Dan Epps

And that we could just test this evidence and it would be super quick and easy and yet nobody wants to do it.

I mean, it could have the DNA of the supposed alternate perpetrator of the crime.

Yeah, but maybe that doesn't tell us anything because maybe it got there some other way.

I don't know.

Okay, I'm not buying that.

But I guess we should go on and actually talk about the one big opinion.

I guess it's not a very big opinion, but it is an opinion that the court issued last week.

There were a couple this week that maybe we'll circle back to in a future episode.

But now we're just going to focus on this one, Olivier versus City of Brandon.

It's going to be a 13-page unanimous decision by Justice Kagan.

And let me just explain the question presented in our kind of using language that's going to be –

Really simple for everybody.

It's whether Humphrey v. Heck's favorable termination bar extends to a non-custodial Section 1983 claimant who lacks habeas access under 2254 and seeks exclusively prospective anti-enforcement injunctive relief against a facially challenged time-place manner restriction where the claim necessarily impugns the predicate conviction but contemplates no retrospective remediation cognizable under the Heck framework.

Actually, that's not actually the question presented.

I asked Claude to, like, take the question presented and make it sound, like, more technical and harder to understand.

It's Heck versus Humphrey, Claude.

Yeah, so then I did something else, which is I went back to Claude and I said, you know, Claude, are you familiar with, and I think you're going to be familiar with, XKCD, the webcomic, and the classic Upgoer 5 comic?

Yes.

which is, the idea is, how can you explain things using the top thousand most common words in the English language?

And actually, thousand is not one of those words.