="54156200" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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, [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>37:36</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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, [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 13: Fearns and Ruffin</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-13-fearns-and-ruffin/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-13-fearns-and-ruffin</link>
	<pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2025 17:52:24 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=964</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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, w]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>13</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/964/episode-13-fearns-and-ruffin.mp3" length="45293288" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>31:26</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 12: Nanes, Greenfield, and Velasco</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-12-nanes-greenfield-and-velasco/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-12-nanes-greenfield-and-velasco</link>
	<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2025 18:49:43 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=958</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 fi]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>12</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/958/episode-12-nanes-greenfield-and-velasco.mp3" length="51636948" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>35:51</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 11: Lester, Boyd, and Spry</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-11-lester-boyd-and-spry/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-11-lester-boyd-and-spry</link>
	<pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2025 13:46:01 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=953</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 intro]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>11</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/953/episode-11-lester-boyd-and-spry.mp3" length="48667926" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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. [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>33:47</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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. [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 10: Hicks, Davenport, and Lacure</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-10-hicks-davenport-and-lacure/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-10-hicks-davenport-and-lacure</link>
	<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2025 18:42:01 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=942</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>10</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/942/episode-10-hicks-davenport-and-lacure.mp3" length="47357036" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>32:53</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 9: Wilson, Farook, and Williams</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-9-wilson-farook-and-williams/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-9-wilson-farook-and-williams</link>
	<pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:30:43 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=937</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 o]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>9</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/937/episode-9-wilson-farook-and-williams.mp3" length="48077696" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>33:23</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 8: Reel, Carwile, and Stollings</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-8-reel-carwile-and-stollings/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-8-reel-carwile-and-stollings</link>
	<pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2025 17:10:05 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=928</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 ]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>8</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/928/episode-8-reel-carwile-and-stollings.mp3" length="54209302" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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, [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>37:38</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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, [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 7: Clark, Vaughn, and Garmon</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-7-clark-vaughn-and-garmon/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-7-clark-vaughn-and-garmon</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2025 15:19:14 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=915</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 er]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>7</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/915/episode-7-clark-vaughn-and-garmon.mp3" length="45789420" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>31:47</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 6: Lancaster, Myers, and Teel</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-6-lancaster-myers-and-teel/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-6-lancaster-myers-and-teel</link>
	<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2025 16:21:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=912</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 defe]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>6</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/912/episode-6-lancaster-myers-and-teel.mp3" length="47013506" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>32:38</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 5: Burris, Graves, and Little</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-5-burris-graves-and-little/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-5-burris-graves-and-little</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2024 15:18:12 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=908</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 th]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>5</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/908/episode-5-burris-graves-and-little.mp3" length="48677656" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>33:48</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 4: Ellison, Hunt, and Moore</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-4-ellison-hunt-and-moore/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-4-ellison-hunt-and-moore</link>
	<pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2024 16:29:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=897</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 wron]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>4</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/897/episode-4-ellison-hunt-and-moore.mp3" length="50032494" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>34:44</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 3: Jackson, Reber, and Shiene</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/episode-3-jackson-reber-and-shiene/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=episode-3-jackson-reber-and-shiene</link>
	<pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2024 21:31:58 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=887</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 c]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>3</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/887/episode-3-jackson-reber-and-shiene.mp3" length="45163167" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>31:21</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 2: Evans and Wilkins</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/evans-and-wilkins/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=evans-and-wilkins</link>
	<pubDate>Thu, 31 Oct 2024 18:02:47 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=880</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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 em]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>2</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/880/evans-and-wilkins.mp3" length="39611184" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>27:30</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>

<item>
	<title>Episode 1: Little, Pierce, and Thomas</title>
	<link>https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast/little-pierce-and-thomas/#utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=little-pierce-and-thomas</link>
	<pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:17:17 +0000</pubDate>
	<dc:creator><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></dc:creator>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/?post_type=podcast&#038;p=871</guid>
	<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>
	<itunes:subtitle><![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]]></itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
	<itunes:episode>1</itunes:episode>
	<itunes:season>1</itunes:season>
	<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>
	<enclosure url="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/podcast-download/871/little-pierce-and-thomas.mp3" length="51062260" type="audio/mpeg"></enclosure>
	<itunes:summary><![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 [...]]]></itunes:summary>
	<itunes:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></itunes:image>
	
	<itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:duration>35:27</itunes:duration>
	<itunes:author><![CDATA[SOG Podcasts]]></itunes:author>	<googleplay: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 [...]]]></googleplay:description>
	<googleplay:image href="https://podcast.sog.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20240120-Turning-States-podcast-graphic4a-Large.png"></googleplay:image>
	<googleplay:explicit>No</googleplay:explicit>
	<googleplay:block>no</googleplay:block>
</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
