pete williams, julia ainsley, and former state prosecutor and new england boston law professor wendy murphy. welcome to the three of you. pete, what does this judge's ruling mean for women in texas today? pete, you can't hear me, so i'm going to turn to julia and toss the same question to you. effectively what does this ruling do for people across the state? >> it's a good question because it could be so temporary. we just heard from judge robert pitman last night in the western district of texas. he lifted this, he had addressed an effort for a temporary stay, but it was immediately appealed to the fifth circuit, arguably the most conservative in the country, so they very well could reverse that. in fact they've already had the chance to weigh in on this before and they have said that they've allowed it to go forward. so what this means for women in texas is, yes, for now they may have their rights back, but maybe for a very short glimmer of time, which is hard for women who were maybe trying to make such an important decision. >> and wendy murphy, if you can hear me, and we should say we

. >> so wendy murphy, these are serious charges.f sentencing could cuomo possibly be facing? >> geoff, on the sentencing issue, i think it's fair to say he won't go to jail, just because it's his first offense and a misdemeanor. it would be inappropriate, i think, to punish him much more harshly than an ordinary person might be punished. but to prove the charges, it's really not that difficult. the word "forcible" is used in the description of the statute. but "forcible" simply means anything more than a light brush. you don't have to hurt someone, you just have to touch them in a way that involves the use of pressure. the allegations here are that he clearly reached under the victim's shirt and touched her breast in a way that used pressure that would fit the definition of "force" under the new york law. it also has to be done for the purpose of causing degradation to the victim or sexual pleasure, if you will, to the person who does the offense. and i think, again, this was clearly done not as an accident or something incidental t

nbc's pete williams and boston law professor wendy murphy, welcome to you both. pete, let me start with you, and folks want clarity on this question. will the supreme court decide the case on the merits of the law or over the justice department's right to sue? or is it really both here, pete? >> it's both. the supreme court's going to hear both those cases on november 1. that's the lightning speed part of this. the decisions will follow, i suspect, at the court's normal pace, complicated by the fact that on december 1, the court hears the third big abortion case of the term, the direct challenge to roe v. wade on mississippi's law that would ban abortion after 15 weeks. so i think, let's step back here and look as a practical matter, i think as a practical matter, sb 8, the texas law, is going to remain in effect for at least several more months while that's cases work their way through the supreme court, that's point one. point two, they'll hear two lawsuits on november 1. the first one is a state lawsuit filed by abortion providers in texas that challenges the

and also wendy murphy is back with us. she is a former state prosecutor and new england law boston professor. so pete, let's start with the case before the court today, the kentucky case. and your reporting that the supreme court appears inclined to allow kentucky's republican attorney general to step into defend their controversial abortion law. so this is a procedural issue, but what is the greater significance here? >> the greater significance is whether states can do this sort of thing. i don't think that it goes much beyond that. the word abortion was mention the just once today during the 70 plus minutes of oral art. argument. and justice breyer says that there was a change in the political leadership so why not allow the attorney general to step in when as the chief justice said the deck was shuffled to take another shot at it. it is a very technical question. the attorney general was involved in the early stages of the litigation. and then signed an agreement saying that he would stay out. and now wants to come bac

and former prosecutor, wendy murphy. thanks to both. so, jim, you know, you have been with us since the very beginning of this search for brian laundrie. now, we are learning that the fbi found what appear to be human remains, along with laundrie's backpack and notebook in that florida nature reserve. how confident are you that the remains will be brian laundrie's? >> i think it's pretty highly confident the fact that -- that his materials, his items were found there, notebook and backpack. and the fact that there were partial remains say -- say that it's been there for a while. so i think it's going to be very easy to determine that through dna. and i think that determination will be made fairly quickly. >> so, wendy, there is that part of this, right? the dna which obviously is central to the entire thing. then, there is the fact that they did find the backpack and the notebook, right? that they say did belong to brian laundrie. so, we don't know the condition that those items were in, right? and we understand that all this may have c