What the attorney thinks - Dustin Turner

The law says that if you play a role in a crime, you can be treated as a principal, even if you never carried out the violence yourself. That’s what happened to Pamela Shrader, a woman struggling with addiction whose words led to a man’s death.But was it an independent act by the killer, Noe Pena, or a crime she must share full responsibility for? While the trigger man took a plea deal and will soon be eligible for parole, Pam faces the very real probability of spending the rest of her life behind bars.Is that justice? As always, it’s your chance to step into the jury box, hear the case, and make up your own mind.One Minute Remaining LIVE in Melbourne get your tix now Join the One Minute Remaining Jury via Appl + HERE and get OMR early and ad free for as little as $1.69 a week!Become a Jury member on Patreon and find us on Facebook here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

25 Elo 29min

In this episode of One Minute Remaining, I sit down with defence attorney Michael Leonard—known to OMR listeners as “the voice of reason.” Together, we break down the case of Charles McCrory, convicted on the basis of contested bite mark evidence. Michael gives his expert take on the original trial, the evidence presented, and the long and complex appeals process that has followed. This in-depth conversation looks at what went wrong, the challenges of overturning a conviction, and what McCrory’s story reveals about the U.S. justice system.One Minute Remaining LIVE in Melbourne get your tix now Join the One Minute Remaining Jury via Appl + HERE and get OMR early and ad free for as little as $1.69 a week!Become a Jury member on Patreon and find us on Facebook here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

20 Elo 22min

Today I sit down with Chris Fabricant, Director of Strategic Litigation at the Innocence Project and author of Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System. From his early days as a New York public defender to leading the fight against flawed forensic techniques, Fabricant shares his personal journey and the urgent mission behind his work.Together, they dive deep into the controversial world of junk science, with a sharp focus on bite mark analysis, a discredited practice that has contributed to multiple wrongful convictions. Fabricant explains how faulty forensic methods continue to corrupt the justice system, and why science must be held to higher standards in courtrooms across America.As Chris unpacks the troubling history and lasting consequences of forensic pseudoscience, this conversation is a must-listen to help understand how 'Science' isn't always as solid a foundation for truth as one might think. One Minute Remaining LIVE in Melbourne get your tix now Join the One Minute Remaining Jury via Appl + HERE and get OMR early and ad free for as little as $1.69 a week!Become a Jury member on Patreon and find us on Facebook here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

18 Elo 31min

In 1985, Charles McCrory found his wife, Julie Bonds, brutally murdered in their Andalusia, Alabama, home. Just two small marks on her arm—misrepresented in court as a definitive “bite mark”—became the sole forensic evidence used to convict him for her murder.A forensic odontologist, famed for testifying at Ted Bundy’s trial, claimed the impressions matched McCrory’s like a fingerprint. Yet decades later, that same expert fully recanted the testimony, acknowledging the scientific consensus now recognises bite mark evidence as unreliable “junk science”.With no blood, no DNA, and hair in the victim’s hand that didn’t match McCrory’s, his conviction rested entirely on this flawed forensic interpretation. Over 40 years later, even as two independent forensic dentists testified that the so called bite mark was never human, Alabama courts repeatedly denied him a new trial, judging that his lengthy imprisonment still stood, and that procedural hurdles outweighed modern scienceIn July 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review his case. Justice Sotomayor warned that wrongful convictions like his, based on “faulty science,” are startlingly common and urged state and federal lawmakers to enact stronger safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice.One Minute Remaining LIVE in Melbourne get your tix now Join the One Minute Remaining Jury via Appl + HERE and get OMR early and ad free for as little as $1.69 a week!Become a Jury member on Patreon and find us on Facebook here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

13 Elo 24min

In 1985, Charles McCrory found his wife, Julie Bonds, brutally murdered in their Andalusia, Alabama, home. Just two small marks on her arm—misrepresented in court as a definitive “bite mark”—became the sole forensic evidence used to convict him for her murder.A forensic odontologist, famed for testifying at Ted Bundy’s trial, claimed the impressions matched McCrory’s like a fingerprint. Yet decades later, that same expert fully recanted the testimony, acknowledging the scientific consensus now recognises bite mark evidence as unreliable “junk science”.With no blood, no DNA, and hair in the victim’s hand that didn’t match McCrory’s, his conviction rested entirely on this flawed forensic interpretation. Over 40 years later, even as two independent forensic dentists testified that the so called bite mark was never human, Alabama courts repeatedly denied him a new trial, judging that his lengthy imprisonment still stood, and that procedural hurdles outweighed modern scienceIn July 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review his case. Justice Sotomayor warned that wrongful convictions like his, based on “faulty science,” are startlingly common and urged state and federal lawmakers to enact stronger safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice.One Minute Remaining LIVE in Melbourne get your tix now Join the One Minute Remaining Jury via Appl + HERE and get OMR early and ad free for as little as $1.69 a week!Become a Jury member on Patreon and find us on Facebook here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

10 Elo 27min

In 1985, Charles McCrory found his wife, Julie Bonds, brutally murdered in their Andalusia, Alabama, home. Just two small marks on her arm—misrepresented in court as a definitive “bite mark”—became the sole forensic evidence used to convict him for her murder.A forensic odontologist, famed for testifying at Ted Bundy’s trial, claimed the impressions matched McCrory’s like a fingerprint. Yet decades later, that same expert fully recanted the testimony, acknowledging the scientific consensus now recognises bite mark evidence as unreliable “junk science”.With no blood, no DNA, and hair in the victim’s hand that didn’t match McCrory’s, his conviction rested entirely on this flawed forensic interpretation. Over 40 years later, even as two independent forensic dentists testified that the so called bite mark was never human, Alabama courts repeatedly denied him a new trial, judging that his lengthy imprisonment still stood, and that procedural hurdles outweighed modern scienceIn July 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review his case. Justice Sotomayor warned that wrongful convictions like his, based on “faulty science,” are startlingly common and urged state and federal lawmakers to enact stronger safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice.One Minute Remaining LIVE in Melbourne get your tix now Join the One Minute Remaining Jury via Appl + HERE and get OMR early and ad free for as little as $1.69 a week!Become a Jury member on Patreon and find us on Facebook here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

6 Elo 30min

In 1985, Charles McCrory found his wife, Julie Bonds, brutally murdered in their Andalusia, Alabama, home. Just two small marks on her arm—misrepresented in court as a definitive “bite mark”—became the sole forensic evidence used to convict him for her murder.A forensic odontologist, famed for testifying at Ted Bundy’s trial, claimed the impressions matched McCrory’s like a fingerprint. Yet decades later, that same expert fully recanted the testimony, acknowledging the scientific consensus now recognises bite mark evidence as unreliable “junk science”.With no blood, no DNA, and hair in the victim’s hand that didn’t match McCrory’s, his conviction rested entirely on this flawed forensic interpretation. Over 40 years later, even as two independent forensic dentists testified that the so called bite mark was never human, Alabama courts repeatedly denied him a new trial, judging that his lengthy imprisonment still stood, and that procedural hurdles outweighed modern scienceIn July 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review his case. Justice Sotomayor warned that wrongful convictions like his, based on “faulty science,” are startlingly common and urged state and federal lawmakers to enact stronger safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice.One Minute Remaining LIVE in Melbourne get your tix now Join the One Minute Remaining Jury via Appl + HERE and get OMR early and ad free for as little as $1.69 a week!Become a Jury member on Patreon and find us on Facebook here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

4 Elo 28min

In 1985, Charles McCrory found his wife, Julie Bonds, brutally murdered in their Andalusia, Alabama, home. Just two small marks on her arm—misrepresented in court as a definitive “bite mark”—became the sole forensic evidence used to convict him for her murder.A forensic odontologist, famed for testifying at Ted Bundy’s trial, claimed the impressions matched McCrory’s like a fingerprint. Yet decades later, that same expert fully recanted the testimony, acknowledging the scientific consensus now recognises bite mark evidence as unreliable “junk science”.With no blood, no DNA, and hair in the victim’s hand that didn’t match McCrory’s, his conviction rested entirely on this flawed forensic interpretation. Over 40 years later, even as two independent forensic dentists testified that the so called bite mark was never human, Alabama courts repeatedly denied him a new trial, judging that his lengthy imprisonment still stood, and that procedural hurdles outweighed modern scienceIn July 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review his case. Justice Sotomayor warned that wrongful convictions like his, based on “faulty science,” are startlingly common and urged state and federal lawmakers to enact stronger safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice.One Minute Remaining LIVE in Melbourne get your tix now Join the One Minute Remaining Jury via Appl + HERE and get OMR early and ad free for as little as $1.69 a week!Become a Jury member on Patreon and find us on Facebook here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

30 Heinä 28min