Come Back With a Warrant

About Come Back With a Warrant

Ever wonder if cops can really do that? Or why someone would take a plea deal if they’re innocent? Come Back With a Warrant is a bold, no-BS criminal defense podcast hosted by two former courtroom rivals turned co-hosts. Monica Ishak (former public defender) and Brandon Dinetz (former prosecutor) pull back the curtain on the legal system…one real case, viral moment, and wild courtroom story at a time. With sharp insight and unapologetic wit, they break down your rights, challenge legal myths, and go where most lawyers won’t. Whether you’re law-curious, true crime–obsessed, or just want the drama without the fluff, this is your front-row seat to how criminal law actually works.

Publisher

Brandon Dinetz & Monica Ishak

Category

society & culture · true crime

Language

en

Explicit

Yes

First episode

24 Jul 2025

Latest episode

20 Oct 2026

Latest episodes

64 episodes in the feed.

1. 

   20 Oct 2026

   Ep. 63 - Mike Caruso: Palm Beach County's Clerk of Courts Arrested — Cruise Ship Jurisdiction & a Death Penalty Irony

   In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, Palm Beach County criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down the case that hits closest to home in the show's history: the arrest of Mike Caruso, Palm Beach County's own Clerk of Courts — the office that holds every court file the hosts have ever touched. Caruso, a 67-year-old CPA and former Republican state representative appointed Clerk by Governor DeSantis, was arrested on child sex abuse charges and suspended by the Governor the same morning. The alleged victim is his young grandson, and everything in this episode comes straight from the arrest warrant affidavit the Governor's office attached to the executive order — because in Florida, that's public record.Monica and Brandon are clear up front: these are allegations, Caruso has pleaded not guilty, he has hired excellent counsel, and he is presumed innocent. What makes the case legally fascinating is where the alleged conduct happened — beginning in Orange County and culminating aboard a Royal Caribbean cruise ship out of the Port of Miami, in international waters. That sets up a genuine jurisdictional puzzle: Florida's special maritime jurisdiction law for cruise ship crimes, the "continuing offense" theory the State actually chose instead, why the case landed in Orange County rather than Miami-Dade or federal court, and why the kidnapping count — which rests entirely on what allegedly happened on the ship — may be the most vulnerable charge in the case.The hosts also dig into the evidence problems on both sides: why the cruise ship's CCTV footage was almost certainly recorded over before anyone asked for it, the recorded statements Caruso made to family and on a controlled call — and why talking that much is never the move — the Williams rule fight over prior allegations that were investigated and closed as unfounded, the no-bond detention motion, and the fact that Florida has no parole. And then the twist nobody could script: the State's motion notes this case could carry a death sentence under Florida's 2023 law making sexual abuse of a child under 12 a capital offense — a law Mike Caruso voted for as a state representative, and one that sits on a collision course with existing U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Plus the Marsy's Law controversy over the victim information released with the executive order, and who's running the Clerk's office now.Topics covered in this episode include: the Mike Caruso arrest explained, the Palm Beach County Clerk of Courts charges, jurisdiction for crimes on cruise ships, Florida's special maritime jurisdiction law, the continuing offense theory, kidnapping and lewd or lascivious molestation charges, life felonies in Florida, Williams rule evidence and prior bad acts, pretrial detention and no-bond motions, Florida's death penalty law for child sex crimes, Marsy's Law and victim privacy, and Florida public records law.🎧 Leave us a 5 Star Review! Follow us for legal hot takes, episode updates, and a peek into our lawyer lives.📺 YouTube: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Podcast📸 Instagram: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod🎵 TikTok: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod Find us everywhere and join the conversation! See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

2. 

   13 Oct 2026

   Ep. 62 - The Cornell 7: The Fraternity Case — the Lawsuit, the Reopened Investigation & What Happens Next

   In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, criminal defense attorneys Monica Ishak and Brandon Dinetz break down the Cornell 7 case: the new civil lawsuit against seven Cornell University fraternity brothers, the District Attorney's decision to reopen the investigation, and what the headlines are getting wrong about the law.The case stems from the night of October 19–20, 2024, at the Chi Phi fraternity house on Cornell's campus. Jane Doe, then a 20-year-old student, alleges she arrived heavily intoxicated after a night of bar hopping, was pressured into taking ketamine, and was sexually assaulted by multiple men. Her civil complaint names the seven students, the fraternity, a sorority, the bar that allegedly served her while underage, and Cornell under Title IX. But her six-page sworn statement to police, given about three weeks after the incident, tells a very different story, and text messages reported by CBS News raise even more questions. Monica and Brandon walk through those inconsistencies and why they matter for both the criminal case and the civil lawsuit.From a criminal defense perspective, they explain why the DA declined to prosecute in the first place. Under New York Penal Law § 130.05, voluntary intoxication does not make someone "mentally incapacitated," and the "physically helpless" theory under People v. Bjork runs into problems when the record shows she refused a proposed foursome and ended encounters herself. They also cover New York's affirmative defense that the accused didn't know the facts causing incapacity, and why this case would likely look very different under Florida's sexual battery law, where there is no origin requirement for intoxication and sex without consent alone can be a second-degree felony. Plus: delayed reporting in sexual assault cases, the beyond a reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of the evidence standard, why the civil case could still end in settlements, and the danger of labeling seven young men before any charges or findings.Topics covered in this episode include: the Cornell 7 case explained, the Cornell fraternity lawsuit, the Chi Phi allegations, the reopened DA investigation, consent and intoxication under New York law, New York Penal Law 130, mental incapacity vs. physical helplessness, People v. Bjork, affirmative defenses in sex crime cases, Florida sexual battery law compared, Title IX and university liability, bar liability for serving an underage, visibly intoxicated customer, delayed reporting and evidence, civil vs. criminal burdens of proof, media pressure and settlements, and the criminal defense perspective on high-profile sexual assault allegations.This episode discusses sexual assault. If you or someone you know has been affected, call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 800-656-HOPE (4673) or visit rainn.org.Listen to Come Back with a Warrant for legal commentary, criminal defense insight, true crime breakdowns, and real conversations about the justice system. Subscribe, leave a five-star review, and sign up for our weekly newsletter for more criminal defense stories, legal insight, and unfiltered courtroom commentary. Leave us a 5 Star Review! Follow us for legal hot takes, episode updates, and a peek into our lawyer lives. YouTube: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Podcast  Instagram: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod  TikTok: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.PodFind us everywhere and join the conversation! See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

3. 

   6 Oct 2026

   Ep. 61 - Diddy, RICO & the Appeal: Racketeering Explained Through the Combs Case

   In this episode of Come Back with a Warrant, Monica and Brandon break down the Sean "Diddy" Combs federal trial — the RICO conspiracy and sex trafficking case that ended with one of the most surprising verdicts in recent memory. The government charged the music mogul under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a statute built to take down mob bosses who order crimes without pulling the trigger themselves. So how did a case with hotel surveillance video, thousands of bottles of baby oil, and cooperating witnesses end in acquittal on the biggest counts?Monica and Brandon explain how RICO actually works — the criminal enterprise, the pattern of racketeering activity, the enumerated predicate crimes, and why "someone always flips" in these prosecutions. Then they walk through the five counts against Combs: RICO conspiracy, two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion involving accusers Cassie Ventura and "Jane," and two Mann Act counts for transporting people across state lines for the so-called freak-offs. The jury convicted on the two Mann Act transportation counts only — acquitting Diddy of racketeering and sex trafficking outright. The hosts give their unfiltered defense-attorney take: this case was greatly overcharged by the government. The infamous hotel hallway video of Combs assaulting Cassie was powerful evidence of domestic battery — but domestic battery is not racketeering, and the jury saw the difference. The entire case turned on the line between consent and coercion, and the government couldn't carry its burden.The conversation also covers the defense strategy from attorneys including Brian Steele, the 50 Cent Netflix documentary and whether it made a stronger case than the prosecution did, the uncharged allegations like the Kid Cudi car arson, the history stretching back to Tupac and Biggie, and what cross-examining accusers in a case like this really looks like from the defense table. Finally, they dig into the appeal: Combs's lawyers argue the judge unconstitutionally relied on acquitted conduct — the very coercion allegations the jury rejected — to drive up his sentence. If the appeal wins, what's the remedy, and could Diddy be out in just a few years? And why did he lose so badly in the court of public opinion while winning in the courtroom?Topics covered in this episode include: the Diddy verdict explained, RICO charges and how federal racketeering prosecutions work, sex trafficking law and the meaning of force, fraud, or coercion, the Mann Act and transportation charges, the Cassie hotel video as evidence, consent versus coercion at trial, federal overcharging by prosecutors, cooperating witnesses and why co-conspirators flip, sentencing based on acquitted conduct, the federal appeals process, and the difference between a legal verdict and the court of public opinion. Leave us a 5 Star Review! Follow us for legal hot takes, episode updates, and a peek into our lawyer lives. YouTube: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Podcast Instagram: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod TikTok: @ComeBackWithAWarrant.Pod Find us everywhere and join the conversation! See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Contact Come Back With a Warrant

Guest appearances

Books guests

Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.