April 14, 2025 • 14 mins
Welcome back to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast! We're continuing the discussion from last week on crimes against the person. In the previous episode, we covered the basic elements of assault, battery, false imprisonment, and kidnapping, and walked through a scenario involving these crimes. Today, we'll build on that foundation by analyzing more complex hypotheticals that test the boundaries of these offenses.
In this episode, we discuss:
- A review of the elements of assault, battery, false imprisonment, and kidnapping
- Analyzing two hypothetical scenarios involving crimes against the person
Resources:
- "Listen and Learn" series (https://barexamtoolbox.com/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-archive-by-topic/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-explaining-individual-mee-and-california-bar-essay-questions/#listen-learn)
- Podcast Episode 103: Listen and Learn – Assault and Battery (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-103-listen-and-learn-assault-and-battery/)
- Podcast Episode 307: Listen and Learn – Crimes Against the Person (Part 1) (https://barexamtoolbox.com/podcast-episode-307-listen-and-learn-crimes-against-the-person-part-1/)
Download the Transcript
(https://barexamtoolbox.com/episode-308-listen-and-learn-crimes-against-the-person-part-2/)
If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-pass-bar-exam-less-stress/id1370651486) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Bar Exam Toolbox website (https://barexamtoolbox.com/contact-us/). Finally, if you don't want to miss anything, you can sign up for podcast updates (https://barexamtoolbox.com/get-bar-exam-toolbox-podcast-updates/)!
Thanks for listening!
Alison & Lee
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Lee Burgess (00:02):
Welcome to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast.
Today, we have Part 2 in ourtwo-part series "Listen and Learn"
about crimes against the person.
Your Bar Exam Toolbox hosts are AlisonMonaghan and Lee Burgess, that's me.
We're here to demystify the barexam experience so you can study
effectively, stay sane, and hopefullypass and move on with your life.
(00:22):
We're the co-creators of the Law SchoolToolbox, the Bar Exam Toolbox, and the
career-related website CareerDicta.
Alison also runs TheGirl's Guide to Law School.
If you enjoy the show, please leavea review on your favorite listening
app, and check out our sister podcast,the Law School Toolbox podcast.
If you have any questions, don'thesitate to reach out to us.
You can reach us via the contactform on BarExamToolbox.com,
(00:42):
and we'd love to hear from you.
And with that, let's get started.
Welcome back to our"Listen and Learn" series.
Today, we're continuing our discussionon criminal law, specifically
crimes against the person.
(01:04):
In our previous episode, we covered thebasic elements of assault, battery, false
imprisonment, and kidnapping, and walkedthrough a scenario involving these crimes.
Today, we'll build on that foundationby analyzing more complex scenarios that
test the boundaries of these offenses.
If you haven't listened to Part 1 yet, werecommend starting there to get familiar
(01:25):
with the basic elements of these crimesbefore diving into today's examples.
Let's look at another scenariothat raises different issues: Sarah
is shopping at a mall when herex-boyfriend Tom approaches her.
Tom grabs Sarah's arm andsays they need to talk.
Despite her protests, he pulls herinto a nearby maintenance hallway.
(01:48):
When Sarah tries to leave, Tom blocksthe door and says, "We're not done
talking." After five minutes, Tom gets aphone call and steps aside to answer it.
Sarah immediately runs away.
Later that evening, Tomshows up at Sarah's house.
He knows Sarah's roommateJulie is away for the weekend.
Tom convinces Sarah to let him in byclaiming he just wants to apologize.
(02:12):
Once inside, he forces Sarah inhis car and drives her to a cabin
two hours away, saying they needtime alone to work things out.
So, let's analyze whether Tom hascommitted assault, battery, false
imprisonment, and/or kidnapping,based on this complex set of events.
So, starting with battery, we mustdetermine whether Tom, [1] unlawfully
(02:37):
applied force; [2] directly orindirectly upon Sarah; [3] that
resulted in injury or offensive contact.
These elements are satisfied here.
First, Tom applied unlawful force directlyupon Sarah when he grabbed Sarah's arm.
This force resulted in a harmful oroffensive contact, because Sarah did
(02:59):
not consent to being grabbed by the arm.
Therefore, Tom may be found guiltyof battery based on these facts.
Tom may also have committed falseimprisonment when he confined
Sarah in the maintenance hallway.
To determine whether Tom may be foundguilty of false imprisonment, we must
analyze whether, [1] Tom unlawfully;[2] confined Sarah, such as she had
(03:26):
no reasonable means of escape; [3]against her will; and [4] with knowledge
that the confinement was unlawful.
So, [1] Tom's actions confined Sarah;[2] the confinement was complete; [3]
Tom intended to confine her; and [4]Sarah was aware of the confinement.
(03:47):
All the elements are met.
Tom physically blocked Sarah's exit,she had no reasonable means of escape.
He clearly intended to keep her there,and Tom likely knows that this confinement
is unlawful, because Sarah has notconsented to the confinement and indicates
her desire to get out of the hallway.
So, what about kidnapping?
(04:08):
Specifically, can Tom be found guiltyof kidnapping when he forces Sarah
into her car and drives her miles away?
A kidnapping is, [1] the intentional;and [2] unlawful confinement; and [3]
movement of a person against their will.
Some jurisdictions also require thatthe movement must be accomplished
(04:29):
by force, threat of force, or fraud.
Analyzing these elements, Tomintentionally and unlawfully confined
Sarah in his car and moved her toa new location against her will.
He used both fraud - lyingabout wanting to apologize,
and force to accomplish this.
(04:49):
His intent to move and confineher is evident from his statements
about needing time alone.
Therefore, Tom committed kidnapping.
Note that this kidnapping encompassedan additional false imprisonment
at the cabin, and likely additionalbatteries if he used force during
the journey or at the cabin.
Now, these hypotheticals demonstratehow crimes against the person often
(05:12):
occur in sequence or combination.
A single criminal episode might includeassault [creating fear of harm], battery
[harmful contact], false imprisonment[confinement], and potentially escalate
to kidnapping if the victim is moved.
Each crime has distinct elements thatmust be proven, even though they may
(05:33):
arise from the same series of events.
So, let's explore one final hypotheticalthat tests some of the trickier
aspects of crime against the person- particularly situations where the line
between different offenses gets blurry.
So here's our scenario (05:48):
James works at a local gym as a personal trainer.
One of his clients, Maria, hasbeen trying to lose weight.
James develops what he believes is a"tough love" approach to motivation.
During their sessions, hefrequently stands very close to
Maria, poking her stomach whilemaking comments about her weight.
(06:09):
When she tries to leave theseuncomfortable situations, he steps
in front of her saying, "We're notdone with the workout yet." He also
institutes a policy that she has toweigh herself before leaving each
session, placing the scale in aprivate consultation room and insisting
on being present for the weigh-in.
During one session, Mariabecomes particularly
(06:30):
distressed and tries to leave.
James grabs her water bottle and gymbag, taking them to the consultation
room, saying, "You can have theseback after you weigh in." When Maria
follows him to get her belongings, hequickly closes the door behind her.
Maria stands in the consultationroom for 20 minutes, feeling unable
to leave without her phone and carkeys, which are in her gym bag,
(06:53):
while James stands outside the door,continuing to insist on the weigh-in.
So, let's break down thepotential criminal liability here.
It's trickier than our previous examples,because there are questions about
consent, professional relationships, andwhat constitutes force or confinement.
So, the first issue (07:09):
Do James's actions during the training session
constitute assault or battery?
Remember our rules (07:17):
Assault requires an act creating reasonable fear of immediate
harmful contact, while battery requiresactual harmful or offensive contact.
So, let's analyze the poking.
While James might argue this isnormal personal trainer behavior,
the touching appears unwantedand offensive, particularly
(07:38):
when combined with his comments.
The key question here is whether Maria'sinitial consent to physical contact during
training extends to this type of touching.
Courts generally hold that consent toone type of physical contact doesn't
automatically extend to other types.
Therefore, the poking likely constitutesbattery, as it's an offensive touching
beyond the scope of Maria's consent.
(08:02):
The close standing presentsa trickier assault analysis.
In a normal training context, standingclose to a client might be expected.
However, when combined with theintimidating behavior and comments, it
might create reasonable apprehensionof harmful or offensive contact.
This would likely depend onspecific facts about James's
(08:22):
demeanor and Maria's reaction.
As noted above, whether James committedassault and battery is a close call.
However, a jury could reasonably concludethat the elements of those crimes are
satisfied under these circumstances.
So, let's move on to our second issue: Does keeping Maria in the consultation (08:36):
undefined
room constitute false imprisonment?
False imprisonment, as we've discussed,requires unlawful confinement of a
person against their will, with thedefendant knowing the confinement
is unlawful and the victim havingno reasonable means of escape.
This situation tests the boundariesof what constitutes confinement.
(09:00):
James didn't physicallyrestrain Maria or lock the door.
He used her belongings asleverage to keep her in the room.
Courts have held that confinementcan occur through the withholding
of property necessary for leaving.
However, the question becomes whetherMaria had a reasonable means of escape.
She could have physically left theroom at any time, but doing so would
(09:20):
have meant abandoning her phone,car keys, and other belongings.
The prosecution would arguethis wasn't a real choice.
In modern society, leavingwithout one's phone and car
keys isn't a reasonable option.
The defense would counter thatpsychological pressure to stay isn't
the same as physical confinement.
This might ultimately turn on howcourts in the jurisdiction define
(09:43):
"reasonable means of escape".
Some courts focus purely onphysical barriers, while others
consider psychological coercion andpractical restrictions on movement.
So with that, let's move onto our third issue: Could this
confinement escalate to kidnapping?
The kidnapping analysis here isparticularly interesting, because any
(10:03):
movement was technically voluntary.
Maria walked to theconsultation room herself.
However, courts have held thattransportation through fraud
or coercion can satisfy the"movement" element of kidnapping.
The question becomes whether takingsomeone's belongings and using them
as bait to make the person moveconstitutes movement by force, threat,
(10:25):
or fraud under the kidnapping statute.
Most courts would likely findthis movement too minimal for
kidnapping, but it illustrates howthese crimes exist on a spectrum.
This hypothetical shows ushow context matters enormously
in crimes against the person.
The same physical acts - touching,standing close, or restricting
movement - might be criminal orinnocent depending on the broader
(10:48):
situation, the relationship betweenthe parties, and the scope of consent.
It also demonstrates how modern courtsmust adapt traditional definitions
of force and confinement to addressmore subtle forms of coercion.
So with that, let's wrap up ourdiscussion of crimes against the person.
We've covered a lot of ground inthese two episodes, looking at how
(11:09):
assault, battery, false imprisonment,and kidnapping function both
individually and in combination.
Remember, these crimes often occuralong a spectrum of escalating conduct.
What starts as an assault might becomea battery, and what begins as false
imprisonment might develop into kidnappingif the defendant moves the victim.
(11:31):
The key is to analyze each crime'selements separately, even when they
arise from the same criminal episode.
For assault, we're looking at thecreation of fear - that reasonable
apprehension of immediate harmful contact.
With battery, we need actual contact - butremember, it doesn't have to be direct.
Throwing an object that hitssomeone counts just as much
(11:53):
as punching them directly.
False imprisonment requiresus to think carefully about
what constitutes confinement.
As we saw in our hypotheticals,it's not just about locked
doors and physical restraints.
Courts recognize that confinement canoccur through psychological coercion,
threats, or even the withholdingof property necessary for escape.
(12:13):
And finally, kidnapping addsthat crucial element of movement
or asportation to the mix.
The movement must be substantial, butwhat counts as substantial often depends
on the circumstances and jurisdiction.
These crimes against the person areparticularly important to understand
because they protect fundamental humanrights - the right to be free from
fear of harm, the right to bodilyintegrity, and the right to move freely.
(12:37):
They're also some of the most commonlytested topics on the bar exam or law
school exams, because they allow testwriters and exam writers to explore subtle
distinctions and complex fact patterns.
When you're analyzing these issues,whether on an exam or in practice,
remember to break down eachcrime into its required elements.
(12:59):
Consider how consent or lackthereof affects the analysis.
Think about how the relationshipbetween the parties might matter.
Look for less obvious formsof force or confinement.
And consider whether one crimemight have escalated into another.
Understanding these nuances willhelp you spot issues more effectively
and develop stronger legal argumentsabout crimes against the person.
(13:22):
Hopefully the examples we talkedabout today provided helpful
illustrations of how to workthrough the nuances distinguishing
different crimes against the person.
If you enjoyed this episode of theBar Exam Toolbox podcast, please
take a second to leave a review andrating on your favorite listening app.
We'd really appreciate it.
And be sure to subscribeso you don't miss anything.
(13:42):
If you're still in law school, youmight also like to check out our popular
Law School Toolbox podcast as well.
If you have any questions or comments,please don't hesitate to reach out to
myself or Alison at lee@barexamtoolbox.comor alison@barexamtoolbox.com.
Or you can always contactus via our website contact
form at BarExamToolbox.com.
(14:02):
Thanks for listening, and we'll talk soon!
Welcome to the Bar Exam Toolbox podcast.
Today, we have Part 2 in ourtwo-part series "Listen and Learn"
about crimes against the person.
Your Bar Exam Toolbox hosts are AlisonMonaghan and Lee Burgess, that's me.
We're here to demystify the barexam experience so you can study
effectively, stay sane, and hopefullypass and move on with your life.
(00:22):
We're the co-creators of the Law SchoolToolbox, the Bar Exam Toolbox, and the
career-related website CareerDicta.
Alison also runs TheGirl's Guide to Law School.
If you enjoy the show, please leavea review on your favorite listening
app, and check out our sister podcast,the Law School Toolbox podcast.
If you have any questions, don'thesitate to reach out to us.
You can reach us via the contactform on BarExamToolbox.com,
(00:42):
and we'd love to hear from you.
And with that, let's get started.
Welcome back to our"Listen and Learn" series.
Today, we're continuing our discussionon criminal law, specifically
crimes against the person.
(01:04):
In our previous episode, we covered thebasic elements of assault, battery, false
imprisonment, and kidnapping, and walkedthrough a scenario involving these crimes.
Today, we'll build on that foundationby analyzing more complex scenarios that
test the boundaries of these offenses.
If you haven't listened to Part 1 yet, werecommend starting there to get familiar
(01:25):
with the basic elements of these crimesbefore diving into today's examples.
Let's look at another scenariothat raises different issues: Sarah
is shopping at a mall when herex-boyfriend Tom approaches her.
Tom grabs Sarah's arm andsays they need to talk.
Despite her protests, he pulls herinto a nearby maintenance hallway.
(01:48):
When Sarah tries to leave, Tom blocksthe door and says, "We're not done
talking." After five minutes, Tom gets aphone call and steps aside to answer it.
Sarah immediately runs away.
Later that evening, Tomshows up at Sarah's house.
He knows Sarah's roommateJulie is away for the weekend.
Tom convinces Sarah to let him in byclaiming he just wants to apologize.
(02:12):
Once inside, he forces Sarah inhis car and drives her to a cabin
two hours away, saying they needtime alone to work things out.
So, let's analyze whether Tom hascommitted assault, battery, false
imprisonment, and/or kidnapping,based on this complex set of events.
So, starting with battery, we mustdetermine whether Tom, [1] unlawfully
(02:37):
applied force; [2] directly orindirectly upon Sarah; [3] that
resulted in injury or offensive contact.
These elements are satisfied here.
First, Tom applied unlawful force directlyupon Sarah when he grabbed Sarah's arm.
This force resulted in a harmful oroffensive contact, because Sarah did
(02:59):
not consent to being grabbed by the arm.
Therefore, Tom may be found guiltyof battery based on these facts.
Tom may also have committed falseimprisonment when he confined
Sarah in the maintenance hallway.
To determine whether Tom may be foundguilty of false imprisonment, we must
analyze whether, [1] Tom unlawfully;[2] confined Sarah, such as she had
(03:26):
no reasonable means of escape; [3]against her will; and [4] with knowledge
that the confinement was unlawful.
So, [1] Tom's actions confined Sarah;[2] the confinement was complete; [3]
Tom intended to confine her; and [4]Sarah was aware of the confinement.
(03:47):
All the elements are met.
Tom physically blocked Sarah's exit,she had no reasonable means of escape.
He clearly intended to keep her there,and Tom likely knows that this confinement
is unlawful, because Sarah has notconsented to the confinement and indicates
her desire to get out of the hallway.
So, what about kidnapping?
(04:08):
Specifically, can Tom be found guiltyof kidnapping when he forces Sarah
into her car and drives her miles away?
A kidnapping is, [1] the intentional;and [2] unlawful confinement; and [3]
movement of a person against their will.
Some jurisdictions also require thatthe movement must be accomplished
(04:29):
by force, threat of force, or fraud.
Analyzing these elements, Tomintentionally and unlawfully confined
Sarah in his car and moved her toa new location against her will.
He used both fraud - lyingabout wanting to apologize,
and force to accomplish this.
(04:49):
His intent to move and confineher is evident from his statements
about needing time alone.
Therefore, Tom committed kidnapping.
Note that this kidnapping encompassedan additional false imprisonment
at the cabin, and likely additionalbatteries if he used force during
the journey or at the cabin.
Now, these hypotheticals demonstratehow crimes against the person often
(05:12):
occur in sequence or combination.
A single criminal episode might includeassault [creating fear of harm], battery
[harmful contact], false imprisonment[confinement], and potentially escalate
to kidnapping if the victim is moved.
Each crime has distinct elements thatmust be proven, even though they may
(05:33):
arise from the same series of events.
So, let's explore one final hypotheticalthat tests some of the trickier
aspects of crime against the person- particularly situations where the line
between different offenses gets blurry.
So here's our scenario (05:48):
James works at a local gym as a personal trainer.
One of his clients, Maria, hasbeen trying to lose weight.
James develops what he believes is a"tough love" approach to motivation.
During their sessions, hefrequently stands very close to
Maria, poking her stomach whilemaking comments about her weight.
(06:09):
When she tries to leave theseuncomfortable situations, he steps
in front of her saying, "We're notdone with the workout yet." He also
institutes a policy that she has toweigh herself before leaving each
session, placing the scale in aprivate consultation room and insisting
on being present for the weigh-in.
During one session, Mariabecomes particularly
(06:30):
distressed and tries to leave.
James grabs her water bottle and gymbag, taking them to the consultation
room, saying, "You can have theseback after you weigh in." When Maria
follows him to get her belongings, hequickly closes the door behind her.
Maria stands in the consultationroom for 20 minutes, feeling unable
to leave without her phone and carkeys, which are in her gym bag,
(06:53):
while James stands outside the door,continuing to insist on the weigh-in.
So, let's break down thepotential criminal liability here.
It's trickier than our previous examples,because there are questions about
consent, professional relationships, andwhat constitutes force or confinement.
So, the first issue (07:09):
Do James's actions during the training session
constitute assault or battery?
Remember our rules (07:17):
Assault requires an act creating reasonable fear of immediate
harmful contact, while battery requiresactual harmful or offensive contact.
So, let's analyze the poking.
While James might argue this isnormal personal trainer behavior,
the touching appears unwantedand offensive, particularly
(07:38):
when combined with his comments.
The key question here is whether Maria'sinitial consent to physical contact during
training extends to this type of touching.
Courts generally hold that consent toone type of physical contact doesn't
automatically extend to other types.
Therefore, the poking likely constitutesbattery, as it's an offensive touching
beyond the scope of Maria's consent.
(08:02):
The close standing presentsa trickier assault analysis.
In a normal training context, standingclose to a client might be expected.
However, when combined with theintimidating behavior and comments, it
might create reasonable apprehensionof harmful or offensive contact.
This would likely depend onspecific facts about James's
(08:22):
demeanor and Maria's reaction.
As noted above, whether James committedassault and battery is a close call.
However, a jury could reasonably concludethat the elements of those crimes are
satisfied under these circumstances.
So, let's move on to our second issue: Does keeping Maria in the consultation (08:36):
undefined
room constitute false imprisonment?
False imprisonment, as we've discussed,requires unlawful confinement of a
person against their will, with thedefendant knowing the confinement
is unlawful and the victim havingno reasonable means of escape.
This situation tests the boundariesof what constitutes confinement.
(09:00):
James didn't physicallyrestrain Maria or lock the door.
He used her belongings asleverage to keep her in the room.
Courts have held that confinementcan occur through the withholding
of property necessary for leaving.
However, the question becomes whetherMaria had a reasonable means of escape.
She could have physically left theroom at any time, but doing so would
(09:20):
have meant abandoning her phone,car keys, and other belongings.
The prosecution would arguethis wasn't a real choice.
In modern society, leavingwithout one's phone and car
keys isn't a reasonable option.
The defense would counter thatpsychological pressure to stay isn't
the same as physical confinement.
This might ultimately turn on howcourts in the jurisdiction define
(09:43):
"reasonable means of escape".
Some courts focus purely onphysical barriers, while others
consider psychological coercion andpractical restrictions on movement.
So with that, let's move onto our third issue: Could this
confinement escalate to kidnapping?
The kidnapping analysis here isparticularly interesting, because any
(10:03):
movement was technically voluntary.
Maria walked to theconsultation room herself.
However, courts have held thattransportation through fraud
or coercion can satisfy the"movement" element of kidnapping.
The question becomes whether takingsomeone's belongings and using them
as bait to make the person moveconstitutes movement by force, threat,
(10:25):
or fraud under the kidnapping statute.
Most courts would likely findthis movement too minimal for
kidnapping, but it illustrates howthese crimes exist on a spectrum.
This hypothetical shows ushow context matters enormously
in crimes against the person.
The same physical acts - touching,standing close, or restricting
movement - might be criminal orinnocent depending on the broader
(10:48):
situation, the relationship betweenthe parties, and the scope of consent.
It also demonstrates how modern courtsmust adapt traditional definitions
of force and confinement to addressmore subtle forms of coercion.
So with that, let's wrap up ourdiscussion of crimes against the person.
We've covered a lot of ground inthese two episodes, looking at how
(11:09):
assault, battery, false imprisonment,and kidnapping function both
individually and in combination.
Remember, these crimes often occuralong a spectrum of escalating conduct.
What starts as an assault might becomea battery, and what begins as false
imprisonment might develop into kidnappingif the defendant moves the victim.
(11:31):
The key is to analyze each crime'selements separately, even when they
arise from the same criminal episode.
For assault, we're looking at thecreation of fear - that reasonable
apprehension of immediate harmful contact.
With battery, we need actual contact - butremember, it doesn't have to be direct.
Throwing an object that hitssomeone counts just as much
(11:53):
as punching them directly.
False imprisonment requiresus to think carefully about
what constitutes confinement.
As we saw in our hypotheticals,it's not just about locked
doors and physical restraints.
Courts recognize that confinement canoccur through psychological coercion,
threats, or even the withholdingof property necessary for escape.
(12:13):
And finally, kidnapping addsthat crucial element of movement
or asportation to the mix.
The movement must be substantial, butwhat counts as substantial often depends
on the circumstances and jurisdiction.
These crimes against the person areparticularly important to understand
because they protect fundamental humanrights - the right to be free from
fear of harm, the right to bodilyintegrity, and the right to move freely.
(12:37):
They're also some of the most commonlytested topics on the bar exam or law
school exams, because they allow testwriters and exam writers to explore subtle
distinctions and complex fact patterns.
When you're analyzing these issues,whether on an exam or in practice,
remember to break down eachcrime into its required elements.
(12:59):
Consider how consent or lackthereof affects the analysis.
Think about how the relationshipbetween the parties might matter.
Look for less obvious formsof force or confinement.
And consider whether one crimemight have escalated into another.
Understanding these nuances willhelp you spot issues more effectively
and develop stronger legal argumentsabout crimes against the person.
(13:22):
Hopefully the examples we talkedabout today provided helpful
illustrations of how to workthrough the nuances distinguishing
different crimes against the person.
If you enjoyed this episode of theBar Exam Toolbox podcast, please
take a second to leave a review andrating on your favorite listening app.
We'd really appreciate it.
And be sure to subscribeso you don't miss anything.
(13:42):
If you're still in law school, youmight also like to check out our popular
Law School Toolbox podcast as well.
If you have any questions or comments,please don't hesitate to reach out to
myself or Alison at lee@barexamtoolbox.comor alison@barexamtoolbox.com.
Or you can always contactus via our website contact
form at BarExamToolbox.com.
(14:02):
Thanks for listening, and we'll talk soon!
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.