Oct 1, 2026 · 1h 44m
Cornell case tests due process amid public condemnation
"Cornell 7" Lawyer Speaks Out, Plus Bombshell New Texts From "Jane Doe," and Kevin Reddington's Bizarre Tactic | Ep. 1410
The episode examines how university proceedings, disputed evidence, anonymity, and online backlash can shape both legal outcomes and reputations.
- 1Tara Davis disputes key elements of the Cornell accuser’s account while distinguishing university findings from criminal rape determinations.
- 2The discussion argues that doxxing and public demands to destroy defendants’ futures can precede a fair evaluation of evidence.
- 3Megyn Kelly criticizes Kevin Reddington’s Lindsay Clancy strategy and questions the treatment of a holdout juror during ongoing proceedings.
Don't miss
Tara Davis explains why a university finding of responsibility should not be treated as a criminal rape finding.
The brief
Attorney Tara Davis describes representing a Cornell defendant through hearings and appeals, while the discussion contrasts changing Title IX procedures with the demands of due process.
Davis disputes parts of the accuser’s account, addresses anonymity and disputed evidence, and separates a university policy finding from a criminal rape determination.
The interview turns to doxxing, threats, and social-media calls to ruin the defendants, raising the question of whether condemnation has replaced evidence review.
Megyn criticizes Kevin Reddington’s defense theory in the Lindsay Clancy case and defends holdout juror Michael Desranville amid a related controversy.
A final report reconstructs Presley Gerber’s last hours at a sober-living facility and questions why staff admitted him while reportedly intoxicated.