what is case 63 based on

To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories .

What Is Cinema?
Newsletters

Julianne Moore Oscar Isaac Gimlet Case 63

How Julianne Moore and Oscar Isaac Created Chemistry in the Recording Booth for Case 63

Julianne Moore readily admits that she isn’t a big podcast listener—she’s more likely to turn on an audiobook when she’s in the car. But she knows how to spot a good story, which is what happened when she read the script for Case 63, a fiction podcast from Spotify that hit number one on the audio platform shortly after its debut nearly two weeks ago. “It was so compelling,” Moore tells Vanity Fair. “I loved the mystery of it. It’s deeply romantic and futuristic and scary. I just really thought, Yes, I’d love to do this.”

The thriller series also gave her the opportunity to step into the recording booth with longtime friend Oscar Isaac. “He’s insanely gifted as well as being a lovely human being, so it was easy,” Moore effuses. The feeling is mutual. “Julie is a friend, a masterful actor, and someone I’ve been desperate to work with for a very long time,” says Isaac. “The fact that we could be in the room together, playing off each other with such mysterious and sexy material, was just so much fun. Made my desire to do a movie with her all the more burning.”

Case 63 —which is based on a Spanish-language podcast that became a popular pandemic listen in Latin America—relies on the chemistry of its two leads. There’s no faking it: The two-hander tells the story of psychiatrist Eliza Knight (Moore), who is assigned to treat a patient known as Case 63 (Isaac), a man who claims to be from the future. Over 10 episodes that play out largely through recordings of their therapy sessions, Dr. Knight’s assumptions and allegiances are challenged as her patient, who calls himself Peter, reveals more about himself. To create the intimacy needed between the two characters, director Mimi O’Donnell asked Moore and Isaac to record the podcast across from each other, much the way their characters would have been conducting their sessions. “We could look at each other and kind of experience it,” says Moore, adding that they recorded the show in a matter of days under O’Donnell’s sure hand. “We actually went much faster than I anticipated.”

Moore and Isaac, who are also executive producers on the series, have to do a lot of heavy lifting on Case 63, and they don’t have a lot of run time to do it—the entire series clocks in at less than two hours, and the audio-only format means that there’s a good amount of exposition to help set the scene for listeners. Additionally, because Case 63 is a science fiction story, they have to help the listener understand that the story’s world, while very similar to our world, has a few key differences, including that whole time-travel thing. In many ways, Moore’s character is the audience proxy, the person who goes from being grounded in reality to questioning her long-held assumptions about her life. “She’s skeptical at first, but she really begins to believe there’s just too many coincidences,” says Moore. “That’s always really compelling to me.” Isaac, meanwhile, embodies a character whose motivations are less clear. “The writing is so strong, and the nature of how Peter is revealed throughout the show—he’s a mystery needing to be solved—allowed me to just trust the script and the dynamic that Julianne and I created together,” he says.

Isaac is no stranger to podcast work. He voiced one of the lead characters on the 2016 thriller Homecoming, which hailed from Gimlet, the same podcast studio that produced Case 63, and was later adapted into an Amazon television series starring Julia Roberts, Stephan James, and Bobby Cannavale. Isaac calls working on Homecoming “a great reminder of the power of dramatic storytelling through audio presentation—like the old radio shows that this country was raised on.” When Case 63 came to him, he says, “it seemed like a great opportunity to come back to the format with a new, interesting story.”

Both Isaac and Moore had early indications that Case 63 could become a hit. The original Chilean series— Caso 63, created and written by Julio Rojas —was the top podcast in Argentina and Mexico for nearly a month after its premiere and trended in several other countries, including the US. Brazilian and Indian adaptations of the series charted in both of those countries as well. All episodes of the English-language version, adapted by Mara Vélez Meléndez, dropped on October 25. Two days later, it became the number one podcast in the US on Spotify. It has also topped the charts in Canada, Ireland, and the UK.

Case 63 ’s early performance indicates that listeners will likely get more seasons. The original series consisted of 30 episodes spread across three seasons, and in terms of the US version, Moore says she believes “the plan is that it continues.” If that happens, she’s looking forward to getting back into the recording booth. “It was such a fun, creative experience,” she says. “It’s something I want to do again.”

Natalie Jarvey

Hollywood correspondent.

By Julianne Escobedo Shepherd

By Savannah Walsh

Is Case 63 Real? Is the Podcast Based on a True Story?

Spotify’s sci-fi podcast series ‘Case 63’ revolves around a psychiatrist named Dr. Eliza Beatrix Knight ( Julianne Moore ) and her patient Peter Roiter ( Oscar Isaac ). In their first session, Peter claims that he is from the year 2062 and has traveled through time to prevent a woman named Marie Baker from boarding Flight 262. Peter’s revelation leads the doctor down an unconventional path as she unravels the mystery behind her patient over several sessions. In every episode, we see Peter narrate incidents of the future that seem pretty relatable and connected to the world we live in.

The various time travel concepts Peter explains in the show have been explained by real-world scientists and researchers. These facets of the podcast make us question if the podcast is based on true events. Well, let us find out!

Is Case 63 Based on a True Story?

No, ‘Case 63’ is not based on a true story. Adapted by Mara Vélez Meléndez, the podcast series is the English adaptation of a Chilean podcast series titled ‘Caso 63,’ created and written by Julio Rojas. The Chilean podcast is driven by a fictional narrative that uses real-world events such as the Covid-19 pandemic and pre-existing space-time theories in its narrative. In an interview with CNN Chile, Rojas spoke about the connection between science and fiction, which shares a glimpse of the mindset with which he developed the podcast. He said that there’s a competition between scientific theories and fiction.

According to Rojas, while science can speculate only to a certain extent, fiction can go further and give humans a fictional but realistic picture of the future. Due to this, as a species, we continue to evolve and progress, as per the writer. Rojas elaborated on this statement by giving an example of ‘Star Trek’ and describing how the intercom facility in the same is akin to the iPhones we have today. Julio extrapolated this idea to his own podcast, ‘Caso 63,’ and said that he wanted his series to be grounded in scientific research. For instance, the doubling theory of space and time by Jean Pierre Garnier Malet forms a core part of the narrative. However, this isn’t the only theory Peter describes in the show. He speaks about the Tardis slide, retrograde transtemporal domain, and a few more.

While the aforementioned scientific theories intrigue the audience, the events around the core premise stir an unsettling feeling because of how close they are to reality. For instance, Peter mentions how he has traveled back in time to prevent the generation of a deadly virus called Pegasus that will wipe out most of humanity by 2062. He explains that the virus is a strain of the coronavirus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic and how what humanity has been going through since 2020 was just the beginning. The idea of how pandemics are a bigger threat than nuclear wars is scary and it only becomes scarier when we think about how it can happen in the real world.

The show also explores how social media culture evolves through time. Peter explains that although social media begins with good intentions and gives people a voice, it soon becomes an institution of its own that gives rise to a totalitarian society. He calls it the “Egregore,” where people who are part of it judge everyone, and things go to a point where the Egregore has more power than the justice system. Everyone is scared of being marked by the Egregore because that would mean losing everything and every one an individual has.

People are scared of the Egregore to the point where they commit suicides and a cast system gets formed with three categories – “Pure,” “Doubtful,” and “Canceled.” When we look at these facets of the show, we realize how close it is to a potential reality. Thus, to reiterate, ‘Case 63’ is a fictional show that carries a narrative around real-world scientific concepts and events.

Can Case 63’s ending be explained? ‘We’re not talking about a linear story’

“Mind-bending” Chilean podcast Case 63 (Caso 63 in Spanish) is now available in English, courtesy of actors and executive producers Julianne Moore and Oscar Isaac, inviting anglophone speakers to grapple with the task of explaining its elusive ending.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD FOR CASE 63 PODCAS T, INCLUDING A DISCUSSION OF ITS ENDING

“Time-altering and reality-shifting thrills await,” reads the Spotify Newsroom’s feature on the new adaptation.

The original, Caso 63, quickly became the streaming platform’s most listened to scripted original podcast in Latin America. There’s already a Portuguese-language adaptation titled Paciente 63, and a Hindi-language adaption by name of Virus 2062.

But none of that goes any way towards explaining the ending of Case 63 – can it be explained? Is there any point in trying?

LIFESTYLE: Get your ‘conservative guy scared of cities’ costume here! Only joking

Chanel : Photo Call - Paris Fashion Week - Haute Couture Fall/Winter 2017-2018

Season 3 of the original Case 63 came out on October 18, 2022

Following its initial release on November 12, 2020, Case 63 (or Caso 63 in the original Spanish) was a hit.

A second season followed on November 11, 2021, introducing two new characters. And the series’ third and final season landed on October 18, 2022.

Which means the ending of the first season of English adaptation Case 63 can be explained only with certain caveats.

First is that, if Spotify renews it for a second (and/or third) season – presuming Julianne Moore and Oscar Isaac are willing – its current ending will prove to be only a temporary ending. A pause.

Second is that, even if it does continue for a second and third season, there’s no guarantee that it won’t stray from the path of the original, or interpret the blueprints of the original differently. This means the eventual ending could be qualitatively different. But with that said, here’s what we can say regarding the way it wraps up.

CELEBRITY: Who is Quinn Emanuel to Kanye West? Alleged texts address Yeezy future

What is the podcast about?

Case 63 follows psychiatrist Eliza Knight (Julianne Moore) as she records her sessions with a nameless patient.

Oscar Isaac plays “Case 63,” a man who claims to have traveled back in time from the year 2062 to the present day.

Over time, it becomes clear that his mission is to save humanity from a massive global pandemic. In the original Spanish version of the podcast, it’s the Pegasus virus that the man known as Case 63 is trying to prevent.

But, as the story develops, it becomes less clear exactly where the boundaries between past, present and future are. They blur, and as the first 10 episodes reach their ending, any attempts to neatly explain Case 63 seem futile. At least, it seems, until you listen to the rest.

CELEBRITY: Letitia Wright’s suit pays tribute to Chadwick Boseman’s iconic Oscars look

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power | S1 Trailer | Prime Video

Can case 63’s ending be explained.

The third season of the Chilean original is the final cycle of the story.

And, to the chagrin of anyone listening to the first season of Case 63’s English adaption hoping for a neat, easily-explained ending, series creator Julio Rojas said in conversation with Chilean daily newspaper La Tercera ( as translated by and quoted in The Storiest ), that the third season will equip listeners with the tools required to explain “things that were left out in the other seasons.”

“I think it will be very entertaining for the fans,” he said. “We’re not talking about a linear story, but rather a kind of loop. And all loops have, at some point, an entrance and an exit”.

“This final season has an analysis of how to get out of this loop, why the protagonists are intertwined and what is the real mission. […] When you see (or hear) the third season, you will be able to review the first and explain certain things to yourself.”

CELEBRITY: Koa name meaning explored: JJ and Kealia Watt welcome first child

Highly recommend. The best way to listen to Case 63 on @Spotify is to go into it with zero knowledge of what's in store. Don't even read the description. Just take 90 minutes and binge through them, and then think about what you just listened to. #Case63 https://t.co/vNdxlP3g0l — Andrew Cuda (@andrew_cuda) October 26, 2022

What happens at the end of the original Case 63 podcast?

Perhaps it can’t – or shouldn’t – be explained, but the ending of Case 63 can certainly be described .

In the original, Dr Aldunate’s patient tells her he’s a time traveler, and that his goal is to save the world. She later discovers that she’s an integral part of his plan. But any faith she has in the plan rests on to what extent she believes his authenticity. Is he really from the future?

After a few more sessions, she abandons the case. The line between reality and unreality has faded, and she cannot work professionally. In episode 8, Case 63 turns out to be a fraud. He runs away and Dr Aldunate breaks down. Then, in episode that makes use of intersecting time lines, Dr Aldunate seems to surrender once and for all to Case 63’s plan.

In the first season’s final episode, Dr Aldunate finds herself in an airport. The future is confusing, the present bewildering. She is just bamboozled as we are. But ultimately, she believes. And it’s here that the episode cuts.

Season 2 opens with Dr Aldunate in an airport bathroom. For more episode synopses, visit the Spanish Wikipedia page for Caso 63 here . And, with fingers firmly crossed, stay tuned for more.

Podcast review — could Case 63 be a breakthrough for audio drama?

An intelligent take on global lifestyle, arts and culture.

What is included in my trial?

During your trial you will have complete digital access to FT.com with everything in both of our Standard Digital and Premium Digital packages.

Standard Digital includes access to a wealth of global news, analysis and expert opinion. Premium Digital includes access to our premier business column, Lex, as well as 15 curated newsletters covering key business themes with original, in-depth reporting. For a full comparison of Standard and Premium Digital, click here .

Change the plan you will roll onto at any time during your trial by visiting the “Settings & Account” section.

What happens at the end of my trial?

If you do nothing, you will be auto-enrolled in our premium digital monthly subscription plan and retain complete access for $69 per month.

For cost savings, you can change your plan at any time online in the “Settings & Account” section. If you’d like to retain your premium access and save 20%, you can opt to pay annually at the end of the trial.

You may also opt to downgrade to Standard Digital, a robust journalistic offering that fulfils many user’s needs. Compare Standard and Premium Digital here .

Any changes made can be done at any time and will become effective at the end of the trial period, allowing you to retain full access for 4 weeks, even if you downgrade or cancel.

When can I cancel?

You may change or cancel your subscription or trial at any time online. Simply log into Settings & Account and select "Cancel" on the right-hand side.

You can still enjoy your subscription until the end of your current billing period.

What forms of payment can I use?

We support credit card, debit card and PayPal payments.

Explore our subscriptions

Find the plan that suits you best.

Premium access for businesses and educational institutions.

Check if your university or organisation offers FT membership to read for free.

Cookies on FT Sites

We use cookies and other data for a number of reasons, such as keeping FT Sites reliable and secure, personalising content and ads, providing social media features and to analyse how our Sites are used.

International Edition

Is Case 63 A True Story? What Is The Show All About?

Months have passed by but Spotify subscribers are still listening to ‘Case 63’ on loop. Firstly, we would like to give a round of applause to Julianne Moore and Oscar Isaac, they have done an exceptional job in the ten-episode podcast series! ‘Case 63’ has truly taken us by surprise, and we still can’t forget about the intriguing storyline of the newly launched podcast series.

But hey there, have you ever tried to know the backstory behind ‘Case 63’? Since the podcast series revolves around the pandemic crisis, the majority of the audience thinks that the podcast revolves around an actual event! Are the rumors true? Is ‘Case 63’ based on a real-life story? Well, to clear all your doubts let us quickly get on board with the main discussion of the day

Is Case 63 A True Story?

This happens to be the most popular question out there. Numerous issues taken up in the podcast series directly connect us to the pandemic! This particular podcast show takes us back to the drastic lockdown period! People died, many lost their loved ones, people were starving, the world was shut down, from schools to giant corporate offices everything was closed, everyone was crying for help, the world economy was at risk and in this difficult moment, we lost all our hopes!

Case 63 truly touched our hearts, we couldn’t have asked for anything else but according to our estimates, the story of Case 63 is not true. Yes, the podcast takes deep references from the pandemic crisis but at the end of the day, we shouldn’t forget the fact that it is nothing but another fictional story! You actually thought a patient named Case 63 existed in real life? Well, if you think deeply, the rumor sounds extremely funny and baseless! In the story, we heard that the patient named Case 63 happens to be a man who claims that he has traveled back in time! The concept itself sounds highly questionable! Our estimates say Case 63 is not based on a true story!

ALSO READ – Is The Lovely Bones Based On A True Story? The Truth Behind The Lovely Bones!

Case 63 Synopsis

It all started when Case 63 knocked at the door of Dr. Eliza Knight. Simple therapy sessions changed into a game of reality and hallucinations. At one point in time, you will too start questioning the storyline of the series! Case 63 claims that he has come from the year 2062 and that’s when the story changed its pace! He warns Dr. Eliza about the upcoming threat. The destruction phase is not over yet. If you think the situation has become worse now, wait a bit more as the pandemic periods are about to come again, and deadly forms of viruses are waiting for us.

Coronavirus was just a trailer of destruction, the world will soon turn into a land of graveyards. Case 63 has managed to come back in time, he must make people aware of the upcoming crisis, but will the psychiatrist believe his story? When reality becomes a question mark, when the future becomes doubtful, when the present sounds unreal, the popular podcast series which was released back in October 2022 is still seen among the best podcast series out there.

Oscar Isaac And Julianne Moore Shares Her View On Case 63

In a short interview, Julianne Moore revealed that Case 63 was her first-ever audio project; she was initially highly stressed about the podcast series! Case 63 was not just science fiction but a mix of everything! The dramatic twists and turns incorporated in the podcast series truly surprised and shocked us. Moore herself was highly astonished by the results of Case 63. She loved the fact that the audience was highly mesmerized by the story of the podcast series.

Coming to Oscar Isaac, he loved to pair up with Julianne Moore and we couldn’t agree any more than this, the pair truly stood out to the crowd. Oscar Isaac loved the storyline of the podcast series and he couldn’t believe the fact that the audience was deeply curious to learn more about the podcast series. If you still haven’t got a chance to stream Case 63, then you are surely missing out on an incredible podcast series. Plug in your earphones and head to Spotify, Case 63 must be on your Spotify schedule!

Is Case 63 A True Story? – FAQs

No, Case 63 is not a real-life story but the references to the pandemic, depicted in the podcast occurred back in 2020 and 2021.

No, Case 63 is not yet renewed by Spotify .

Case 63 Episode 10 ends with a cliffhanger, thus our estimates say Spotify might soon show the green light to Case 63 Season 2.

Nothing has been confirmed yet, sources predict Case 63 Season 2 might roll out next year, particularly in autumn 2024.

As we mentioned above, all the characters including Case 63 are fictional.

Yes, you can stream all ten episodes of Case 63, exclusively just on Spotify. They are available for free.

ALSO READ – Is Gunther’s Millions Based On A True Story? Who Is This Dog?

Case 63 Ending Explained: A Mind-Bending Sci-Fi Thriller!

Case 63 Ending Explained: The entirety of Case 63 is comprised of an intriguing and captivating audio drama. On the other hand, we will find out the conclusion to Case 63 in the following paragraphs. It is an absolute journey for the head, with just the right amount of tension and mystery to make it intellectually satisfying.

In this action-packed scenario, where the balance of power is constantly shifting, neither of the characters ever manages to gain an advantage. Due to the fact that it is able to concurrently provide sufficient world-building for the entirety of the plot, the attractiveness of its narrative lies in the smart usage of each and every minute of playing.

The whole thing is building up to a mind-blowing ending that makes the most of all of the twists and turns that have occurred during the series. On the other hand, the story is wrapped up by the time the original Chilean series reaches its third season. Case 63 was produced as a collaborative effort by Gimlet Studios, FortySixty, and Isaac's Mad Gene Media.

As of right now, Case 63 is only available on Spotify. Isaac and Moore are a match made in heaven for one another due to the fact that their personalities expose the unpolished, emotionally cutting edges that are hidden beneath the beautiful covers of their own selves. Therefore, without further ado, let us proceed to the conclusion of Case 63, an original podcast produced by Spotify.

What Is Case 63 All About?

This podcast series is based on the concept that Peter Roiter ( Oscar Isaac ), a patient of Eliza Beatrix Knight ( Julianne Moore ), a psychiatrist in New York City, who refers to him as Case 63, is persuaded that he is a time traveler from the year 2062.

When viewed from the perspective of Dr. Eliza Knight, Case 63 is more interesting for listeners because Julianne Moore lends an expressive openness to her persona as she goes through a succession of therapy partnerships that will finally change her life as she knows it.

The novel Caso 63, written by Julio Rojas , has been adapted into an English podcast consisting of ten episodes. Julio Rojas's work also describes the happenings and environments of a made-up world war. In addition to ratcheting up the tension, this prompts the listener to speculate about how much of what he is experiencing might actually be true.

Moore and Isaac, who are both tremendously well-liked and brilliant performers on the big screen, provide outstanding performances in the film Case 63 as two unique protagonists who get more and more compelling as the plot develops. Their performances are among the film's highlights.

Original Case 63 Ending Explained

There is no question that the resolution of Case 63 can be defined, even though it either cannot or should not be explained. The patient of Dr. Aldunate discloses that he is a time traveler who wants to save the world in the version that is originally written. She subsequently finds out that she plays an essential role in his strategy.

However, the degree to which she believes in his honesty will determine whether or not she has faith in the strategy. Is he seriously looking into the future?

After a few more sessions, she decides to give up on the case. She is unable to act professionally since the line between reality and fiction has become increasingly blurry. Episode 8 reveals that Case 63 was a complete and total fabrication all along.

As he runs away from the sight, Dr. Aldunate weeps uncontrollably. After that, in a later episode that utilizes crossing times, Dr. Aldunate seems to entirely fall into Case 63's tactics. In the concluding episode of the first season, Dr. Aldunate can be seen in an airport.

Both the now and the future have a great deal of mystery. She is under the same delusion that we are under. Despite this, she is confident in the outcome. The current scene marks the end of the episode.

Must Read: The Twelve Ending Explained: Who Was Responsible for the Death of Frie's Daughter?

Variety Print Plus Subscriber

Spotify’s ‘Case 63’ Mind-Bending Thriller Podcast Starring Julianne Moore, Oscar Isaac Gets Release Date and Trailer

By Todd Spangler

Todd Spangler

NY Digital Editor

Things get supernaturally weird in Spotify ’s scripted original podcast drama “Case 63,” starring Julianne Moore and Oscar Isaac , set to debut later this month.

All 10 episodes of “Case 63” will drop on Oct. 25, exclusively on Spotify. In the show, Dr. Eliza Knight (Julianne Moore), a New York psychiatrist, begins treating a patient registered only as Case 63 (Isaac) — who claims to be a time traveler from the year 2062. What Dr. Knight first believes to be a routine therapeutic case rapidly unfolds into a story that threatens the boundaries of reality. ( Listen to the trailer below. )

In a statement provided to Variety , Moore said, “‘Case 63’ was my very first audio experience and I was able to see firsthand how immersive and impactful podcasting is as a mode of storytelling. It is a thrilling and timely story — incredibly mysterious and romantic, suspenseful and strange.” She added that “the opportunity to work with my friends Oscar Isaac and [director] Mimi O’Donnell made the recording a joy. I hope everyone will enjoy listening to it as much as we did making it. ‘Case 63’ is exactly the kind of story that I love.”

Isaac commented, “I’m a big fan of the original ‘Case 63’ and it was great to be able to partner with Spotify and Julianne on this adaption.”

The English-language “Case 63” is produced by Spotify’s Gimlet studio, Moore’s production company FortySixty and Isaac’s Mad Gene Media. The series is directed by O’Donnell and produced by Katie Pastore. Moore and Isaac serve as executive producers alongside Spotify’s O’Donnell, Dawn Ostroff, Julie McNamara and Javier Piñol. “Caso 63” was created and originally written by Julio Rojas.

Last week, Spotify axed 11 original podcasts from its Gimlet and Parcast studios , as part of a slate-pruning move to focus resources on bigger hits. That resulted in at least 38 staffers losing their jobs , according to the unions that rep Gimlet and Parcast employees.

Listen to the trailer for “Case 63” featuring Moore and Isaac:

More From Our Brands

Activists gear up for ‘terrifying’ pride month as threats increase, brands drop out, is your waiter wearing a bespoke suit how restaurant uniforms got so stylish., ncaa mints millionaires as revenue rises and workforce shrinks, one year later, the tempo studio is sitting idle in my living room, netflix sitcom survival of the thickest, starring michelle buteau, gets summer release date — plus, watch a teaser, verify it's you, please log in.

Out now. Follow & listen for free Only On Spotify.

October 14, 2022

Introducing Case 63

Dr. Eliza Knight (Julianne Moore), a New York Psychiatrist, begins treating a patient registered as Case 63 (Oscar Isaac) who claims to be from the year 2062. What begins as routine...

October 25, 2022

Episode 1 – “The Story I Grew Up With”

Session one. Dr. Knight (Julianne Moore) begins therapy with her new patient, an alleged time traveler known as Case 63 (Oscar Isaac).

Episode 2- “DeLorean”

Session two. Case 63 delves into the goal of his mission: to save the world. But from what? Or from whom? And how will Dr. Knight help?

Episode 3- “Pegasus”

Session three. Case 63 describes the lethal virus, patient zero, and his bleak depiction of the future.

Episode 4 - “Garnier Malet Effect”

Session four. Dr. Knight discovers that, according to Case 63, she is an essential part of his plan to save the world. But, how can she trust a future she doesn’t even believe in?

Episode 5- “Alphabet Soup”

Session five. Case 63 begins to doubt. Dr. Knight begins to believe.

Episode 6 - “History Exam”

Session six. The polygraph test. Why is the impossible impossible?

Episode 7- “Jemmy Button”

Session seven. Dr. Knight decides to drop the case...Case 63.

Episode 8 - “Gaspar Marin”

Session eight. In an unexpected turn, Case 63 is an impostor. And, for now, he has escaped.

Episode 9- “Entanglement”

Session nine. Intersecting timelines. Dr. Knight surrenders to a plan that science cannot explain.

Episode 10- “Patient Zero”

Final session. In an airport, the meeting of all possibilities and all possible universes. But what happens when the future is not exactly what they expected it to be?

New York psychiatrist Dr. Eliza Knight (Academy Award winner Julianne Moore) begins treating a patient registered as Case 63 (Emmy nominee Oscar Isaac) who claims to be from the year 2062. What begins as routine therapeutic sessions quickly turns into a story that threatens the boundaries of the possible and the real.

More Like This

Where to listen.

We've updated our Terms of Service. Learn More

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn More

Case 63 is a slick, twisty thriller with Julianne Moore and Oscar Isaac

Case 63 is a tense sci-fi hit. catch it before hollywood does.

Gripping: Julianne Moore stars in Case 63

I t feels a while since I have had a belter of an audio drama to recommend. Case 63 (Spotify exclusive) is a tense, twisty, suspenseful sci-fi thriller starring the Oscar-winner Julianne Moore and Oscar Isaac. She brings a raw vulnerability, Isaac a dashing desperado romanticism.

Told across ten gripping episodes (none longer than 16 minutes), it begins in October 2022 with an initial consultation between the psychiatrist Dr Knight (Moore) and the 39-year-old Peter (Isaac), or Case 63. He has been brought to the state psychiatric facility in Manhattan where she works, after being found naked and claiming to be a time traveller. He has come from 2062 to stop a woman named Marie from boarding a flight from JFK — an intervention he hopes

At last, an even-handed verdict on Qatar’s World Cup (plus Gary Lineker!)

Case 63: the audio series of the time traveler and the end of the world that is already viral

What would you imagine if you were told that the end of the world will not be fast with a big bang, but rather slow and between pandemic diseases? That is what Case 63 tells, a Chilean science fiction podcast produced by Spotify that gives us the story of a time traveler who has to prevent patient zero from expanding the variant of COVID-19 that will kill humanity.

Case 63: what we know about serial audio that is all the rage on Spotify

The podcast is written by Julio Rojas, a Chilean screenwriter who was inspired by the context of COVID-19 to create a realistic end of the world. Its protagonists are Antonia Zegers, who plays the role of Dr. Beatriz Aldunate, along with Nestor Cantillana, in charge of bringing Pedro Roiter to life.

It was number one on the trending charts in five countries: Chile, Colombia, Argentina, Mexico and the United States. . It was also adapted for Brazil under the title of Patient 63 and for India under the name of Virus 2062, and will be dubbed into English at the end of 2021. This is the first time that a non-English speaking original Spotify podcast has been adapted to several languages. This reaffirms the global reach of content that the streaming platform is leading and its commitment to bring high-quality storytelling to all regions of the world.

What is the case 63 podcast?

It is a sound production that places its development in the year 2022, where the psychiatrist Elisa Aldunate begins a therapy session with “Patient 63”. As the sessions progress, time, space and reality begin to blur, messing with listeners’ minds. The drama and thriller audio series is made up of 10 episodes that provoke mystery for the audience.

Is it based on a true story?

The podcast is based on a real context, since it mentions the current COVID-19 pandemic. What makes it more dark and credible is that the writer offers us a possible scenario that does not sound so far-fetched about the end of the world. “It is taking elements of the present, and (asking) what would happen to social networks or what would happen to the virus” creator Julio Rojas said in an interview with Podcast Fest Latam.

Along the same lines, the author believes that the success of this story is not only due to good writing, but also because it calls for reflection on what would happen if we didn’t take care of ourselves. “ One wonders that beyond this series may be lying, this can happen . When one reads the comments, it is said that this fear of the future is much more present than we imagine,” Rojas said.

YOU CAN SEE: Coronavirus in Peru: this is how the pandemic evolves in the country

where can i listen to serial audio

You can listen to all the episodes of the series ONLINE FOR FREE at Spotify streaming platform . The podcast has season 1 and 2 available. The last premiere at the beginning of this month.

Advertisers will have access to reports and metrics based on confirmed ad impressions. Photo: Spotify

How to listen to a podcast on Spotify?

The feature will be available in the app for iOS and Android devices globally. Photo: Spotify

Listen for free Case 63 on Spotify: link

If you cannot locate the podcast using the Spotify search engine, HERE is the link so you can enjoy this fascinating series: https://open.spotify.com/show/20ch3IIqtWSSM4nfy11ZzP#login

Case 63: plot explanation

“Year 2022. Psychiatrist Elisa Aldunate records the sessions of an enigmatic patient, registered as Case 63, who claims to be a time traveler. What begins as routine therapeutic sessions quickly transforms into a story that threatens the borders of what is possible and what is real. A story that moves freely between the future and the past of two characters who, perhaps, have the future of humanity in their hands”, is how Spotify describes the sound product.

How many episodes and seasons are Case 63?

Case 63 has ten episodes in each season. The first premiered on November 11, 2020, and left a second one standing. That is why Spotify premiered a second season, which is as cryptic and mysterious as the first, for fans who were obsessed after listening to the first installment and can finally know what the future or the past has in store for them. Dr. Aldunate and Pedro Roiter.

Investors flee the stock market due to the lack of agreement in the US

Session of red numbers in the world Stock Markets. Negotiations to extend the debt ceiling in the US have come...

"At the bottom there is room": Tito and Helana live their love and fans ask for a wedding: "don’t mess it up"

"There is room at the bottom", the successful production of América Televisión, continues to surprise its loyal fans after 10...

Flor Polo happy for her new love, Luiggi Yarasca: “I want to take good care of him”

flower pole She told La República at the premiere of the video clip for Las Sabrosas de la Cumbia in...

Jordi Alba, another Barça legend who says goodbye

Jordi Alba will not continue at Barça next season. The Catalan winger, who had a contract until 2024, has made...

France now prohibits domestic flights with an alternative train

France is the first country in the world that has decided to ban domestic flights that have an alternative train...

Robotín is looking for the biological father of his daughters: what did the comedian say and what is the reason?

robotin He reopened the topic of the girls he raised as his daughters in his recent appearance on the digital...

The Constitutional Court of Colombia gives its denial to the spraying of illicit crops with glyphosate

North Korea gives ‘full support’ to China ahead of Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan

New report says Fallout 76 development blighted by poor management and mandatory crunch

Life at Spotify

Diversity & Inclusion

During Stream On, we’ll share new developments to help creators continue to chart pathways to success and build a truly global audience.

Time to Play Fair

When competition is fair, both consumers and companies win. Learn about our efforts to even the playing field for all developers.

Spotify Loud & Clear

Artists deserve clarity about the economics of music streaming. This site sheds light on the global streaming economy and royalty system.

Spotify x FC Barcelona

Music and football come together in a way that’s entirely new in our partnership with FC Barcelona.

For Artists

For podcasters, for advertisers, for developers, for investors, for engineering, for vendors, for songwriters, for help, chat & ideas.

Mind-Bending Chilean Podcast Gets English Adaptation With ‘Case 63,’ starring Julianne Moore and Oscar Isaac

October 24, 2022

Time-altering and reality-shifting thrills await as Case 63 , the highly anticipated English adaptation of the chart-topping Chilean scripted audio series , makes its debut October 25. Produced by Gimlet Studios, Case 63 features Academy Award–winning actress Julianne Moore alongside Golden Globe winner and Moon Knight star Oscar Isaac . Both stars are also executive producers of the series.

Julianne Moore

The series follows psychiatrist Eliza Knight (Julianne) as she records her sessions with an enigmatic patient known only as “Case 63” (Oscar), who claims to be a time traveler coming back from the future to prevent the next global pandemic. As each episode progresses, the boundaries between past, present, and future blur and the two characters discover they may have the future of humanity in their hands.

“ Case 63 was my very first audio experience and I was able to see firsthand how immersive and impactful podcasting is as a mode of storytelling,” Julianne told For the Record . “It is a thrilling and timely story—incredibly mysterious and romantic, suspenseful, and strange. And the opportunity to work with my friends Oscar Isaac and Mimi O’Donnell made the recording a joy.”

The two actors bring their incredible talents to a series that has captivated Latin America since it first aired in 2020.

“I’m a big fan of the original series, Caso 63, and it was great to be able to partner with Spotify and Julianne on this adaptation,” said Oscar.

Oscar Isaac

“We are so excited to bring this beloved story from Latin America to the English-speaking audience,” said director and executive producer Mimi O’Donnell . “There are so many twists and turns set against an immersive backdrop that the team on this show created, led by an incredibly talented group of creatives here in the U.S. Every adaptation of this series is anchored by captivating production. With Case 63 , listeners feel like they are alongside Oscar and Julianne every step of the way through this mind-bending journey.”

Following its launch, Caso 63 became Spotify’s most listened to scripted original podcast in Latin America, thanks to the talents of costars Antonia Zegers and Néstor Cantillana . The show was such a hit that Spotify tapped Brazilian actors Seu Jorge and Mel Lisboa to be featured in a Portuguese-language adaptation— Paciente 63 —less than a year later. And earlier this year, Spotify India brought on Bollywood husband-and-wife actors Richa Chadha and Ali Fazal to create a Hindi-language adaptation, titled Virus 2062 .

The outstanding success of the show marks the first time a non-English Spotify Original podcast has been adapted into multiple languages, highlighting Spotify’s audio reach and commitment to bringing high-quality storytelling with impactful voices to fans around the world.

“I am so excited to bring this story from Latin America to the English-speaking audience and get to know their thoughts, hear their theories, and simply share good storytelling with more audiences,” said Javier Piñol , the show’s executive producer and Global Head of Markets, Talk Content at Spotify. “I am proud of the work done by the whole team in Latin America to produce three well-crafted seasons, cementing Spotify’s mission to not only inspire others to create, but to share in the understanding that great storytelling comes from all over the world.”

“I hope everyone will enjoy listening to it as much as we did making it,” said Julianne. “ Case 63 is exactly the kind of story that I love.”

Get ready to start your session with Dr. Knight by listening to Case 63 on October 25th:

The ‘Batman Unburied’ Audio Series Is Ready To Take Flight Across the World in Spotify’s Largest Simultaneous Launch

Discover more.

Popular Chilean Sci-Fi Podcast Gets Adapted for Brazilian Listeners in ‘Paciente 63’

Chart-Topping Chilean Podcast ‘Caso 63’ Gears Up for Season 2—And Announces an English-Language Adaptation

Argentina’s First Scripted Thriller, ‘Número Oculto,’ Takes Listeners on a Chilling Journey Through Time

Case 63 Review: Spotify Strikes Gold With Devourable Audio Thriller

Case 63 is devourable.

Spotify does it again with a ten-episode series that will have you on the edge of your seat and craving more. A second season cannot come fast enough.

Julianne Moore and Oscar Isaac star in this thrilling podcast, and the chemistry between them is unparalleled.

Case 63 is the English adaptation of Caso 63, Spotify's most listened-to scripted Original podcast in Latin America. Moore and Isaac executive produce and star in the series, brought to us by Moore's production company FortySixty, Isaac's Mad Gene Media, and Spotify's Gimlet Studios.

The entire first season of this series dropped on October 25, and it's already the number-one podcast on Spotify, topping the charts in the US, Canada, Ireland, and the UK.

Anyone who listens to it will quickly understand why, as it transports listeners to a genre-bending thriller that leaves you clinging to every last word.

The concept of this series is that Eliza Beatrix Knight, a psychiatrist in New York City, takes on a case with a patient, Peter Roiter, who she references as Case 63, expertly portrayed by Isaac, who believes he's a time traveler from 2062.

Within roughly 90 minutes, Eliza goes from attempting to treat a man she feels is delusional to getting sucked into his gripping tales and urgent quest to save the world from something that has not yet happened.

It results in a pulse-pounding mystery -- an intellectual battle of wills between Peter and Eliza that crackles with tension thanks to Isaac and Moore's electric chemistry.

From start to finish, it leaves you unsure who will come out on top, as Peter risks everything to convince Eliza of who he is, the message he has, and her place in saving the world as we know it.

It's a risk these days to venture into the sci-fi disaster genre. Many people have reached a point of fatigue as we continue to dip in and out of pandemics, fully knowing that our entire world has fundamentally changed since COVID and global lockdowns.

Case 63 takes the momentum from that and leans heavily into it so that it stops feeling like sci-fi and instead feels like a potential reality in the not-too-distant future.

The best sci-fi disaster stories are so deeply rooted in our reality that our imaginations don't have to stretch too far. Case 63 finds the right balance in presenting a potentially bleak future without depriving listeners of the hope necessary to keep humanity alive.

If it were simply text, Case 63 would likely feel like more trauma porn and misery, the very antithesis of the escapist storytelling that many have craved since we've been left clawing our way out of the dredges of mass health, social, psychological, and economic epidemics.

But Moore and Isaac are riveting. The ability to hear them, feel as if you're in the room with them, listening to these two master-class actors spin this tale with nothing beyond some sound effects, and the inflection in their voices is pure magic.

Isaac has a voice for podcasts, sexy and intriguing; you hang onto his every single word, which makes him the perfect Peter. Because, like Eliza, you wanted to believe every word he said, trust in the impossible, simply because he said it.

His charisma oozed through in every single line. His voice lures you in, entrancing in such a way that you get lost in what he's presenting to you and struggle to contradict it.

And what's ingenious about the series as it unfolds is that no matter how convincing Peter is, there are still enough nuances and inconsistencies to support the doubt.

Peter is not a reliable narrator, but he's a seductive one, and he'll take you on this journey with him and succeed in enticing you to his side even when he pushes you past boundaries.

His appeal to Eliza is a certainty well before the intricate nature of their relationship, and what they mean to each other comes to light.

Peter is convincing, and it's easy to buy into whatever he's selling because of how close to reality it feels for us now as listeners.

We're coming off the COVID pandemic, and it's not so much that it's slowed down, but it's become our new normal. Peter warns Eliza of individuals' complacency during the 2020 pandemic. One that served as the beginning of the end for the plethora that followed.

The strains are constantly mutating and evolving, and at some point in Peter's world and lifetime, humankind can't stave it off anymore.

He implies the highs of a society where all the social injustices and isms get eradicated at some point. It seems like some unattainable dystopia for us now.

But he also brings up the moments preceding and following that time when society takes on what we know it to do -- descend into the worst of what humans can offer, give into the worst traits -- greed, selfishness, murder, hatred, control.

He speaks of an age of individualism but also one of uniformity. It's a mish-mash of contradictions that still feel authentic and within the realm of possibility.

Peter's commentary about The Great Deletion, how technology goes from an advancement beyond comprehension to eradication surprisingly, leading to a more primitive society, feels plausible.

It's a world beyond our comprehension on one hand while simultaneously being within the realm of possibility for the near future based on the present, and that's what makes it work. It doesn't hurt that Oscar Isaac sells the hell out of everything.

From the cheeky humor to the frenetic energy and impatience of someone who knows they're running out of time, Oscar Isaac delivers it all, making Peter a fascinating character from start to finish.

Case 63 doesn't have to try too hard. It gets to ride off of what's real to us now and elevate and intensify it.

Peter's commentary about the future feels vague enough that the podcast doesn't have to make a fool of itself by getting too caught up in sci-fi jargon to convince listeners.

But it still has its outs, the Garnier Malet Effect referencing the bending of time and communication through dreams.

Pegasus feels like an uninspired name for the virus to end all of them, and Peter representing the Intrapandemic generation, feels delightfully hokey.

Eliza's grip on what's real and not loosens with each episode, her recordings revealing how susceptible she is to Peter along the way and that she's buying what's at stake.

And it's believable that Eliza may just work with this mysterious man professing to be a time traveler on his quest to save Marie Baker, or Patient Zero, and thus stop the end of the world.

But their trust isn't easy or even fully realized along the way. It's a cat-and-mouse game that Moore and Isaac nail from the beginning to the end.

It's a push-pull dynamic where power constantly shifts, and neither character ever has the upper hand.

And it's fascinating.

It all builds to a jaw-dropping ending that capitalizes on all the twists and turns in the series along the way.

And by those final moments, you must process what you heard and find yourself trying to piece the mystery together to understand how it ended.

Case 63 is a total mind trip, a perfect blend of suspense and intrigue -- it's a cerebral thrill.

If you haven't checked Case 63 already, you should head to Spotify and do so. It's a quick binge and not one you'll regret. Sound off below with your thoughts!

Jasmine Blu is a senior staff writer for TV Fanatic. She is an insomniac who spends late nights and early mornings binge-watching way too many shows and binge-drinking way too much tea. Her eclectic taste makes her an unpredictable viewer with an appreciation for complex characters, diverse representation, dynamic duos, compelling stories, and guilty pleasures. You'll definitely find her obsessively live-tweeting, waxing poetic, and chatting up fellow Fanatics and readers. Follow her on Twitter .

Spotify's Top Bingeworthy Podcasts to Get You Through The Holiday Weekend

NACDL - National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

The class of ’63: major supreme court cases of the 1963 term.

The year 1963 saw a U.S. Supreme Court comprised of a diverse array of justices. The Court proved to be a critical element in the establishment of fundamental rights for all Americans, including criminal suspects and juvenile offenders.

Access to The Champion archive is one of many exclusive member benefits. It’s normally restricted to just NACDL members. However, this content, and others like it, is available to everyone in order to educate the public on why criminal justice reform is a necessity.

The early days of 1963 saw the American Camelot in full flower. The young, vibrant President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was at the peak of his power and influence. The Cuban missile crisis of the previous October had shown America and the world that, despite his relative youth and lack of political experience, JFK was capable of exerting an iron will that influenced the nation and the world. Domestic strife increased as the civil rights movement gained momentum. In the weeks immediately preceding the showdown with the Soviet Union over the placement of missile in Cuba, President Kennedy and his brother Robert, the Attorney General, sent U.S. Marshals, other federal law enforcement officers, and National Guardsmen to the campus of the University of Mississippi in Oxford to suppress violence as James Meredith registered. Meredith, the first African-American to be admitted to the college, was enrolled on October 1, 1962, following a ruling in his favor by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The year 1963 saw a Supreme Court comprised of a diverse array of justices, including senior jurists who had served for more than two decades, and some new additions appointed by President Kennedy himself. The “Warren Court,” a liberal, pro-civil rights core of five justices centered around Chief Justice Earl Warren, was at its zenith (for more on the composition of the Supreme Court in 1963, see the June 2012 issue of The Champion ). The American civil rights movement was still gathering momentum, and the Court was proving to be a critical element in the establishment of fundamental rights for all Americans, including minorities, criminal suspects, juvenile offenders, and prison convicts.

Within this historical and legal context, the Court decided several significant criminal justice cases in 1963.

Brady v. Maryland 1

(7-2) This was the most significant case involving criminal procedure and due process decided by the Supreme Court during the year 1963. Much more discussion about Brady and its impact is found throughout this issue of The Champion , but a summary of the case is in order here.

In separate trials, John Brady and a companion named Donald Boblit were each convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death; their convictions were upheld by the Maryland Court of Appeals. Prior to trial, counsel for Brady had requested and been granted permission to examine several statements made by Brady’s co-defendant to police in the course of their investigation. However, one such statement, in which Boblit admitted actually killing the victim, was withheld. The existence of this statement did not come to light until after Brady’s trial, conviction, and unsuccessful appeal.

To complicate matters in this case, Brady had testified during his trial and admitted participation in the crime, but denied actually killing the victim. In his closing argument, Brady’s attorney acknowledged that Brady was guilty of first degree murder but implored the jury to spare his life by returning a verdict of guilty “without capital punishment.” 2 Since there was no real question as to Brady’s guilt, the Maryland Court of Appeals ultimately granted post-conviction relief in the form of a remand to the trial court solely on the issue of punishment.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Maryland appeals court. It found that Brady’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were not infringed by limiting retrial to the question of punishment, but the concealment of Boblit’s confession from the defense was nevertheless substantially material to the issue of punishment, so as to require a retrial on that aspect of Brady’s case. As Justice Douglas wrote in his majority opinion, “We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” 3

Douglas v. California 4

(6-3) William Douglas and his co-defendant, Bennie Meyes, faced 13 felony charges, including robbery and assault, in a California court. The two men were indigent and both had been assigned the same public defender. Defense counsel moved for a continuance, citing a lack of adequate time to prepare for trial, and requested that separate counsel be appointed for each defendant; these motions were denied. Acting pro se , Douglas and Meyes then renewed their motions for continuance and appointment of separate counsel. These motions were also denied. Following a jury trial, both men were convicted and sentenced to prison terms.

Douglas and Meyes requested appointment of counsel in filing an appeal of right to the California District Court of Appeal, but their requests were denied. In its review of their request, the appellate court, citing a state rule of criminal procedure, asserted that it had “gone through” the trial record and had found that “no good whatever could be served by appointment of counsel.” 5 The convictions of Douglas and Meyes were affirmed by the District Court of Appeal; a subsequent discretionary appeal to the California Supreme Court was summarily denied.

The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court was written by Justice William O. Douglas, in a predictable 6-3 split that reflected the orientation of the Warren Court. Citing the Court’s earlier ruling in Griffin v. Illinois, Douglas wrote that “a State may not grant appellate review in such a way as to discriminate against some convicted defendants on account of their poverty.” 6 The majority held that California’s statutory scheme allowing an ex parte review of the merits of an appeal, without guaranteeing counsel to an indigent appellant, was violative of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection mandates because the indigent defendant in these circumstances “is forced to go without a champion on appeal,” 7 and thus “an unconstitutional line has been drawn between rich and poor.” 8

Draper v. Washington 9

(5-4) This case was decided the same day as Douglas v. California and involves similar issues regarding the rights of indigent defendants on appeal. Draper and two co-defendants were convicted of two counts of robbery and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment. They were indigent and had court-appointed counsel at trial. Following their conviction, the three men filed pro se notices of appeal and motions for a free copy of the trial transcript and a “statement of facts.” The judge who presided at the original trial heard arguments from Draper and from the trial attorney, who had been directed by the court to appear for the defendants despite their wish to proceed without counsel. At the conclusion of this hearing, the judge denied the motions, finding that the defendants’ enumerations of error were “patently frivolous,” that there was “overwhelming evidence” of the guilt of each defendant, and that providing the requested transcript or statement of facts would be “a waste of public funds.” 10 The ruling of the trial judge was sustained by the Washington State Supreme Court, which reviewed only the transcript of the hearing on defendants’ motions. Defendants then brought an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Goldberg, the Court reversed the convictions of Draper and his co-defendants and remanded the case. Similar to its holding in Douglas , the Court found that denial of a free transcript to indigent defendants created an unconstitutional disparity between rich and poor criminal defendants, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Goldberg observed that “the conclusion of the trial judge that an indigent’s appeal is frivolous is a similarly inadequate substitute for the full appellate review available to nonindigents in Washington, when the effect of that finding is to prevent an appellate examination based upon a sufficiently complete record of the trial proceedings themselves.” 11 It is important to note that, citing Griffin v. Illinois 12 and Eskridge v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms and Paroles , 13 the Court held that, in order to pass constitutional muster, it may not be necessary for a state to provide every indigent defendant with an entire trial transcript in every case, provided that what is furnished is a “record of sufficient completeness … for adequate consideration of the errors assigned. 14

Fahy v. Connecticut 15

(5-4) After waiving a jury trial, Fahy and a codefendant named Arnold were convicted of willfully injuring a public building; they had painted swastikas on a local synagogue. At trial, over objection of the defendants, a paint brush and a can of black paint was admitted into evidence. The arresting officer in this case had initially encountered Fahy and Arnold on an early-morning traffic stop, before the vandalism to the synagogue had been discovered. The officer searched the car and discovered the paint and brush under the front seat. Not realizing the import of these items, he left them in the vehicle and released Fahy and Arnold, following them to Fahy’s home. Later that day, once the vandalism had been discovered, the officer returned to Fahy’s residence and, without benefit of a warrant or other justification, entered Fahy’s garage and removed the incriminating items from Fahy’s car. Fahy and Arnold were later taken into custody after the officer obtained arrest warrants.

On appeal, the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors upheld the convictions of Fahy and Arnold. The court acknowledged that the paint and brush had been illegally seized by police, but held that this was harmless error. This case was tried before the Supreme Court decided Mapp v. Ohio 16 in 1961, but the appeal was brought thereafter.

Further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court brought a reversal of the convictions and a remand of the case. Chief Justice Warren himself wrote the majority opinion, holding that the admission of the illegally obtained evidence was prejudicial to the defendants and could not therefore be considered harmless error. Warren noted that the Court could not “ignore the cumulative prejudicial effect of this evidence upon the conduct of the defense at trial.” 17

Fay v. Noia 18

(6-3) This is a case involving the Great Writ, the writ of habeas corpus . In 1942, Noia and two co-defendants, Caminito and Bonino, were convicted of murder committed in the course of a robbery; all three were sentenced to life imprisonment. Written confessions from each of the defendants were apparently the sole evidence presented by the State of New York at trial. Noia’s two accomplices, but not Noia himself, appealed their convictions unsuccessfully. However, both men were later released when, in subsequent legal proceedings, it was determined that the confessions of all three men had been illegally coerced, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process requirement. Following the release of Caminito and Bonino, Noia filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This court denied the petition, citing the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which require that “[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State. …” 19 The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the District Court, setting aside Noia’s conviction and ordering that he be either released from custody or retried. The Court of Appeals expressed doubt that this statute was applicable when State remedies were no longer available to the accused. In addition, the Court found that the particular “exceptional circumstances” 20 of Noia’s case excused noncompliance.

Justice Brennan wrote the opinion for the 6-3 majority, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals granting the writ. After a long discourse on the historical origins and significance of the Great Writ, Brennan concluded that it would be fundamentally unjust to allow Noia’s conviction and life sentence to stand when his co-defendants, convicted on the same tainted evidence, had been released. Brennan concluded, “It should be unnecessary to repeat what so often has been said and what so plainly is the case: that the availability of the Great Writ of habeas corpus in the federal courts for persons in the custody of the States offends no legitimate state interest in the enforcement of criminal justice or procedure. … Surely no fair-minded person will contend that those who have been deprived of their liberty without due process of law ought nevertheless to languish in prison.” 21

Gideon v. Wainwright 22

(9-0) Clarence Earl Gideon was no stranger to the criminal justice system. A four-time convict, he was arrested for breaking and entering a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor. Florida law provided that this was a felony. Gideon lacked funds to hire counsel and appeared before the trial court, Judge Robert McCrary, without an attorney. Judge McCrary denied Gideon’s request for counsel on the basis that the law did not permit appointment of counsel except in capital cases, 23 a misinterpretation of Powell v. Alabama . 24 Following his conviction, Gideon was sentenced to the maximum punishment, five years’ imprisonment. He filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus with the Florida Supreme Court on the denial of counsel issue. When that Petition was denied, he sought and obtained review by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held (overruling Betts v. Brady 25 ), in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Black, that indigent defendants in state felony proceedings were entitled to counsel. Justice Black wrote that “the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is … [a] fundamental right[,]” 26 and that “in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured of a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to be an obvious truth.” 27 He continued, stating that “[t]he right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours.” 28

Justices Douglas, Clark, and Harlan each wrote separate concurring opinions in Gideon . Justice Douglas wrote briefly to say that guarantees found within the Bill of Rights and which are made applicable to the states through the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment are of equal value 29 (Justice Harlan had espoused a view that such secondhand application was of a lesser value). Justice Clark’s concurrence focused on the lack of a constitutional “distinction between capital and noncapital cases” since the Fourteenth Amendment protects both “life” and “liberty.” 30 Finally, Justice Harlan, the last holdout against imposing on the states an obligation to provide counsel to indigent criminal defendants, acknowledged that the “special circumstances rule,” which had been abandoned in capital cases, should be abandoned in, at the very least, noncapital cases that “carry the possibility of a substantial prison sentence.” 31

Haynes v. Washington 32

(5-4) Haynes was charged with robbing a Spokane, Wash., gasoline service station. Although he orally admitted the robbery to the arresting officers, he was held incommunicado for 16 hours. He made repeated requests to talk to an attorney and his wife, but was told he could not talk to either until he gave a written confession. Even after giving a written confession to detectives, he was not permitted to call his wife until he’d talked to the prosecutor. Despite having “evidence more than adequate to justify [Haynes] being charged without delay,” the defendant was not taken before a magistrate for a preliminary hearing until he signed a written confession. Further, the record fails to indicate, both before and after the confession, that “Haynes was advised by authorities of his right to remain silent, warned that his answers might be used against him, or told of his rights respecting consultation with an attorney.” 33 At trial he objected to the admission of the written confession as a due process violation. Washington law provided that the issue of voluntariness of a confession was a question of fact for the jury to decide. Haynes was convicted and the conviction was affirmed by the Washington Supreme Court (5-4).

In the last of a series of confession cases preceding Escobedo v. Illinois 34 and Miranda v. Arizona , 35 the Supreme Court of the United States, in an opinion written by Justice Goldberg, described an “atmosphere of substantial coercion and inducement created by statements and actions of state authorities” 36 and held that the confession was not “the voluntary product of a free and unconstrained will.” 37 The opinion continued: “We are impelled to the conclusion, from all of the facts presented, that the bounds of due process have been exceeded.” 38

Jones v. Cunningham 39

(9-0) Petitioner, while in a Virginia state penitentiary, filed a state Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging an earlier conviction based on the denial of his right to counsel. During the pendency an appeal of an order denying the Petition, he was paroled and placed in the “custody and control” of the Parole Board, who directed him to live with family members in Georgia. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, holding that the case was moot as to the prison superintendent because he no longer had custody or control over Petitioner “at large on parole.” 40

Justice Black addressed whether a parolee is “in custody” for the purposes of a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus through a lengthy analysis of English and American civil and criminal law. Writing for a unanimous Court, he stated that merely because Petitioner had left the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court did not deprive that Court of jurisdiction when the members of the Parole Board were still within the Court’s jurisdiction and those Board members could be required to do all things necessary to bring the case to a final adjudication. “While petitioner’s parole releases him from immediate physical imprisonment, it imposes conditions which significantly confine and restrain his freedom; this is enough to keep him in the ‘custody’ of the members of the Virginia Parole Board within the meaning of the habeas corpus statute.” 41

Wong Sun v. United States 42

(5-4) Federal agents arrested Toy, Yee, and Wong Sun for “fraudulent and knowing transportation and concealment of illegally imported heroin.” 43 Following the arrest, Wong Sun was released on his own recognizance after a lawful arraignment. He voluntarily returned to the police station several days later and made a statement implicating himself in the crime. At a bench trial in federal court, Petitioner and his co-defendants were convicted. The Court of Appeals found that the warrantless arrests of Petitioner and his co-defendants were illegal because they were “not based on ‘probable cause’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment nor ‘reasonable grounds’ within the meaning of the Narcotic Control Act of 1956,” 44 but nevertheless affirmed the convictions holding that “the four items of proof were not the ‘fruits’ of the illegal arrests, and that they were therefore properly admitted in evidence.” 45

Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, acknowledged that the Court of Appeals had already determined that there “was neither reasonable grounds nor probable cause for Toy’s [one of the co-defendant’s warrantless] arrest,” 46 an arrest which lead to the subsequent arrest of Wong Sun and others, since there was “no basis in experience for confidence in the reliability of [the informant’s] information.” 47 Continuing, the Court ruled that narcotics taken from co-defendant Yee were not evidence “from an independent source,” 48 and thus were subject to the exclusionary rule and could “not be used against Toy.” 49 Turning to Wong Sun’s unsigned confession, the Court held that it did “not furnish competent corroborative evidence” 50 against Toy, and the Court agreed with the finding of the Court of Appeals that Wong Sun’s arrest was without probable cause or reasonable grounds.

However, Wong Sun’s later, unsigned confession was not the fruit of his arrest, and therefore was therefore properly admitted at trial. Given that “the connection between the arrest and the statement had ‘become so attenuated as to dissipate the taint,’” 51 Wong Sun’s statement was admissible. Not “all evidence is ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ simply because it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police.” 52

Civil Rights

It would be a mistake not to acknowledge that the Supreme Court decided more than one-half dozen significant civil rights cases in 1963, many announced on May 20th. These cases varied from the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, 53 to several involving the failure to leave a store’s lunch counter after service was refused, 54 or a “sit-down demonstration” at a white lunch counter in protest against racial segregation. 55 The Court also addressed desegregation of public parks and recreational facilities, 56 and playing basketball in a public park customarily used only by white people. 57 Clearly 1963 was an important year for the Court’s civil rights agenda.

Avent v. North Carolina 58

Five black students and two white students were convicted of criminal trespass after sitting at a lunch counter in Durham, N.C., a city which had an ordinance requiring racial segregation in public eating places. In a per curiam opinion, the Court reversed the convictions citing Peterson v. City of Greenville .

Edwards v. South Carolina 59

One hundred eighty-seven black high school and college students were arrested for common law breach of peace after participating in a peaceful demonstration in Columbia on the grounds of the South Carolina State House. The students were protesting “discriminatory actions against Negroes in general.” While accepting South Carolina’s determination that the petitioners breached the peace, the Court held that “South Carolina infringed the petitioners’ constitutionally protected rights of free speech, free assembly, and freedom to petition for redress of their grievances.” 60

Gober v. City of Birmingham 61

Linked with Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham , below, in this case 10 black students were convicted of criminal trespass in Birmingham, Ala., for sitting at white lunch counters and failing to leave when requested to do so. In a per curiam opinion citing Peterson v. City of Greenville , decided the same day, the Court reversed the convictions.

Lombard v. Louisiana 62

This case involved three black students and one white student who sought to be served at a lunch counter in New Orleans, contrary to prior announcements by the mayor and superintendent of police that “‘sit-in demonstrations’ would not be permitted.” 63 The Court treated these “officials’ statements … exactly as if [New Orleans] had an ordinance prohibiting” desegregated service in restaurants, 64 and reversed the convictions. Justice Douglas concurred, noting privately owned enterprises open to the public are subject to regulation and may not discriminate.

Peterson v. City of Greenville 65

This case was the lynchpin of five civil rights cases announced on May 20, 1963, 66 and involved an attempt to desegregate a lunch counter by 10 young black men and women in Greenville, S.C., which had an ordinance prohibiting “furnish[ing] meals to white persons and colored persons in the same room, or at the same table, or at the same counter.” 67 Chief Justice Warren wrote the opinion, which reversed the convictions based on a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham 68

The two black ministers who had encouraged the students in Gober v. City of Birmingham , above, were convicted of “aiding and abetting a violation of the city criminal trespass ordinance.” 69 Chief Justice Warren, writing for the majority, noted that “[s]ince the convictions in Gober [had] been set aside, it follow[ed] that the present petitioners did not incite or aid and abet any crime, and that therefore their own convictions must be set aside. … [T]here can be no conviction for aiding and abetting someone to do an innocent act.” 70

Watson v. City of Memphis 71

Decided a week after Peterson and its brethren, this case involved the slow desegregation of municipal parks in Memphis, Tenn. Justice Goldberg wrote that “the city has completely failed to demonstrate any compelling or convincing reason requiring further delay in implementing the constitutional proscription of segregation of publicly owned or operated recreational facilities.” 72

Wright v. Georgia 73

Six young blacks “were convicted of breach of the peace for peacefully playing basketball in a public park [customarily used by whites] in Savannah, Ga.” 74 Chief Justice Warren wrote that “one cannot be punished for failing to obey the command of an officer if that command is itself violative of the Constitution.” 75

1. Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

2. Id. at 84.

3. Id. at 87.

4. Douglas v. California , 372 U.S. 353 (1963).

5. 187 Cal. App. 2d 802, 812, 10 Cal. Rptr. 188, 195.

6. Griffin v. Illinois , 351 U.S. 12 (1956).

7. Douglas, 372 U.S. at 356.

8. Id. at 357.

9. Draper v. Washington , 372 U.S. 487 (1963).

10. Id. at 493.

11. Id. at 500.

12. Griffin v. Illinois , 351 U.S. 12 (1956).

13. Eskridge v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms and Paroles , 357 U.S. 214 (1958).

14. Draper , 372 U.S. at 497; Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 446.

15. Fahy v. Connecticut , 375 U.S. 85 (1963).

16. 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

17. Fahy, 375 U.S. at 91.

18. Fay v. Noia , 372 U.S. 391 (1963).

19. Id. at 396.

20. Id. at 397.

21. Id . at 441.

22. Gideon v. Wainwright , 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

23. THE COURT: “Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint Counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time I can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense.” Id. at 337.

24. Powell v. Alabama , 287 U.S. 45 (1932).

25. Betts v. Brady , 316 U.S. 455 (1942).

26. Gideon, 372 U.S. at 343.

32. Haynes v. Washington , 373 U.S. 503 (1963).

33. Id. at 510-511.

34. Escobedo v. Illinois , 378 U.S. 478 (1964).

35. Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

36. Id. at 513.

37. Id. at 514.

38. Id. at 515.

39. Jones v. Cunningham , 371 U.S. 236 (1963).

40. Id. at 237.

41. Id. at 243.

42. Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471 (1963).

48. Id. at 487, citing Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States , 251 U.S. 385 (1920).

49. Id. at 488.

50. Id. at 490.

51. Id. at 491, citing Nardone v. United States , 308 U.S. 338 (1939).

52. Id. at 487-488.

53. Edwards v. South Carolina , 372 U.S. 229 (1963).

54. Avent v. North Carolina , 373 U.S. 375 (1963), Lombard v. Louisiana , 373 U.S. 267 (1963), and Peterson v. City of Greenville , 373 U.S. 244 (1963).

55. Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham , 373 U.S. 262 (1963).

56. Watson v. City of Memphis , 373 U.S. 526 (1963).

57. Wright v. Georgia , 373 U.S. 284 (1963).

58. Avent , supra note 2.

59. Edwards v. South Carolina , 372 U.S. 229 (1963).

60. Id. at 235.

61. Gober v. City of Birmingham , 373 U.S. 374 (1963).

62. Lombard v. Louisiana , 373 U.S. 267 (1963).

63. Id. at 267.

64. Id. at 273.

65. Peterson v. City of Greenville , 373 U.S. 244 (1963).

66. Gober , Lombard , Peterson , Shuttlesworth , and Wright were all decided on May 20, 1963.

67. Peterson , 373 U.S. at 246.

68. Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham , 373 U.S. 262 (1963).

69. Id . at 263.

70. Id. at 265.

71. Watson v. City of Memphis , 373 U.S. 526 (1963).

72. Id. at 539.

73. Wright v. Georgia , 373 U.S. 284 (1963).

74. Id . at 285.

75. Id. at 291-292.

Explore keywords to find information

These are sponsored ads

Upcoming Events

Featured events, 2023 post-dobbs defender skills summit, 2023 albert j. krieger annual meeting of nacdl, 2023 making the case for life seminar, 2023 defending modern drug cases seminar, featured products.

Cross-Examination Trial Pack

NACDL’s new Cross-Examination Trial Pack includes three of our best-selling Cross-Examination resources: “Damage Control: Situational Cross-Examination Techniques Trial Guide”, "Ultimate Cross 2.0: Audio Recordings & Written Materials" and "Sample Cross-Examination Questions."

This masterful collection of cross-examination resources provide countless tips, techniques and strategies for a variety of criminal case-specific scenarios. Learn to cross-examine a variety of trial witnesses!

Death Investigation: Forensic Pathology in the Courtroom and Cause & Manner of Death (2022)

This unique program provides criminal defense lawyers with an accurate and clear overview of forensic pathology and the countless factors to consider in a death investigation and will methodically explain what happens during an autopsy to determine cause and manner of death.

You'll uncover the different types of medicolegal death investigations, what to request from your MDI expert, quality benchmarks for accreditation and certification, guidelines and standards, common terminology and frequently asked questions.

The Psychology of Persuasion & Storytelling for Criminal Defense Lawyers

This Trial Resource Guide is a masterful collection of practical tips, techniques and strategies focused solely on using the arts and sciences of persuasion to improve your storytelling skills at trial.

You'll learn how to master the ability to communicate with juries, deliver powerful openings and closings, perform convincing cross-examinations, use effective courtroom choreography and non-verbal communication, identify and develop the optimal theme and theory for your case, and offer compelling arguments during mitigation and sentencing.

Zealous Advocacy in Sexual Assault & Child Victims Cases (2022)

Defending charges of sexual assault and child abuse can be daunting — but with the right tools, it doesn’t have to be. Every year, NACDL identifies the hottest topics and most pressing issues when defending these cases, and brings-in nationally-renowned lawyers and experts to help you prepare for battle. This year’s 13th Annual Defending Sex Cases training program is our best yet; packed with topics and speakers you won’t want to miss!

Supreme Court sides against Andy Warhol Foundation in copyright infringement case

Chloe Veltman

A portrait of Prince taken by Lynn Goldsmith (left) in 1981 and 16 silk-screened images Andy Warhol later created using the photo as a reference. Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States hide caption

A portrait of Prince taken by Lynn Goldsmith (left) in 1981 and 16 silk-screened images Andy Warhol later created using the photo as a reference.

In a 7-2 vote on Thursday , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Andy Warhol infringed on photographer Lynn Goldsmith's copyright when he created a series of silk screen images based on a photograph Goldsmith shot of the late musician Prince in 1981.

The high-profile case, which pits an artist's freedom to riff on existing works of art against the protection of an artist from copyright infringement, hinges on whether Warhol's images of Prince transform Goldsmith's photograph to a great enough degree to stave off claims of copyright infringement and therefore be considered as "fair use." Under copyright law, fair use permits the unlicensed appropriation of copyright-protected works in specific circumstances, for example, in some non-commercial or educational cases.

Goldsmith owns the copyright to her Prince photograph. She sued the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts (AWF) for copyright infringement after the foundation licensed an image of Warhol's titled Orange Prince (based on Goldsmith's image of the pop artist) to Conde Nast in 2016 for use in its publication, Vanity Fair.

Goldsmith did license the use of her Prince photo to Vanity Fair back in 1984, when the magazine commissioned Warhol to create a silkscreen work based on Goldsmith's photo and then used an image of Warhol's piece to accompany an article they ran that year about the musician. But that was only for the one-time use of the image. According to the Supreme Court opinion, the magazine credited Goldsmith and paid her $400 at the time for its use of her "source photograph."

Andy Warhol pictured in February 1980. John Minihan/Evening Standard/Getty Images hide caption

Andy Warhol pictured in February 1980.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court.

"Goldsmith's original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists," wrote Sotomayor in her opinion. "Such protection includes the right to prepare derivative works that transform the original."

She added, "The use of a copyrighted work may nevertheless be fair if, among other things, the use has a purpose and character that is sufficiently distinct from the original. In this case, however, Goldsmith's original photograph of Prince, and AWF's copying use of that photograph in an image licensed to a special edition magazine devoted to Prince, share substantially the same purpose, and the use is of a commercial nature."

A federal district court had previously ruled in favor of the Andy Warhol Foundation. It found Warhol's work to be transformative enough in relation to Goldsmith's original to invoke fair use protection. But that ruling was subsequently overturned by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Justice Elena Kagan's dissent, shared by Chief Justice John Roberts, stated: "It will stifle creativity of every sort. It will impede new art and music and literature. It will thwart the expression of new ideas and the attainment of new knowledge. It will make our world poorer."

Joel Wachs, President of The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, shared the two dissenting justices' views in an emailed statement the foundation sent to NPR.

"We respectfully disagree with the Court's ruling that the 2016 licensing of Orange Prince was not protected by the fair use doctrine," wrote Wachs. "Going forward, we will continue standing up for the rights of artists to create transformative works under the Copyright Act and the First Amendment."

Legal experts contacted for this story agreed with the Supreme Court's decision.

"If the underlying art is recognizable in the new art, then you've got a problem," said Columbia Law School professor of law, science and technology Timothy Wu in an interview with NPR's Nina Totenberg.

Entertainment attorney Albert Soler, a partner with the New York law firm Scarinci Hollenbeck, said that the commercial use of the photograph back in 1984 as well as in 2016 makes the case for fair use difficult to argue in this instance.

"One of the factors courts look at is whether the work is for commercial use or some other non-commercial use like education?" Soler said. "In this case, it was a series of works that were for a commercial purpose according to the Supreme Court, and so there was no fair use."

Soler added the Supreme Court's ruling is likely to have a big impact on cases involving the "sampling" of existing artworks in the future.

"This supreme court case opens up the floodgates for many copyright infringement lawsuits against many artists," said Soler. "The analysis is going to come down to whether or not it's transformative in nature. Does the new work have a different purpose?"

Wu disagrees about the ruling's importance. "It's a narrow opinion focused primarily on very famous artists and their use of other people's work," Wu said. "I don't think it's a broad reaching opinion."

Andy Warhol

A patient prepares to take mifepristone, the first pill given in a medical abortion.

Abortion pill case: where does the lawsuit against the pill currently stand?

The fifth circuit court of appeals is considering the future of mifepristone after the supreme court blocked new restrictions

On Wednesday, the fifth circuit court of appeals will consider the future of mifepristone, a crucial drug used in over half of US abortions, after a district court judge ruled the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was wrong to approve it more than two decades ago. Access to the drug remains unchanged in states where abortion is still legal while the case proceeds.

The hearings follow a lengthy succession of court judgments. In late April , the supreme court blocked court-ordered restrictions on mifepristone while a lawsuit brought by anti-abortion groups targeting the pill continues.

The lawsuit is the most significant abortion rights case to make its way through the courts since Roe v Wade was overturned in 2022. Fourteen states have banned abortion in the last 11 months, but new restrictions on the pill would apply even in states where the procedure is still allowed.

What happened?

In November a lawsuit was filed by the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), arguing that the FDA exceeded its regulatory authority and ignored safety concerns when it approved mifepristone – a drug that blocks progesterone, a hormone needed for a pregnancy to develop – more than two decades ago. The FDA vigorously rejected those arguments, pointing to repeated and rigorous reviews of the highly regulated drug.

A Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas , Matthew Kacsmaryk, sided with the plaintiffs, issuing a preliminary injunction on 7 April suspending the FDA’s 23-year-old approval of mifepristone. He also endorsed the plaintiffs’ views that a previously dormant, 150-year-old anti-vice law called the Comstock Act “plainly forecloses mail-order abortion”.

The ADF is thought to have chosen to file the lawsuit in Amarillo, Texas, specifically so it would appear before Kacsmaryk , who is known for his anti-abortion views, and employed anti-abortion rhetoric throughout his decision, referring to mifepristone as a drug used to “kill the unborn human”.

The Biden administration took the decision to the fifth circuit court of appeals, where two judges – also appointed by Donald Trump – blocked the part of the ruling overturning the FDA’s initial 2000 approval of mifepristone, but reimposed restrictions on the drug previously lifted by the FDA. They include limiting mifepristone use after seven weeks of pregnancy – it is currently approved through 10 weeks – and banning delivery by mail. The FDA had decided in 2021 to remove the drug’s in-person dispensing requirement during the pandemic, which broadened access by allowing the drug to be prescribed via telehealth and sent in the mail.

The Biden administration appealed the ruling to the supreme court, which temporarily blocked the lower courts’ decisions, returning the case to the fifth circuit. The high court also ruled that access to the pill will remain unchanged for the duration of the suit, which will very likely make its way back to the supreme court.

What is the status of the abortion pill?

For the moment, mifepristone has not been banned and access remains unaffected as the case proceeds. Misoprostol, the second drug commonly administered alongside mifepristone to induce a medical abortion, is not at issue in this lawsuit.

Even a supreme court ruling should have little impact in states where abortion is already banned: neither misoprostol nor mifepristone has been legally available for abortions in these states since bans came into place after the fall of Roe.

While misoprostol – which helps to empty the uterus by causing the cervix to soften and dilate, and the uterus to contract – can be used safely on its own, it is less effective. Misoprostol-only abortions result in successful termination 88% of the time, and with more complicated side-effects and more need for follow-up care, recent research has shown .

Some of the main abortion providers – including Planned Parenthood, Carafem and Abortion Delivered – have confirmed that they are prepared to prescribe a misoprostol-only regimen for abortions in the event of mifepristone being pulled off the market. Aid Access, the international group that ships abortion pills to the US, trialled misoprostol-only regimens for abortions during the pandemic, with success.

What does the Comstock Act have to do with it?

Court watchers are looking out for what the judges will say, if anything, about the Comstock Act – an 1873 anti-vice law banning certain products such as contraceptives, pornography and abortifacients from being sent through the mail. That law has effectively long been dead in the water, but the plaintiffs have tried to revive it, suggesting that the FDA ran afoul of the Comstock Act when it made pills obtainable by mail in 2021. Other anti-abortion activists have made similar efforts to bring back the law, viewing it as a possible avenue for banning abortion nationwide.

The Department of Justice issued an opinion on Comstock in December 2022, clarifying its own opinion that the law does not apply when the sender of pills intends for them to be used lawfully. When the appeals court first considered the mifepristone case in April, the panel of judges seemed to favor the plaintiffs’ arguments on Comstock, writing that the “plain text” of of the law prohibits the mailing of abortion drugs, regardless of whether they are intended for abortions.

If Comstock is ultimately affirmed as good law, it would have sweeping impacts on abortion in the US, as it could also be read to ban the mailing of any instrument used to perform abortions.

What could this case mean for abortion access?

If mifepristone becomes less available, and since medication abortion accounts for more than half of US abortions, providers fear a surge of demand on clinics providing surgical procedures. Many are already under strain from an increase in patients traveling from states where abortion is banned or heavily restricted.

Online pharmacies and other telehealth providers have proliferated since Roe v Wade was overturned, enabled by the FDA’s 2021 decision to allow abortion pills to be sent in the mail . If the courts ultimately rule that mifepristone cannot be mailed, this could shutter those businesses.

Do the implications of the case go beyond abortion?

The Biden administration, along with a coalition of pharmaceutical companies, warned of ensuing regulatory chaos around drug approvals should the judiciary be permitted to order regulations on mifepristone opposed by the FDA.

“If this ruling were to stand, then there will be virtually no prescription, approved by the FDA, that would be safe from these kinds of political, ideological attacks,” Biden said in a written statement after Kacsmaryk’s decision in early April.

Adelsperger v. Elkside Development LLC

Elkside Development, LLC (Elkside) owned and operated the Osprey Point RV Resort in Lakeside, Oregon. Part of Elkside’s business model involved selling membership contracts that conferred free use of the campground, among other benefits. In April 2017, Barnett Resorts LLC, an Oregon limited liability company operated by member-managers Stefani and Chris Barnett, purchased Elkside. Shortly after the purchase, the Barnetts sent a letter to all campground members, identifying them as “owners” of the resort, and indicating that they would not honor Elkside’s membership contracts. Plaintiffs, a group of 71 people who, collectively, were party to 39 membership contracts with Elkside, brought suit alleging a variety of claims against Stefani and Chris Barnett individually, and against the company, Barnett Resorts LLC. On appeal, this case raised three issues relating to: (1) a breach of contract claim; (2) an intentional interference with contract claim; and (3) a statutory claim of elder abuse, based on the fact that the majority of the membership contracts had been held by plaintiffs over the age of 65. As to the claims against the Barnetts individually, the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, relying on ORS 63.165 and Cortez v. Nacco Materials Handling Group, 337 P3d 111 (2014). Plaintiffs argued, in part, that whether ORS 63.165 shielded the Barnetts from liability required considering whether their actions were entirely in support of the LLC, or whether they were, instead, in furtherance of a non-LLC individual motive. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. The Oregon Supreme Court allowed review and reversed in part the Court of Appeals and the trial court. Specifically, the Supreme Court reversed as to the elder abuse claim, affirmed as to the breach of contract claim, and affirmed the intentional interference claim by an equally divided court.

When the resort was sold, Plaintiffs, a group of 71 people who, collectively, were party to 39 membership contracts, sued the resort's new owners for breach of contract, intention interference with contract, and elder abuse.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Get free summaries of new Oregon Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox!

Small Business Trends

Georgia-based it firm settles discrimination case.

American CyberSystems Inc., operating under the name Innova Solutions, has come under fire for discriminatory hiring practices, according to a recent announcement by the Justice Department. The Georgia-based IT staffing and services company’s case offers a crucial lesson for small business owners on the importance of understanding and adhering to federal hiring regulations.

Following a thorough investigation, the department revealed that American CyberSystems was in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The company had been recruiting for two distinct positions and had unlawfully excluded potential candidates based on their citizenship statuses in its job advertisements.

Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke, of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, emphasized the gravity of this violation: “Employers cannot unlawfully discriminate against individuals based on their citizenship status when they advertise job opportunities, plain and simple.” She added that this settlement demonstrates their commitment to ensuring employers toe the line with legal requirements, and that any form of citizenship-based discrimination will not be tolerated.

One of the discriminatory advertisements from the company was specifically targeting U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents for a role that would require access to materials subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The investigation concluded that the company had no justification for excluding U.S. nationals, refugees, and asylees, who are permitted equal access to export-controlled items under the same regulations, without needing specific authorization.

In another instance, American CyberSystems ran an unrelated advertisement, which selectively sought out workers with temporary work visas, thereby discriminating against immigrant and U.S. citizen workers.

This landmark settlement necessitates that American CyberSystems provides training to its recruitment and human resources staff concerning the anti-discrimination provision of the INA. The company must also review and modify its policies to ensure compliance with all relevant laws and will be subjected to departmental monitoring and reporting requirements. As part of the settlement, the company will be required to pay a civil penalty due to its discriminatory ads.

The case stands as a stark reminder to small business owners about the importance of thorough understanding and implementation of hiring laws and anti-discrimination practices. The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division provides a multitude of resources to assist employers in understanding their responsibilities. This includes a newly released fact sheet that clarifies employers’ obligations under the INA and emphasizes that these requirements do not change when in compliance with export-control laws and regulations.

All businesses, regardless of their size, must ensure their hiring practices are non-discriminatory and inclusive. A clear understanding of the federal laws and regulations, coupled with regular staff training and diligent monitoring of compliance, can protect businesses from legal repercussions and foster an environment of fairness and inclusivity.

As the Justice Department reinforces their commitment to ensuring legal hiring practices, this case study should prompt all business owners, especially those operating small enterprises, to take a comprehensive look at their hiring policies to ensure they’re inclusive, fair, and within the legal framework.

Get the latest headlines from Small Business Trends. Follow us on Google News .

Image: Depositphotos Comment ▼

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Appeals court hears arguments in abortion pill case

A panel of three federal court judges heard arguments Wednesday in a case that could force a major abortion pill off the market nationwide, including in states where abortion is legal.

The case hinges on whether the Food and Drug Administration's approval of mifepristone , as well as subsequent actions making the drug easier to obtain, should be rolled back.

Abortion rights advocates have said the lawsuit has the potential to decimate nationwide access to medication abortion, which makes up over half of all abortions in the United States.

The panel of judges on the New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, considered among the most conservative in the country, is the latest federal court to weigh in on the case after a federal judge in Texas ordered a hold on FDA approval of mifepristone in April. The ruling was stayed pending appeal.

The Supreme Court last month decided mifepristone would remain available as the case made its way through the court system.

OTHER LAWSUITS With eyes on Texas mifepristone case, 2 other abortion pill lawsuits 'flying under the radar'

What happens now in mifepristone case?

The three-judge panel won't issue a ruling on the case immediately. Once a decision is made, it is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Department attorneys defend FDA approval

U.S. Department of Justice attorneys representing the FDA urged the panel to overturn last month's ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas, that sought to suspend mifepristone's FDA approval.

During an opening statement by Justice Department attorney Sarah Harrington, judges were quick to push back, including at Harrington's description of the case as "unprecedented." Judge James Ho said challenging the FDA's expertise in court was not unprecedented, to which Harrington said, "But I don’t think there’s ever been any court that has vacated FDA’s determination that a drug is safe to be on the market."

Harrington also argued that the doctors bringing the lawsuit have not shown they've been directly harmed by others prescribing mifepristone or forced to provide care that violates their beliefs. The judges also pushed back on this assertion and raised concerns about the safety of mifepristone, citing a study widely denounced by medical experts .

Justice Department attorneys and lawyers representing drugmaker Danco Laboratories argued in support of the safety and effectiveness of mifepristone and said the plaintiffs "used false math" in their case. The defendants also said withdrawing FDA approval will have ripple effects on dozens of other FDA-approved drugs .

Anti-abortion groups push to reverse FDA approval of mifepristone

Meanwhile, attorneys representing the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a coalition of anti-abortion groups led by the Alliance Defending Freedom, claimed mifepristone is unsafe and its approval should be reversed.

"This case is not about ending abortion, it’s about ending a particularly dangerous type of abortion," said Erin Hawley, senior counsel for Alliance for Defending Freedom.

Hawley said doctors have "been forced to participate in and complete elective abortions, contrary to their consciences."

The defendants have argued that mifepristone rarely results in complications and that doctors can refuse to participate in procedures they believe are contrary to their consciences.

MIFEPRISTONE 'SAFER THAN TYLENOL' Experts say amid court battle over major abortion pill

Federal court judges have history of supporting abortion restrictions

The three judges that make up the panel — Ho, Jennifer Walker Elrod, and Cory Wilson — each have a history of supporting abortion restrictions.

Elrod was among 5th Circuit judges who allowed Texas to temporarily ban abortions as the COVID-19 pandemic took hold. She co-authored an opinion that upheld a 2021 Texas law outlawing an abortion method commonly used in the second trimester. And she was part of a panel that refused to require Louisiana to issue a license for a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in New Orleans.

Ho, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, was nominated to the 5th Circuit by President Donald Trump in 2017. In a 2018 opinion, he called abortion a "moral tragedy." In the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case, which went on to lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Ho criticized a lower court for displaying "an alarming disrespect for the millions of Americans who believe … that abortion is the immoral, tragic, and violent taking of innocent human life.."

'NO DRUG IS SAFE' Mifepristone court battle could threaten access to other FDA-approved drugs

Wilson, nominated to the court by Trump in 2020, supported anti-abortion measures while serving in the Mississippi House from 2016 to 2019, including voting to stop Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood facilities in the state and to prohibit most abortions after 15 weeks.

"This is one of the worst panels of judges that could have been assembled for those who believe that mifepristone should remain on the market," said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, adding that "we have to be prepared for all possible outcomes."

"If the plaintiffs were to succeed in this case, the effects would be extraordinarily dangerous and far-ranging," Dalven said. "It would be devastating for patients seeking abortion and miscarriage care and would be catastrophic for Americans in terms of their access to a wide range of critical medications."

STATES RESPOND Some states stockpile abortion pills after Texas judge's ruling on mifepristone

Is mifepristone safe?

As the case has ricocheted through the court system, leading medical associations and health experts have pointed to mifepristone's decades-long safety record and studies showing it to be safer than common drugs such as Tylenol and Viagra.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists call mifepristone safe and effective for abortion and miscarriage care.

The drug has been discussed in more than 780 medical reviews and used in more than 630 published clinical trials, according to the AMA. It has also long been approved for use in 19 countries. In France and China, mifepristone was approved for abortion care in 1988, years before the FDA approved the drug in 2000.

"This medication has been used safely and effectively in the United States by over 5 million pregnant people for the past 23 years and today accounts for more than half of all abortions in the United States," said Ushma Upadhyay, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, San Francisco, who studies contraception and abortion care. "Study after study demonstrates the strong safety rating of over 99%."

'CHAOS AND CONFUSION' Abortion rights advocates across US speak out after latest setback

Contributing: The Associated Press

WKRN News 2

What is ‘mad cow disease’ and how does it spread?

by: Sierra Rains

Posted: May 22, 2023 / 11:23 AM CDT

Updated: May 22, 2023 / 01:23 PM CDT

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — A case of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as “mad cow disease,” was detected in South Carolina last weekend— marking the first time a cow in the United States has tested positive for the disease since 2018.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced in a May 19 press release that a 5-year-old cow at a slaughter plant in South Carolina tested positive for an atypical case of the neurological disease. The identification tag on the animal was linked to a herd in Tennessee.

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) , BSE is a neurological disease that gradually damages a cow’s central nervous system. A sick cow typically has trouble walking and may act very nervous or violent, which is why BSE is often called “mad cow disease.”

Once a cow starts to show symptoms, it gets sicker and sicker until it dies or is euthanized, usually within two weeks to six months, according to the FDA.

Can people, other animals get ‘mad cow disease’?

Other animals like sheep, goats and deer can also get sick with their own versions of BSE.

According to the FDA, cats are the only known household pet to have a version of BSE, called feline spongiform encephalopathy. However, the disease has not ever been detected in a cat in the United States.

People can also get a version of BSE called variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD). As of 2019, 232 people worldwide have become sick with vCJD, and according to the FDA, they all have died. Scientists believe they got the disease from eating food made from cows sick with BSE.

Only four people living in the U.S. have gotten sick with vCJD as of 2019, and according to the FDA, those people likely became infected while they were traveling overseas. People cannot get BSE from drinking milk or eating dairy products, even if the products came from a sick cow.

The variant form of CJD is different from the classic form of CJD, which according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) , is an endemic throughout the world. Most cases of classic CJD haven’t been linked to eating beef.

First case of BSE detected in U.S.

“Mad cow disease” was first discovered in the United Kingdom, where thousands of cows were affected by an outbreak in the mid-1990s. As concern grew overseas, the U.S. banned imports of British beef.

However, according to the USDA , the first North American case of BSE was reported in Alberta, Canada in May 2003. A few months later, a dairy cow that was imported from Canada to Washington State tested positive for BSE.

In response, the USDA’s Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) tested nearly 1 million animals and implemented further preventative measures, such as restricting certain meat collection methods thought to present a risk, as more was learned about the disease.

Many of those safeguards are still in place today, the USDA reported.

How do cows get ‘mad cow disease’?

According to the FDA, most scientists think that BSE is caused by a protein called a prion. For reasons that are not completely understood, the normal prion protein changes into an abnormal prion protein that is harmful to the animal’s brain structure.

The body of the sick cow does not even know the prion is there, and the USDA reports that it can take up to three to six years for clinical signs of infection to appear.

There are two general types of BSE, classical and atypical, but according to the USDA, neither form is contagious. Classical BSE spreads after a cow eats feed containing meat or bone meal from a cow that was sick with “mad cow disease.”

Because of BSE, the FDA banned the use of ruminant protein in feed for ruminants like cattle, sheep, deer and giraffes in 1997. The FDA also prohibited the use of certain high-risk tissues of cattle in feed for all animals in 2009.

The other type of BSE is more of a mystery. According to the USDA, atypical BSE occurs rarely and spontaneously, and is not associated with contaminated feed or consumption of infected materials. Instead, a spontaneous change in the prion protein causes atypical BSE.

Scientists are studying whether genetics or environmental factors may contribute to atypical BSE.

Latest detection of BSE an ‘isolated case’

The latest case of atypical BSE is the nation’s 7th detection of “mad cow disease.” According to the CDC, six out of the seven cases of BSE in the U.S. have been diagnosed as atypical BSE. The only classical case of BSE in the U.S. was in 2003.

In a press release, South Carolina State Veterinarian, Michael Neault, director of Clemson University Livestock Poultry Health, said the detection of BSE in South Carolina was “an isolated case” and that safeguards “prevented entry into the public and animal food supply systems.”

⏩ Read today’s top stories on wkrn.com

The animal was tested as a part of APHIS’s routine surveillance of cattle that are deemed unsuitable for slaughter, according to the USDA.

APHIS and veterinary officials in South Carolina and Tennessee are still gathering more information in an ongoing investigation, but the latest detection is not expected to have any trade or health impacts.

Best facial sunscreens that won’t leave residue behind

The best facial sunscreens for your skin offer excellent SPF without a white cast.

The best way to monitor and limit your kid’s social …

While adults must be aware of the example they set, there are ways to monitor and limit your kid’s social media use.

How to choose the perfect college graduation gift

When the studying is complete, the grades are recorded and the degree is in sight, it’s time to begin your search for the perfect college graduation gift.

Thanks for signing up!

Watch for us in your inbox.

Subscribe Now

News 2 Breaking News

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tennessee-man-is-released-after-overturned-murder-conviction-from-decades-ago-fab23092

Tennessee Man Is Released After Overturned Murder Conviction From Decades Ago

Case comes as state judges give inmates latitude to renew innocence claims based on new scientific evidence.

PULASKI, Tenn.—A Tennessee man was released from prison Tuesday after serving more than 20 years for a murder that a court found he didn’t commit, the latest in a series of state convictions that have been thrown out after judges gave inmates more room to make fresh innocence claims.

Most Popular news

A housing bust comes for thousands of small-time investors.

That $6,000 Vacation Isn’t Worth It Right Now

Biden Has No Good Options in Debt-Ceiling Fight

Retirement in Paradise Isn’t Without Financial Headaches

Why Inflation Erupted: Two Top Economists Have the Answer

Most Popular opinion

Opinion: inflation has peaked—get ready for deflation.

Opinion: These Aren’t Tommy Lasorda’s Dodgers

Opinion: A Lawsuit to Protect Pensions From Climate Politics

Opinion: The NAACP Expels Florida From the Union

Opinion: Will Illinois Still ‘Invest in Kids’?

Chemical Communications

Visible light-mediated photolysis of organic molecules: the case study of diazo compounds.

* Corresponding authors

a Institute of Chemistry, State University of Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil E-mail: [email protected]

Considering the recent rapid advancement of synthetic technologies promoted by visible light in the last 15 years, the use of photocatalysts has been rightfully justified based on the fact that organic molecules generally do not absorb visible light. However, an increasing number of different classes of organic molecules is being identified as actually directly absorbing in this region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Among them, diazo compounds are possibly one of these classes whose chemistry has been more explored so far. Indeed, irradiation of these compounds with visible light has been introduced as a mild photolytic strategy generally leading to free carbene intermediates. This strategy not only allows for a more cost-economical approach revealing similar outcomes to some previously reported thermal, metal-catalyzed transformations; but it can also eventually lead to different reactivities. Herein, we will present the contributions of our laboratory and of other groups to this research area, along with some important elements of design behind the development of selected reaction profiles, aiming to provide the reader with an overall view of the current state of the art.

Graphical abstract: Visible light-mediated photolysis of organic molecules: the case study of diazo compounds

This article is part of the themed collection: 2023 Pioneering Investigators

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

R. D. C. Gallo, G. Cariello, T. A. C. Goulart and I. D. Jurberg, Chem. Commun. , 2023, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D3CC00988B

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

IMAGES

Is Case 63 Real? Is the Podcast Based on a True Story?
Case 63 by Gimlet Productions podcast review
Case 63
Case 63
Case 63
Case 63

VIDEO

मैंने ये किया है 🤭#
PA ARISTO KA OR PUNTA KA NA LANG?
Rep. Jordan defends Trump amid indictment reports
How To Show FPS On Steam Games
Chinese Biryani Recipe
CANCELLED NATALIA, ESTES REVAMP, TALENTS

COMMENTS

'Case 63': How Julianne Moore and Oscar Isaac Created Chemistry in the
Case 63 —which is based on a Spanish-language podcast that became a popular pandemic listen in Latin America—relies on the chemistry of its two leads. There's no faking it: The two-hander ...
Case 63 Ending, Explained: How Does Dr. Eliza End Up in 2012?
Case 63 is indeed Peter Roiter, the time traveler. The story about Oliver Collins is merely a cover-up story for Peter to escape the hospital and ensure that more people don't become aware of the critical knowledge he has shared with Dr. Eliza Knight. When Peter talks about time travel, he mentions a few vital concepts for Eliza to understand ...
Case 63
Case 63 is a science fiction podcast produced by Gimlet Media and FortySix with Julianne Moore and Oscar Isaac starring as the protagonists. It is a remake of a Chilean podcast, Caso 63. The show was released on October 25, 2022. Background.
Is Case 63 Real? Is the Podcast Based on a True Story?
No, 'Case 63' is not based on a true story. Adapted by Mara Vélez Meléndez, the podcast series is the English adaptation of a Chilean podcast series titled 'Caso 63,' created and written by Julio Rojas. The Chilean podcast is driven by a fictional narrative that uses real-world events such as the Covid-19 pandemic and pre-existing ...
Can Case 63's ending be explained? 'We're not talking ...
Following its initial release on November 12, 2020, Case 63 (or Caso 63 in the original Spanish) was a hit. A second season followed on November 11, 2021, introducing two new characters.
Case 63 Ending Explained: How Did The Spotify Original ...
Caso 63 by Julio Rojas is translated into English for this ten-episode podcast. A fictional world war's events and settings are also covered by Julio Rojas. In addition to building tension, this leaves the listener wondering what proportion of what he is experiencing may be accurate. In Case 63, Moore and Isaac, who are both incredibly well ...
could Case 63 be a breakthrough for audio drama?
It is adapted from the Chilean series, Caso 63, written by Julio Rojas, which has been a huge hit in Latin America. Set in the present day, Case 63 is essentially a two-hander between Moore and ...
Is Case 63 A True Story? What Is The Show All About?
The concept itself sounds highly questionable! Our estimates say Case 63 is not based on a true story! ALSO READ - Is The Lovely Bones Based On A True Story? The Truth Behind The Lovely Bones! Case 63 Synopsis . It all started when Case 63 knocked at the door of Dr. Eliza Knight. Simple therapy sessions changed into a game of reality and ...
Case 63 Ending Explained: A Mind-Bending Sci-Fi Thriller!
What Is Case 63 All About? This podcast series is based on the concept that Peter Roiter (Oscar Isaac), a patient of Eliza Beatrix Knight (Julianne Moore), a psychiatrist in New York City, who refers to him as Case 63, is persuaded that he is a time traveler from the year 2062.When viewed from the perspective of Dr. Eliza Knight, Case 63 is more interesting for listeners because Julianne Moore ...
Spotify Case 63 Podcast With Julianne Moore, Oscar Isaac ...
Things get supernaturally weird in Spotify 's scripted original podcast drama "Case 63," starring Julianne Moore and Oscar Isaac, set to debut later this month. All 10 episodes of "Case 63 ...
Spotify's Case 63 Fiction Podcast W/Julianne Moore Premieres
Case 63 was my very first audio experience, and I was able to see firsthand how immersive and impactful podcasting is as a mode of storytelling," said Julianne Moore. "It is a thrilling and ...
Case 63
Listen to Case 63 on Spotify. New York psychiatrist Dr. Eliza Knight (Academy Award winner Julianne Moore) begins treating a patient registered as Case 63 (Emmy nominee Oscar Isaac) who claims to be from the year 2062. What begins as routine therapeutic sessions quickly turns into a story that threatens the boundaries of the possible and the real.
Case 63
New York psychiatrist Dr. Eliza Knight (Academy Award winner Julianne Moore) begins treating a patient registered as Case 63 (Emmy nominee Oscar Isaac) who claims to be from the year 2062. What begins as routine therapeutic sessions quickly turns into a story that threatens the boundaries of the possible and the real.
Case 63 is a slick, twisty thriller with Julianne Moore and Oscar Isaac
Case 63 (Spotify exclusive) is a tense, twisty, suspenseful sci-fi thriller starring the Oscar-winner Julianne Moore and Oscar Isaac. She brings a raw vulnerability, Isaac a dashing desperado ...
Case 63: the audio series of the time traveler and the end of the world
Case 63 has ten episodes in each season. The first premiered on November 11, 2020, and left a second one standing. That is why Spotify premiered a second season, which is as cryptic and mysterious as the first, for fans who were obsessed after listening to the first installment and can finally know what the future or the past has in store for ...
Mind-Bending Chilean Podcast Gets English Adaptation With 'Case 63
" Case 63 was my very first audio experience and I was able to see firsthand how immersive and impactful podcasting is as a mode of storytelling," Julianne told For the Record. "It is a thrilling and timely story—incredibly mysterious and romantic, suspenseful, and strange. And the opportunity to work with my friends Oscar Isaac and ...
Case 63: Julianne Moore & Oscar Isaac to lead English language ...
Case 63, Latin America's most popular podcast, ... NECA will be releasing an action figure based on the Dog Creature from John Carpenter's the Thing in September. 5 hours ago.
Case 63 Review: Spotify Strikes Gold With Devourable Audio Thriller
Case 63 is the English adaptation of Caso 63, Spotify's most listened-to scripted Original podcast in Latin America. Moore and Isaac executive produce and star in the series, brought to us by ...
The Class of '63: Major Supreme Court Cases of the 1963 Term
Within this historical and legal context, the Court decided several significant criminal justice cases in 1963. Brady v. Maryland1. (7-2) This was the most significant case involving criminal procedure and due process decided by the Supreme Court during the year 1963. Much more discussion about Brady and its impact is found throughout this ...
Supreme Court sides against Andy Warhol Foundation in copyright case : NPR
In a 7-2 vote on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Andy Warhol infringed on photographer Lynn Goldsmith's copyright when he created a series of silk screen images based on a photograph ...
Abortion pill case: where does the lawsuit against the pill currently
The lawsuit is the most significant abortion rights case to make its way through the courts since Roe v Wade was overturned in 2022. Fourteen states have banned abortion in the last 11 months, but ...
Adelsperger v. Elkside Development LLC :: 2023
Plaintiffs were correct. The trial court's grant of summary judgment—based solely on ORS 63.165, without consideration of whether the Barnetts were acting within their authority for the benefit of the corporation, or for individual Cite as 371 Or 61 (2023) 75 motives—was misplaced, and the trial court erred. See, e.g., Bova v.
Man accused of kidnapping Hillsboro Subway owner has case ...
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Georgia-Based IT Firm Settles Discrimination Case
The Georgia-based IT staffing and services company's case offers a crucial lesson for small business owners on the importance of understanding and adhering to federal hiring regulations. Following a thorough investigation, the department revealed that American CyberSystems was in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Abortion pill case: Judges hear arguments in mifepristone lawsuit
The panel of judges on the New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, considered among the most conservative in the country, is the latest federal court to weigh in on the case after a ...
TN Mad Cow Disease: First U.S. positive case since 2018
The latest case of atypical BSE is the nation's 7th detection of "mad cow disease." According to the CDC, six out of the seven cases of BSE in the U.S. have been diagnosed as atypical BSE.
Tennessee Man Is Released After Overturned Murder Conviction From
The case involving Wayne Burgess is the latest in a series of state convictions that have been thrown out after judges gave inmates more room to make fresh innocence claims.
Visible light-mediated photolysis of organic molecules: the case study
Considering the recent rapid advancement of synthetic technologies promoted by visible light in the last 15 years, the use of photocatalysts has been rightfully justified based on the fact that organic molecules generally do not absorb visible light. However, an increasing number of different classes of organic mol 2023 Pioneering Investigators

Article information

Social activity

Advertisements

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS