48 Hours - The Evidence Room - Encore

Episode Date: August 5, 2018

Accused of murder, a young woman’s life hangs in the balance. "48 Hours" goes behind the scenes with her lawyer and a forensic animator -- can they save her? CBS News correspondent Tracy Smith investigates.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can listen to this podcast ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app today. Even if you love the thrill of true crime stories as much as I do, there are times when you want to mix it up. And that's where Audible comes in, with all the genres you love and new ones to discover. Explore thousands of audiobooks, podcasts, and originals, with more added all the time. thousands of audiobooks, podcasts, and originals, with more added all the time. Listening to Audible can lead to positive change in your mood, your habits,

and even your overall well-being. And you can enjoy Audible anytime, while doing household chores, exercising, commuting, you name it. There's more to imagine when you listen. Sign up for a free 30-day Audible trial and your first audiobook is free. Visit audible.ca. In 2014, Laura Heavlin was in her home in Tennessee when she received a call from California. Her daughter, Erin Corwin, was missing. The young wife of a Marine had moved to the California desert

to a remote base near Joshua Tree National Park. They have to alert the military. And when they do, the NCIS gets involved. From CBS Studios and CBS News, this is 48 Hours NCIS. Listen to 48 Hours NCIS ad-free starting October 29th on Amazon Music. This is WHBC AM Canton News Talk 1480 WHBC. The trial begins today for a local woman accused of killing her husband on New Year's Eve. It had happened so fast and he had put his hand over my nose and my mouth and I couldn't breathe, and he's shoving me.

He's like, go to the bedroom, bitch, go to the bedroom. And I'm going, I'm like, okay, okay, okay, I'm going. I'm going. My name is Scott Roeder. I'm an evidence specialist. I received a phone call, a domestic homicide case, a woman who's being accused of murder. And I'm like, I'm going to call the cops.

And he grabbed me and he shook me like this. And he took my phone and he goes, I'll give you a reason to call the cops, you dumb bitch. I'll give you a reason. And he walks out and he left. He left the room and he went down the hallway screaming it over and over again. Everybody was really interested in this trial because it was this small town with this beautiful young lady who's being accused of this horrible crime. I walked down into the hallway and I had the gun at my side.

He said, where do you think you're going? And I said, I'm leaving. I'm going. And he started to walk towards me and I raised the gun. We've got a dead man. And we've got a woman whose life is hanging in the balance. She's the only eyewitness to this situation. And then it was over.

It was so quick. And he was on the ground. And I was still holding the weapon out. And I was still pulling the trigger. Some people were immediately making a judgment for, this is a battered woman. My daughter is innocent. She's innocent of murder.

And then some other people were immediately making a judgment, cold, blooded killer. How could she even do that? I think she's a monster. People want to rush to an opinion. They want to rush to the story before the evidence even has been analyzed. I stick to the physical and the forensic evidence. What was your purpose in firing that first shot? To stop Rob.

I thought my life was in danger. I was just trying to stop him. I was defending myself. Evidence. In a criminal court of law, it can send a defendant to prison for life or prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Tonight, on a special 48 Hours, we'll go behind the closed doors of legal strategy sessions and cutting-edge evidence analysis to show just what it takes to convince a jury

that you have the most compelling evidence of all. Sometimes I'll work for the defense, sometimes for the prosecution, sometimes for the plaintiff, sometimes for the defendant. I look at the totality of the evidence and put it together, kind of like a puzzle. This isn't about emotion. We evaluate the evidence, we conduct experiments, we reduce it to a visual presentation, and then we try to demonstrate that for the benefit of the jury. If you hire me, you get what you get, and I'm going to do my best to demonstrate what I think the truth is. Ultimately, at the end of the day, that's what we do.

48 Hours. The Evidence Room will be right back. Hotshot Australian attorney Nicola Gaba was born into legal royalty. Her specialty? Representing some of the city's most infamous gangland criminals. However, while Nicola held the underworld's darkest secrets, the most dangerous secret was her own. She's going to all the major groups within Melbourne's underworld and she's informing on them all. I'm Marsha Clark, host of the new podcast Informants Lawyer X. In my long career in criminal justice as a prosecutor and defense attorney, I've seen some crazy cases and this one belongs right at the top of the list. She was addicted to the game she had created. She just didn't know how to stop.

Now, through dramatic interviews and access, I'll reveal the truth behind one of the world's most shocking legal scandals. Listen to Informant's Lawyer X exclusively on Wondery+. Join Wondery in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. And listen to more Exhibit C true crime shows early and ad-free right now. In the Pacific Ocean, halfway between Peru and New Zealand, lies a tiny volcanic island.

It's a little-known British territory called Pitcairn, and it harboured a deep, dark scandal. There wouldn't be a girl on Pitcairn once they reach the age of 10 that would still a virgin. It just happens to all of us. I'm journalist Luke Jones, and for almost two years, I've been investigating a shocking story that has left deep scars on generations of women and girls from Pitcairn. When there's nobody watching, nobody going to report it, people will get away with what they

can get away with. In the Pitcairn trials, I'll be uncovering a story of abuse and the fight for justice that has brought a unique, lonely, Pacific island to the brink of extinction. Listen to the Pitcairn trials exclusively on Wondery+.

Join Wondery in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Well, two months ago, I moved to Los Angeles, California to open up a new office. Just settling in, you know, I get the phone call on this domestic homicide case, of course, back in my hometown. So, you know, yesterday I jumped on an airplane and now I'm back in Cleveland. I lived in Cleveland all my life, born and raised here.

Scott Roeder has come home to work a murder case. We've got an interesting case. A young lady is being accused of murder. She shot and killed her husband, apparently over some sort of a domestic dispute. Cleveland defense attorney Ian Friedman has hired Scott and his company to help convince a jury that his client had only one choice, kill or be killed.

Thanks for coming on board. Oh, sure. My pleasure. Scott Roeder is not a lawyer, not a detective, and not a forensic scientist. His specialty, using evidence to create visual presentations of a crime. Who's the defendant in this case? The defendant in this case is Colleen McKernan, 28 years old, white female, married to Rob McKernan. The victim?

The victim, yes. Colleen has been charged with one count of murder. This happened on New Year's Eve, in the minutes just before the ball would drop. New Year's Eve, December 31st, 2014. Colleen and Robert McKernan went out to celebrate with friends, but wound up at each other's throats. Back at home, their night ended with this call.

9-1-1, do you need to take fire medical? Listen to me. I'm really drunk, and I... My husband put his hands on me again. Where are you? I... I... I... Oh, my God.

Where are you? Rob was found lying face up with 10 shots, 9mm casings surrounding the body. All 10 shots hit. We've got 8 surrounding the body, all 10 shots hit. We've got 8 to the trunk, 2 to the head. There's not going to be any dispute as to who the shooter was. There's not going to be any dispute to what the weapon was. We've got an interesting situation here with regard to, was it self-defense or was it murder?

I mean, that's the big question of the day, right? Are there any witnesses, neighbors, you know, through open windows or heard yelling or anything like that at the time, at the location of the actual shooting? So the only thing that we have, there was no one else in the house. No one saw any fighting, no screaming inside the house. And that's why I'm pretty comfortable saying to you again, there were really only two parties who could have stated what was going on inside the house at the time. And now, only Colleen McKernan is left to tell that story.

The state's going to say, ladies and gentlemen, she committed murder. And we're going to say that she reasonably feared for her life and as a result she did what she needed to do. There is a history that we will be bringing forward at trial of physical and mental abuse at the hands of Rob. That night he was physically assaulting her. She felt that she had to leave the house and he was not going to allow that to happen. She felt that she had to leave the house, and he was not going to allow that to happen. So she went and got the firearm for the sole purpose of leaving. I believe that Colleen McKernan is a cold-blooded murderer, and justice needs to be served for Rob.

Jennifer Dave, lead prosecutor for the state of Ohio, disputes Colleen's claim of abuse, Day suggests that her true motive was money. Weeks before the shooting, Rob's life insurance policy was changed, making Colleen the sole beneficiary. She was going to get 100 percent, which means that, you know, had he died, she would get $200,000. She saw her opportunity on December 31st. At the end of that tumultuous night... We believe that the evidence showed that she shot him when he was trying to leave. He had his coat on, his shoes on.

The jury, they're going to hear the state say, murder, murder, murder. And I need them to see that she had no choice that evening if she were to protect herself. She had no choice but to do what she did. Which is where Scott's skills come into play. Ian basically asks you to recreate what happened that night. Yes. He and his team will build a visual model of the defense's theory of the crime for the jury.

I think it would be invaluable if we could show them, using technology today, if we can show them what happened that night in the house. Absolutely. It's very simple, and it's a situation that I believe people will understand. Once we're done showing them what happened, they'll see that you could have put anyone in her shoes that evening

and any of those people would have felt that in order for them to leave that house safely, they would have had to have done what she did. It's sad, but that was the choice he made that night. Okay? Right. Well, that was interesting. I think they definitely had their case strategy laid out well.

So I think the next step here is going to be to collect my staff up, go over all of the evidence, and hand out the assignments and really start the reconstructive process. process. As a kid growing up in Chicago, there was one horror movie I was too scared to watch. It was called Candyman. The scary cult classic was set in the Chicago housing project. It was about this supernatural killer who would attack his victims if they said his name five times into a bathroom mirror. Candyman. Candyman? Now we all know chanting a name won't make a killer magically appear, but did you know that the movie Candyman was partly inspired by an actual murder?

I was struck by both how spooky it was, but also how outrageous it was. We're going to talk to the people who were there, and we're also going to uncover the larger story. My architect was shocked when he saw how this was created. Literally shocked. And we'll look at what the story tells us about injustice in America. If you really believed in tough on crime, then you wouldn't make it easy to crawl into medicine cabinets and kill our women. Listen to Candyman, the true story behind the bathroom mirror murder, wherever you get your podcasts. Have you ever wondered who created that bottle of sriracha

that's living in your fridge? Or why nearly every house in America has at least one game of Monopoly? Introducing the best idea yet, a brand new podcast from Wondery and T-Boy about the surprising origin stories of the products you're obsessed with and the bold risk-takers who brought them to life. Like, did you know that Super Mario, the best-selling video game character of all time, only exists because Nintendo couldn't get the rights to Popeye?

Or Jack, that the idea for the McDonald's Happy Meal first came from a mom in Guatemala? From Pez dispensers to Levi's 501s to Air Jordans. Discover the surprising stories of the most viral products. Plus, we guarantee that after listening, you're going to dominate your next dinner party. So follow The Best Idea Yet on the Wondery app or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to The Best Idea Yet early and ad-free right now by joining Wondery Plus. It's just the best idea yet. Since starting The Evidence Room in 2002, Scott Roeder has worked on hundreds of cases. We work all across the country and sometimes across the world. How do you measure

success? Well, I think, you know, success is, it's not about money or win-loss ratio. We're trying to put forth, you know, our process and our methodology, hopefully to find justice. Which is what they were hired to do in 2014 for probably their most notorious client, South African superstar, the Blade Runner, Oscar Pistorius. The stunning murder case against the Blade Runner. He was charged Thursday with murdering his girlfriend. Pistorius was tried for shooting Reva Steenkamp in his home, claiming he thought she was an intruder. It's a case that's riveted the world. The Blade Runner, the fastest man on no legs, charged with killing his girlfriend. You fired at Reva. I did not fire at Reva. You referred to this incident or this occurrence as an accident. Is that correct? That's correct.

Roeder's team was brought in by the defense to illustrate what Pistorius says happened that night. Oscar, in his story, he said that he woke up in the middle of the night and heard a sound in the bathroom. It was at this point that I heard a window open in the bathroom. What did you think at the time, Mr. Pistorius? My lady, that's the moment that everything changed. And it was just this unfortunate circumstance where as he approached his girlfriend, who was hidden in the toilet inside of the bathroom,

and he was screaming for her to call the police, thinking that she was in the other room. And unfortunately, he shot his girlfriend, Reva, and accidentally killed her. I was crying out for Reva. I was screaming. And I sat over Re Riva and I cried. Though never shown in court, this animation helped the Pistorius defense team develop its strategy.

In this video, the defense had Oscar reenact his movements as part of their research. Pistorius, in another house, demonstrated what that night was like without his prosthetic legs as he made his way to the bathroom. And I felt that it was a very honest rendition of the story and that he was not guilty of murder. But Pistorius was found guilty, not of murder, but of culpable homicide.

In layman's terms, manslaughter. According to the judge, Oscar Pistorius did not intentionally kill Riva Steenkamp, but acted negligently in firing four shots through his bathroom door. Pistorius was sentenced to five years in prison, but later his conviction was changed to murder and his sentence doubled. Today we're going to be discussing a new case. 48 Hours hired Scott Roeder as a CBS News consultant to give us a rare inside look at what it takes to build a defense case. It's a domestic homicide. We're going to be defending a woman by the name of Colleen McKernan.

Tell me about the team. Who's on the team? Amy Metzger. She is my logistics coordinator. Patrick Mooney, my biomedical illustrator. Marcus Sidoti, criminal defense attorney. She was a military police officer. She was, yeah. I think that's pretty interesting. 15 months in Turkey, deployed to Afghanistan. So she has four years of active

duty in the Air Force. In the fall of 2013, 25-year-old Colleen and 28-year-old Rob, both living in the small town of Massillon, Ohio, were introduced by a mutual friend. Not quite seven months later, they were married. And they had only been married for less than a year at the time that this happened. This is not your usual wedding photo, the bride posing with guns. At the time of the shooting, she worked in a bank, and he worked as an oil driller. Now, the husband also has military experience, military training.

And it turns out he also had a history of domestic abuse as well. These documents that are sitting out here are the prior history of abuse against other women. I believe that there's indications in the record that Rob had multiple restraining orders against him from prior girlfriends and prior relationships. Also in the record, this 2013 911 call from one of Rob's former girlfriends. Fast one, please. Hi, I need to speak with a police officer about filing a police report for someone trying to kill me girlfriends. Next girlfriend. Next girlfriend. She said pretty much immediately he started becoming extremely controlling. She said that was her first red flag.

And then the domestic violence was shortly thereafter. Did she state that he ever struck her? Yes. And Colleen had called 911 before about Rob? She did, yes. 911, please. Yes, ma'am. This is Colleen McKernan. I called you earlier.

You left me a voice mail. Right. You called and you said that you did not want your husband coming back there, but you hung up on me twice. What's going on? Are you hurt in any way? No, I'm not hurt. You put a sense on me. But is there enough evidence to show that Colleen was abused by Rob? Prosecutor Jennifer Dave says no. There was no photos, no police reports. The state's position is Colleen used Rob's history as a cover for murder.

I know there are true women out there that are battered. She's not one of them. I'll tell you right now, I hope Colleen's story vets out, because if it doesn't, we're gonna be able to find, we're gonna be able to tell pretty quickly. What's your full name again, ma'am? Colleen Marie McKernan. McKernan? Is that how you say that? M-C-K-E-R-N-A. Okay, Colleen.

You have a seat right there? I'll get them cuffs off as soon as I can. Got a seat right there? I'll get them cuffs off as soon as I can. Colleen McKernan spent the first hours of 2015 in the custody of the Massillon Police Department. Her husband, Robert McKernan, never saw a single second of the new year. What's Colleen's demeanor when she's down at the police department? Well, I mean, she would be excited, upset, crying, devastated. Yeah. And then I believe she kind of just kind of calmed down and she stopped crying.

And she just, I think, was probably in a state of shock. You know, a lot of people in trauma, you know, are just, you know, in shock and just horrified. State prosecutor Jennifer Dave has a different opinion. Can I use the restroom? One second. She's sitting there and you can see her literally after the detective leaves the room. She picks up those papers to see what's on them, and then she puts them back, and then makes sure she turns them to make sure they're neat.

You know, so this was cold and calculated. She knew exactly what she was doing. This picture was taken. What are we looking at? Well, this is a picture of Colleen taken at the police department right after she had surrendered to law enforcement. And you can clearly see that her entire face is covered in blood. And the blood came from? that her entire face is covered in blood. And the blood came from? The blood on Colleen's face is as a result of her giving CPR to Rob after she shot him.

You're being charged. You understand you have to be charged with that. There's a prior cause there. It doesn't mean you're convicted of anything, okay? There's probably more to the story. We don't know. We're not here to judge you, okay? And when police arrived, what did she tell them? She told law enforcement that she wasn't going to let him do it to her again.

He was going to hurt me. I couldn't. That was the last time he was going to hurt me. I mean, what happened again? I told him to see what happened again. I told him to f***ing care. And I think that's when, in her mind, she was thinking that the situation was self-defense. I told him. I said, next time he touches me, I'm going to f***ing kill him.

I didn't really want him to die, though. You know, she claimed at that time, you know, hey, I was just defending myself. Continuing their work, the evidence room team focuses on Colleen's state of mind. I hear that she's talking about all the fear that she had. I don't see a very serious physical interaction prior to the shooting. He was pulling her hair. Exactly. He was possibly on drugs.

Okay. hair exactly he was possibly on drugs okay he's got a long history of violence against women that's documented over years and years and years fair it's in her mind so fair enough in essence she's got to say i can't leave you know the there's going to be imminency to serious physical harm so i had to rely on my training and then i shot him. I think that if I'm holding a gun and there's a larger male coming towards me in a threatening manner, I would shoot for sure. I hear often from other females, from my friends, that why not just shoot him in the leg?

Why wouldn't you just shoot him in the leg? Because she's trained to shoot to kill. If I'm shooting someone, I'm going to shoot to kill them. Right. Was it self-defense or was it murder? I mean, that's the big question of the day, right? But all of this other information is, okay, how close were they? How far were they?

Is there evidence to demonstrate that he was attacking her? This is an autopsy photograph of Robert. Why don't you guys go ahead and take a peek at that. Now he had two shots to the face, one through the right eye and one into the mouth. I'm going to pass that picture around. You guys see anything interesting on that picture that might help us out? Is that stippling? Yep. That's a close-range shot.

Explain what stippling is. Well, stippling is when you shoot a gun, the bullet is propelled out with gunpowder. And as that bullet travels, the gunpowder travels with it. And for a short period of time, that gunpowder is hot and can make burn marks. And that's indicative of the muzzle of the gun being very close to the target. Meaning Colleen shot Robert at close range. How close? Well, we need to conduct an experiment to determine exactly how close it was.

In the next couple of days, let's get this exact gun, let's get this exact ammunition, and we can go to the firing range and set up a test so that we can try to duplicate that stippling pattern. But that's not the only test they'll have to do. She does not have a memory of the shooting itself. Realized that she emptied her gun of all ten shots. She estimated the shooting took no more than about three seconds. In your mind, when you learn that Colleen says that she fired these ten shots in about three seconds,

what are you thinking? It's pretty fast. I'm not sure how fast I could discharge 10 rounds. Pat, you're a pretty experienced firearm handler. How fast can you get off 10 shots with this weapon? I wanna say within 15 seconds. I think she states three seconds. You're not gonna fire 10 rounds in three seconds. I think she states three seconds. You're not going to fire 10 rounds in three seconds.

I disagree with you. I think you can fire 10 rounds. I mean, this is semi-automatic. Semi-automatic. Yeah, in a millimeter. Three seconds. One, two, three. I don't think you're letting off 10 rounds in three seconds.

All right, well, we'll test it. But perhaps the most critical question in this case is this. In what order did Colleen fire those 10 shots? Where was Rob standing when he received the first and last shot? What shots were first? What shots were last? Can we determine a sequence? Prosecutor Jennifer Dave contends Colleen first shot Rob in the back. He's getting ready to leave. She shot him in the back first, first in the buttocks. Then as he's

turning, he was shot on the back three times. And then as he's turning around, twice on the arm, and then twice as he's going down in the front chest, and then walks up to him and shoots him in the mouth twice, basically telling him that he can't speak anymore. But Colleen says those two shots were first. There's a gunshot wound to the upper right lip. Gunshot wound number two. Ancestor wound of the left upper lip

Below the vertex of the head The bullet traveled from front to back Upward and slightly left That's going to be a key piece of evidence there You don't know whether the shots to the face were the first shots fired The last shots fired We don't know that yet And does that make a difference?

It makes a big difference. Why? If the shots to the face were last, then this is murder. The only way that this is self-defense is if the shots to the face were first. That's a key point. Very key.

So there's a lot that we're going to need to do to investigate Colleen's story. To fill in those blanks, Scott is planning to go straight to the source. We're going to have an opportunity tomorrow, I believe, to actually meet with Colleen herself and walk through the exact sequence of events. We're going to basically take the same strategy that we did in the Oscar case. We're going to walk her through the scenario and have her step by step show us how she was positioned, where he was, how this whole thing evolved.

What are you expecting from this meeting with Colleen? Hopefully the truth. It's the evidence room team's job to ask questions and find answers. But in this case, there's absolutely no question that on New Year's Eve 2014, Colleen McKernan shot her husband Rob. What's still unclear is why. Was it self-defense or cold-blooded murder? To answer that question, Scott Roeder turns to the one person who can take him back to the scene of the crime.

Well, we're waiting for Colleen to arrive for a one-on-one interview. Under house arrest and awaiting trial, Colleen McKernan arrives for a meeting with her attorney and Scott. for a meeting with her attorney, Ann Scott. You know, what I hope to accomplish today with Colleen is to really break down that, you know, three seconds in time from the time that she, you know, felt in fear for her life to the time that she discharged her weapon. I want to jog her recollection to see if there's any actionable data that I can test from her statements.

And I want to get her to interact with me and demonstrate with me and to me what happened. You know, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little bit nervous. Colleen, nice to meet you. Hi, nice to meet you too. Have a seat. Hi Colleen, nice to meet you. Hi, nice to meet you too. Have a seat. So Colleen, as you know, my job here is to work with you to prepare a forensic animation

to share with the jury your version of the events as you recall them. So I need you to be as specific with me as to your recollection as much as possible. And hopefully that'll be a powerful tool, you know, for the jury to really understand what happened, you know, that night. Are you surprised by the woman who shows up? I am a little bit surprised. She was very cordial.

She was, you know, very conversational. She seemed like a very confident woman, but I didn't want to let that affect the investigation. So now, at some point in the evening, you know, it's New Year's Eve, you probably went out to celebrate New Year's Eve with some friends, right? Well, Rob and I left the house and went to a bar alone, just the two of us.

Okay. And we played pool there, and we did drink a little bit. And then we went from that bar to his friend's house. Colleen and Rob got to their friend Brittany Martin's New Year's Eve party around nine o'clock. They stayed for about an hour, then headed to this nearby bar with two friends. After a couple of rounds of drinks, they returned to the party. So they all went to the bar. They were gone maybe 20 minutes. They were back before 10 30. In this police interview, Brittany Martin describes the

scene she witnessed in her backyard that night. We got to the back door. She was screaming in Rob's face and I said, hey, there's an infant in that house next door. Her bedroom's on our side of the house. You guys can't be out here screaming like this. So either she's got to stop or you guys have to go. And Rob said, I'll just go. We'll just go. So they came up. He walked into the door first and he looked at Zach and he's like, not a big deal. She's drunk. I'll just take her home. That's what it is. And then she came up behind him and she turned around as she came through the front door and looked at us all and said, remember, this wasn't my fault. At that party, Colleen had accused Rob of doing some sort of drugs out on the back patio.

It caused a big fight, but ultimately that fight led them to leave the party and go back to their home. According to the coroner's report, there were no drugs found in Rob's system, but he was legally drunk. There was an altercation in the car. So he's driving fast, and is he drunk at this point in time? Absolutely. What do you learn about their ride home? The only person that can tell us the story about the ride home is Colleen. And what Colleen says is that Rob was extremely abusive and threatening to her.

And he opened my door, and he unbuckled me, and he ripped me out. So he unbuckled you, she felt him. How did he grab you? When he grabbed me, it was, he put his arm around me, hang on, I'm sorry, like this. And Colleen did a very effective job on, you know, kind of relaying to me how Rob grabbed her out of the car, how her feet were dangling as she was, you know, being pulled into the house. His hand was over my mouth so I couldn't breathe. Okay. And I couldn't speak and he carried me. I could touch the ground somewhat and I tried kicking him, but I wasn't

able to breathe or speak at all. And he took me all the way up to the house like that. By the time they made it inside, it was about 11 p.m., and the night quickly went from bad to much worse. They're in the hallway, which is right at the top of the stairs. He grabs her by the back of her neck and pushes her down the hallway in toward the bedroom. He's telling me to go to the F-ing bedroom, and he's shoving me down the hallway, and I'm telling him to stop because he's hurting me.

Now, alone in her bedroom, Colleen says that she tried to call police for help, but caught Rob's attention instead. According to Colleen's story, he grabs the phone, he shakes her violently. And he, like, screamed like an animal in my face and shook the crap out of me. With what did he say? He didn't, he just screamed, he, like, roared like an animal in my face and shook the crap out of me. With what did he say? He just screamed. He like roared like an animal. And when he's leaving, he's like, I'll give you a reason to call the cops, you bitch.

And he left. At that particular point, she collects her weapon, which was casually laying out in the bedroom. I was terrified. And I didn't know what his threats would entail but I thought that my life was in danger and the gun is right next to me. Colleen says she kept a loaded gun in the open on the windowsill near her bed. And then she grabs, collects her gun, meets him in the hallway and says get out of my way I'm leaving you're not doing this again. And I stepped forward out of the light of the doorway

to my bedroom, and he was there. Is Rob in between her and the exit? That's correct. Colleen leaves the bedroom. She's in the hallway, just past the doorway. And I told him I was leaving. He took a step towards me, and I raised the gun. And I said to back up.

Okay. I need you to back up. And he said, you're not leaving, and came towards me. She said that Rob came toward her, took a big step forward toward her with his arms out, almost as if to either grab the gun or grab her. So you thought he was coming to grab the gun? Yeah. Okay.

So he came at you to grab the gun, and when did you start firing? Immediately. A former Air Force security officer, Colleen was well-trained in using a firearm under stress and says that training saved her life. I mean, they always say that when you're put in a stressful situation, you always revert back to training. Set her life. I mean, they always say that when you're put in a stressful situation, you always revert back to training. So it's two shots. Two shots to the heart, one shot to the head.

But Colleen didn't fire three shots. She fired ten, all hitting her husband. This is where he came forward, okay? okay and um and when i was firing he ended up with his feet ending here and i was standing there there were some shots to the back yes alarm bell for you absolutely yeah that's a big indicator now you know i do a lot of police involved shooting cases and one of the big no-nos in police involved shooting cases is shoot somebody in the back no-no's in police-involved shooting cases is shoot somebody in the back. Because that means they're going away. They're moving away from you. And if somebody's moving away from you, they're no longer a threat. So that is concerning

to me. But in this situation, there's other gunshot wounds that aren't in the back. So we're going to have to work that out. You must have had a million questions going through your mind hearing this story. Well, I did, you know, focused in primarily on the physical and the forensic evidence. You know, I just want to give you my assurances that, you know, we're going to do the best job that we can to, you know, accurately, you know, represent what happened that night. Okay, thank you. Okay.

It was nice to meet you too. Nice to meet you, Colleen. Walking away from this meeting with Colleen, what are you thinking? There was an opportunity for her here to either confirm my suspicions or really turn everything on its head. But her demonstration on how those first shots took place makes sense, at least at this time.

You know, after meeting Colleen today and, you know, getting her side of the story, you know, I really felt the fear that she was going through. You know, a lot of what she told me, almost everything she told me, you know, seems to just match up. You know, we'll see how it plays out with the physical evidence. Like I said, it's early. You know, we're just match up. You know, we'll see how it plays out with the physical evidence. Like I said, it's early. You know, we're just collecting data at this point. You know, we'll just have to take it step by step. But before Scott can do that,

he'll have to turn his attention to a new client and a new case. In three, two, one. With the Evidence Room team beginning its work on the McKernan case in Ohio, Scott Roeder heads back home to California. Not for a break, but to take on a new challenge, Emanuel Bracey versus the city of Los Angeles. How did you first hear about the Bracey case? I received a phone call from Brian Dunn, who's the managing partner of the Cochran Law Firm in Los Angeles, California. As in Johnny Cochran.

That's right. One of my very first clients. Founder of the Cochran firm, Johnny Cochran, who died in 2005, is probably best remembered for his defense of O.J. Simpson. Remember these words. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. He's an incredibly talented lawyer, incredibly passionate lawyer when it comes to prosecuting on a civil arena, police-involved shooting cases, and other cases regarding civil rights here in the Los Angeles community.

And this case is just that, a civil suit against the city of Los Angeles brought by 22-year-old Emanuel Bracey, the city of Los Angeles, brought by 22-year-old Emmanuel Bracey, who was left partially incapacitated after being shot by four L.A. Police Department detectives. So Bracey's suing LAPD? That's correct. It's a miracle that we're sitting here today fighting the case for Emmanuel Bracey and not his family members. You don't get shot like this and survive. You don't get shot like this and survive. Miracle, maybe. But Emmanuel Bracey is anything but a saint. He's a suspect in a string of armed robberies.

So not exactly a good guy. Not exactly somebody you'd invite over for Thanksgiving dinner. But he still has rights, and that's what this case is about. If you talk to someone on the street about it, they're going to say, why would you possibly take the case for this guy? He is a criminal. He is a menace to society, but he has a right to be free from excessive force from police officers. On the morning of June 24th, 2010, Bracey was under surveillance by an LAPD Special Robbery Investigations Unit when he was seen leaving a check-and-go location which had just been robbed at gunpoint. And then after he gets the money and he leaves, getting a nominal amount, 800 bucks or something like that,

and he drives away, and they wait until he gets into an area that they consider safe enough to pull a VCT maneuver. VCT. Correct. Vehicle Containment Technique. And what happens is Emanuel Bracey pulls right here on the side of the road, and one of the officers pulls in front, stops. One of the officers pulls behind, stops, bumpers touching. And then a third officer comes in at an angle. This is where both parties disagree what happened next.

Three of the four detectives say they saw Bracey with a gun, and they opened fire. He is injured very severely, but he survives. And he was able to kind of fall out of the car under his own power with his hands up where they arrested him. And then that's when they started searching the vehicle. Bracey was taken to a nearby hospital with a shattered shoulder and left arm, broken rib, collapsed lung, broken jaw, and multiple fractured vertebrae. One of the detectives said there were something like 23 holes in his shirt, in the back of his shirt. Bracey, confined to a wheelchair from his injuries, pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery

and was given a sentence of 25 years to life in prison. But that hasn't stopped him from seeking what he sees as justice. Why is he in a wheelchair for the rest of his life? The attorney for the city is going to say no. This is because of the decisions that Bracey made. This is because of the things of his life. The attorney for the city is going to say no. This is because of the decisions that Bracey made. This is because of the things that he did. It was his decision to rob that store, and if he had not robbed that store, he would not be there.

We're going to basically say no. Yes, he would have been in jail. Yes, he would have spent several decades in prison. But why is it that he has the injuries that he has? It's not because of that. It's because of the actions of these detectives. But the detectives were responding to a dangerous situation, attempting to apprehend a suspect in an armed robbery. They say they gave the command to show his hands, but he did not comply. It was at this point, according to the detective's statements,

three of the four detectives saw Bracey with a gun. And all of them opened fire, leaving both Bracey and the car heavily damaged. But when they searched the car, there was no gun in plain sight. Instead, they found a gun wrapped in cloth, hidden inside an air conditioning vent in the dashboard. And though the inside of the car was covered in glass and blood, the gun was in remarkable condition. Right here is the air conditioning vent. Inside this air conditioning vent is Bracey's gun. Bracey was sitting right here. We can see all the glass and debris all over the place.

What can you see about this gun? It looks clean. What can you see about this gun? It looks clean. In fact, it is clean. It was taken to the police forensics laboratory, and it was negative for blood, negative for dust, negative for glass, for anything. There's not a drop of blood on this weapon.

There's not a speck of glass on this weapon. And, you know, for him to have had a gun in his hand, used the gun in a threatening position, pointed it over his shoulder the way that they're saying that he pointed it over his shoulder. I mean, you would expect to at least see some blood, you know, on the cloth, on the gun, around the cloth, around the gun. on the gun, around the cloth, around the gun. We got nothing. And this is the foundation of the lawsuit.

If Bracey wasn't holding a gun, then according to his lawyer, Brian Dunn, the detectives had no cause to shoot. And that's what Scott in the evidence room has been hired by the Cochran firm to prove. We're out to prove that the gun was not in Emmanuel Bracey's hand, but it was in fact in that air conditioning vent all along. The whole time? The whole time. So you're going to recreate this entire scene? That's correct. With real cars? Absolutely. And real bullets? Yes. We have the ability to conduct this experiment in real time, to scale, under a controlled

environment, and I think that would be a tremendously compelling demonstration for the benefit of the court members. I need a shot of the side of the car. We should mark out the cars, though. Yeah, right here, this is where the, this driver is the one that puts four through his windshield, through that windshield. To prove a theory, you have to test that theory. And the Evidence Room team has set up shop here at this junkyard in the high desert just outside of Los Angeles to do just that.

So what are you trying to prove with this test? So we are simply going to find out, was the gun in his hand or was the gun in the air conditioning vent? They chose this remote location with good reason. Scott will be working with loaded weapons and live ammunition. We're going to shoot this car in the same type of way, with the same guns and the same ammunition, and we're going to pulverize that glass. What we've done here is tried to set up the scene as close as possible.

We've brought in an exemplar vehicle of the Lexus that Mr. Bracey was driving. So here's the key point of this case. When a windshield breaks, it basically turns to dust? When it's hit so many times by powerful rounds, absolutely. And you can see it here. Absolutely. On the middle console here, all over the seats, all of the dust. Yes.

Let's go straight to X marks the spot where they discharged their weapons. That's what we need. Right here. All right. We've mapped out the positions of the three vehicles that were positioned along the side of the road. And most important, they map out the position of each of the four LAPD officers who opened fire on Bracey. Guzman's the shooter behind the window. So we've got Guzman from here. 16 feet. Perfect, yeah. So this would be a door. He's hitting somewhere.

He's probably right around here. I think yellow would be good to mark out just the outline of the car. We've also plotted out areas of the car where the gunshots penetrated the vehicle. And tomorrow we plan to conduct an experiment. And, you know, if the experiment is favorable to Mr. Bracey, well, that's great. If it's not favorable to Mr. Bracey, well, there's nothing I can do about that. All we can do is our job. Dawn in the desert. All right, guys, today's the day.

And days of research and preparation will end in a barrage of bullets. So the first thing that we're going to do is we're going to be placing this replica handgun in the air conditioning vent, which is similar to the placement of the Bracey gun. And we're going to be closing this up. So we'll place this gun right here.

Now we've got a third replica gun. We'll place this here on the center console. Scott wants to test Bracey's story that the gun was in the air conditioning vent when police opened fire. We're going to do the four shots with Detective Guzman. The first part of the shooting experimentation today is going to be replicating the four shots discharged by Detective Guzman while sitting behind the wheel of his car through his windshield. All right, we're loaded. In three, two, one. Over the next several hours,

Scott and his team fired round after round. This next shot is Detective Walters. Attempting to recreate every shot fired at Bracey by the police. This is Detective Worrell. One shot. Our distance here is about 24 feet. With the last shot fired, it's time to check the results. Right there, some buckshot right there. But I think this is the shot right here.

Came right through his head. That is exactly the shot. Look at all the glass debris that's coming out this way. All right, let's see what we got on the inside. These are the guns that were out in the car, that were not in the AC vent? That's correct. You can still see quite clearly this gun is covered in debris. This gun we placed in the hand of our mannequin. I mean, it's covered in dust and pulverized glass.

And the gun, hidden in the same location that Bracey's gun was found? Does the gun have any dust on it? No, it doesn't have any dust on it at all. No dust, no blood, no debris of any kind. So that says to you... Emanuel Bracey was, in fact, not holding that gun when the officers discharged their weapons. There's just no way he had a gun in his hand. It's impossible. Based on that conclusion, Scott and his team prepared this presentation with their results.

At trial, a lawyer for the city of Los Angeles insisted the three officers did see Bracey with a gun in his hand. Michelangelo insisted the three officers did see Bracey with a gun in his hand. And whether he was pointing it at the police or attempting to hide it in the vent, his hand came up with a gun in it. And the detectives had a reasonable perception of imminent threat. The lawyers argued that this was the critical point in the case. The detectives believed their lives were in danger and responded to that threat. Bracey didn't necessarily have to be found to be holding a gun. It's just that the police officers have to think that he's holding a gun. Isn't that right? They just have to have a reasonable fear? That's true. The officers

need to establish that they reasonably felt in fear for their life. In the end, after all that time and all that work, the jury never saw Scott's presentation. The reason? The state's forensic expert just happened to be on vacation in China and was not able to testify. And after some legal wrangling, neither was Scott. Explain that. Well, I was a rebuttal expert on this case. So that means I was meant to rebut the testimony of one of their experts. So they decided not to call their expert witness to testify. Which means this evidence doesn't get introduced.

That's correct. After nine days of court testimony, the jury took just four hours to return a judgment in favor of the LAPD. According to the law, if an officer has a reasonable expectation of serious bodily injury or potential imminent death, they are justified in using deadly force.

The perception of threat is also at the center of Colleen McKernan's defense, and Scott and his team will tackle that next. With the Bracey case behind them, the Evidence Room team gets down to work on the upcoming McKernan murder trial. Their mission? To see if the evidence matches Colleen's story. First, a simple test to answer a simple question. How could she have fired all of those ten rounds so quickly? Well, that's what we endeavored to find out.

So as soon as you fire, I hit start. As soon as I start firing, and then as soon as you hear it stop, hit stop. Got it. And we'll get it as close as we can get it. All right, loading. 2.61 seconds. That's under three.

That's under three. Should we try it again? Let's try it again. This time I think we should have Patrick try it. Pat, you want to come over here? Back when we were having our roundtable, Patrick and I kind of disagreed pretty much about how fast you could shoot those shots. He doesn't believe that we could fire 10 shots in under 3 seconds, so let's not share him

our results just yet. Pat, I just did my test, so why don't you go ahead and load up. 2.2. So yeah, 2 seconds. 2.2. So, yeah, two seconds. Yeah. So, yeah, I think that right there proves, you know, and I'm not a professional firearms handler.

And she is. So that told you she could have fired it that quickly. Absolutely. Next up. All right, so now four feet. Four feet. A test to try to determine just how close Colleen was to Rob when she shot him. She says he was close and coming at her. Jeez.

How close were they? That was a very important question to answer. So Scott conducts a stippling test. It's getting pretty close. I mean, it's between two and three feet so far right now. We needed to get the exact same ammunition. And then we set up these individual targets that are covered with white cotton, and we shoot that target and we see what kind of a pattern it leaves with regard to the gunshot residue oh there we go

so you can see that pretty well even without the black light see now we're getting pretty close i still don't think we're there but we're pretty close. I still don't think we're there, but we're pretty close. Let's look at that picture. See how tight it is right here? Right. Their goal, match the pattern left from powder burns found on Rob McKernan's face, giving them an estimation of Colleen's distance from Rob at the time of the shot. That's the best one yet. Yeah, pattern-wise, it has the most similarities. And I've got a pretty good spread here. This is pretty good. I like this one.

So once you found the pattern that matched the pattern on Rob's face, how far away were you? Give or take a few inches, two feet. And Colleen had said she was... About two feet away when she discharged her gun. So? It matches. I mean, I think the stippling test is done.

I think we have an answer on that. And finally. Penetrating into the temporal and occipital lobes of the brain, penetrates into the right occupant. Using data from the coroner's report, along with the crime scene photos, the team attempts to make a visual model of the 10 shots Colleen McKernan fired

at her husband. You actually poke holes in the mannequin? Yeah, we probe the mannequin with trajectory rods. The autopsy report might read 2 inches to the left of the center line of the head, 6 inches down. We have a gunshot wound. Downward trajectory, slightly left to right, and that'll give us a good indication of where the bullet entered,

what anatomy the bullet traversed, and where ultimately the bullet landed. So should we just penetrate right through here? Okay, so if this is 90 degrees, right? Slightly upward. Slightly upward. Slightly upward. It's slow and tedious work. All right, so let's take a picture of this because I think this is a good one. One of the most difficult parts of Colleen's story to confirm is the order of the shots.

Remember, she says her first shots were to Robert's face as he was upright and moving toward her. So we've got four shots on the posterior side, one to the right buttock, one, two, three to the left lateral flank. The prosecution maintains she shot him in the back first as he was trying to leave and that she shot him in the face last when he was already down on the ground. And so they continue to work.

Actually, bring your hand to your left. Let's take it to his right anterior midline. Hour after hour. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. After shot. Shot five. Mid-right chest, 50 and a half inches above the sole of the right foot. Shots six through nine are unaccounted for. What's shot eight? Another entrance to the left back. Eventually, for Scott, the pieces of this jigsaw puzzle begin to come together. After we placed all of the trajectory rods on the mannequin,

it became very clear that a lot of what is happening here is starting to make sense. But because Scott is not an expert in bullet wound analysis, he turns to someone who is. Good morning, Dr. Spitz. How are you today? Good morning. I'm well, thank you. Dr. Daniel Spitz, a board-certified forensic pathologist and chief medical examiner for Macomb County, Michigan. Dr. Spitz was hired by Colleen's lawyer to testify on the medical examiner's report regarding Rob McKernan, and he's been talking with Scott.

Obviously, you know, we're dealing with 10 gunshot wounds, and certainly there's a sequence to those wounds. Determining a sequence is very, very difficult when you're simply looking at a decedent's body. Your overall description is very accurate. I think what's important is that we don't know exactly which is the first and the second because we have two wounds involving the face. Could it be two is the first wound and number one is the second? Sure. You know, from all indications now with your research and your expert opinions and

the work that we've done up until this point, I think it's starting to fit together. Colleen has given an account of what occurred. Then really we need to look at the evidence to see if the account that she gives makes forensic sense or not. And at this point, the time frame, the movement of the body, the shots, the number of shots, his final position, and really the forensic evidence that's available really does fit with the scenario that she has given. For Scott, it seems he has the answers he's been looking for. Now all that's left for the evidence room is to prepare their presentations for court. So I think this is his body position at shot number one. Maybe not so stiff and ragged, but can you take him from this position and move him into this position or like this a little bit yeah that's

that i think that's probably the position he was in when she yeah when she shot when she made that first shot but one question still remains will their work be enough to convince a jury that colleen mccernan shot her husband in self-defense? The prosecution doesn't think so. When the defense started talking about how the first two shots were in the mouth, that was unbelievable to me. We added in the evidence markers, so we have everything from where the gun was at and its resting location. After months of research and testing.

And then also, so I have in a resting location of him. The evidence room team puts the final touches on their presentation for Colleen McKernan's upcoming trial. So can we bring Colleen into the scene now? Okay, so now this position ultimately is our final moment in time. Correct. I think this is perfect.

We get together and then start playing out these theories inside of that controlled environment to see if what we've tested, does it all make sense? Let's see shot number two. Okay, and that's also perfect, great work Phil, because now he's starting to cascade down. Now here is ultimately the final conclusion that we came to with regard to this investigation.

So here's where she holds out the gun, then he reaches in, and then at the moment of the first discharge, the second one, then we've got our third shot. Now you can see when we get to the fourth shot, he starts blading to his left. On the fifth shot, then we have the shot that goes through his arm, into his armpit,

into his chest, and now he's turning. He falls down. So I think that that's all extremely consistent with Colleen's statement. But when the prosecution sees the animation pre-trial, they quickly move to try to keep it from being shown in court. When we first received it, we looked at a lot of different things, compared them to the coroner's report. They were not consistent.

So we, our concerns, we filed motions ahead of time to keep it out because it was inaccurate. Jurors these days like to see that kind of stuff. If they have a video that they can see, they're like, okay, maybe that is how it happened. But it was inaccurate. So will the jury ever see the animation? How important do you think your work is to this case? I think it could be critical. Opening statements will begin today in the trial that will answer the question, self-defense or cold-blooded murder. Colleen McKernan is accused of killing her husband, Rob McKernan.

On April 19, 2016, almost 16 months after the New Year's Eve shooting of Rob McKernan, Colleen McKernan's trial for murder begins. Colleen pulled the trigger 10 times. And she hit him 10 times. The evidence will show you that this defendant, Colleen McKernan, committed murder. I think what this evidence is really going to show at its end is the old saying that some of you may have heard, that you never know what someone's dealing with behind closed doors. And that's what this case is all about.

So trial begins. Are you prepared to testify? Absolutely. I'm prepared to testify and I'm looking very much to getting on the stand. The state begins its case with testimony about the New Year's Eve party. I could see her out the back door and she was pointing at Rob and she was yelling. I said she has to either stop screaming or they had to go. One or the other had to happen but they couldn't continue this way in the backyard. I got on Facebook not long after they left and saw that a wife had shot and killed her husband. And testimony from responding personnel.

I went upstairs. I immediately saw the victim on the floor. I noticed a hole to his lower left side. I noticed a hole in the center of his chest and also what was what looked to be a half moon shape cut out of his lip from i'm assuming a bullet in his mouth i noticed that there were numerous teeth that were shattered and there was some there was severe damage to the maxilla area, the upper jaw. And then prosecutors turned to their forensic experts.

This particular item is a Glock Model 26 9mm Luger semi-automatic pistol. All 10 fired 9mm Luger cartridge cases were fired in the submitted Glock pistol. His cause of death is classified as a homicide. On the stand, forensic pathologist Dr. Frank Miller is very clear about the number of shots and the damage they did. Which is broken down, eight gunshot wounds of trunk, two gunshot wounds of head, and then I note that there's bleeding in the right

chest, the left chest, the abdomen, and around the heart, and perforations of brain, heart, lungs, liver, pancreas, aorta, spleen, left kidney. But as to the sequence of shots, he says it's unlikely that determination could be made from the evidence available in this case. It's extremely difficult. That's why my reports always say they're numbered 1 to 10, but there's no regard to how severe they are or what the order or chronological sequence is. Ladies and gentlemen, the state has rested,

and we are at the stage of the proceedings at which time the defense is choosing to present evidence at this time. The defense team presents its case with testimony from experts in psychology. She knew what he was capable of when he was drunk, when he was mean, and her perception at that time of the risk to her life was different, in my opinion, than a person who had not had a battered woman syndrome. And testimony from forensic expert Dr. Daniel Spitz. What, to a reasonable degree of medical and scientific certainty,

in the realm of forensic pathology, were you able to opine in this case? Well, I was able to opine that the injuries occurred over a brief period of time. I was able to indicate that Mr. McKernan was shot while in an upright position and that the sequence that I indicated was certainly a very plausible sequence based on the evidence and that they were in very close proximity, within a couple of feet, at the time that he sustained the wounds. Scott Roeder is standing by, waiting to testify. I've got my ticket bought, my bags are packed,

and I am being left in the dark. Nobody's telling me anything. So do you finally get that call? Actually, I don't think it was a call. I think it was a text message from Ian. And he said, Scott, we're not going to use you. Ian Friedman, Colleen's attorney, said the judge so limited the scope of Scott's presentation that Ian decided not to use it. So the jury never sees the animation and never hears from Scott.

And so Colleen is called as the final defense witness. Did you shoot Robert McKernan on December 31st, 2014? Yes, I did shoot him. Did you pull that first trigger on the evening of December 31st, 2014? I was defending myself. Without the animation to show the jury, the defense chooses another method of demonstrating what Colleen says happened that night. And he grabbed me and pulled me out of the car.

And he hoisted me up. And covered my mouth. And took me back to the front of the house. Defense attorney Eric Long and Colleen McKernan demonstrate for the jury how her husband restrained her. And he said, you're not going anywhere, and he's moving towards me, and we're both moving, and I'm coming here, and I'm like, back up, back up, back up,

and he's coming, and he wants to hit me, and it's very funny, I think. But prosecutor Dave has a few questions of her own. Isn't it fair to say, actually, that Rob was getting ready to leave? No, he was not leaving. You were angry, you grabbed the gun, and went after him. Isn't that true? No, I was trying to leave the house. I was trying to leave.

You shot Rob in his buttock area first. Isn't that true? No, he was facing me at the top of the stairs when he was coming towards me and I was screaming back up, back up, back up and he didn't. And as he's turning, realizing what you were doing, you shot him three more times in the back. Isn't that true? No, he was facing me. Then you continued to shoot him as he's turning towards you, correct? No, that's incorrect. And then as he's going down, you shoot him two more times in the chest.

Isn't that true? No, no, He was facing me. And then as you walked up to him and saw him laying down on that ground or on that floor, you put two more shots in his mouth. Isn't that true? No, that's not true at all.

Okay. Nothing further, Your Honor. The jury has seen seven days of testimony, as well as clear evidence of the damage left behind, on the faces of Rob's parents, Kathy and Dennis McKernan. I'm never, ever going to be the same. I'm going to miss my son forever. What has Colleen done to my family is destroyed our family completely. This horrific crime has just ripped my soul out. And the faces of Colleen's parents, Gary and Jan Owen.

Never thought 28 years ago when Colleen was basically an infant that I'd ever be standing here and talking about a situation like this. It's been awful. From the start, it's a tragic situation, no matter how it turns out. Now, both families can only wait for the jury's decision. Deliberations are now underway in the Colleen McKernan murder trial. Ten men and two women now responsible for deciding the fate of the 28-year-old. I don't know what to expect.

I'm anxious for some closure, especially today. But on the other hand, I'm afraid of today. You're just waiting for the phone to ring. The jury's in or the jury, you know, what is going on? We don't know, but we're prepared for whatever decision the jury makes. But no one was prepared to hear that after two days of deliberations... Ladies and gentlemen, you have considered the case for a considerable period of time, and I have now received your note indicating that you are unable to reach

a verdict. The jury's decision was no decision at all. Based upon the jury's inability to reach a decision in this case, I will declare a mistrial. Deadlocked. What did you think? Well, I think it demonstrated that the prosecutor didn't have good enough evidence. When the verdict came out, I mean, I just cried. I didn't know what was going to happen. It just left me in limbo. It's disappointing, but glass half full. She's not in jail today.

But the state intends to try Colleen again. Since the end of her first trial, Colleen McKernan has been home under house arrest, anxiously awaiting the start of her second trial for the murder of her husband, Robert McKernan. So you're saying that if it was this, and then he turned and this happened here. Now, the night before her trial begins, Colleen is doing what she can to help her new defense team, lawyers Laura Mills and Max Hiltner. So these ones here are moving that way. With just 10 weeks to prepare their case, Colleen's new legal team has faced many challenges,

not the least of which is that neither lawyer has ever tried a murder case before. We have really, really worked hard. We've worked weekends. We've worked nights. We have just helped each other as much as we can get ready. So if he's leaning forward like that, though, then the shot sequence is fine. Also here to help is Scott Roeder. It was difficult for me to tell visually the stippling pattern related to number, the first shot and the second shot.

That first meeting was incredibly productive, and it was truly a meeting of the minds. Our theory is the left lip shot is second. Its stippling pattern is contained within the pattern of gunshot wound one. This time around, the team is determined to use what they can of Scott's presentation. We have every intention of utilizing the animation this time. When talking to the jurors from the first trial, they indicated that would have been helpful.

Visual evidence is the most powerful thing. You have to remember, the jury is going to forget about 75% of everything everybody says. Colleen is the most important part of the trial, without question. Then what we build around her is the science. It's very important, that shot sequence, very important to see that animation and so they can visualize what went on. On the morning of August 23rd, 2016, Colleen McKernan finds herself once again in front of a judge and jury and facing a new team of prosecutors, Dennis Barr and Melissa Day. So, State of Ohio, you may present your opening statement at this time.

The state is confident, ladies and gentlemen, that after you have heard all of the evidence, that you will be convinced that this defendant did not act in self-defense, but committed a cold-blooded act of murder. On New Year's Eve 2014, Colleen McKernan was faced with a choice. To defend her life, or to have her life taken. Once again, the jury hears from a parade of witnesses.

And I looked at her and I said, Listen, she's either got to shut the F up or she's got to get the F out. There was something posted that a wife had shot and killed her husband. This particular item I can recognize as a Glock model 26 pistol. There were two gunshot wounds to the mouth. The cause of death is multiple 10 gunshot wounds of head and trunk. The manner of homicide was recommended to the coroner. But this time... Please state your full name for the record. Scott George Roeder.

Do you own your own company? Yes, I do. What's the name of that company? Evidence Room. Scott gets a chance to present some of his work to the jury. Video number one essentially is a combination of transitions between the case file materials that I was given and my CGI model, which is a computer graphic image. Video number three essentially is my review of Dr. Miller's autopsy report.

Dr. Miller's autopsy report. He describes the positioning of each of the 10 gunshot wounds. I was scanning the jury as I was talking, and I saw a lot of people, you know, okay, they understand, they got it. So we used those measurements to plot out the gunshot wounds on the victim. And then there was Cross. Yes. First of all, you were not present on December 31st, 2014, correct? No, I was not there. Okay. Prosecutor Day uses her cross-examination

to challenge Scott and his work. Now, you had indicated that one of the things that you had reviewed with regards to video three was the autopsy report of Dr. Miller. Yes. Well, let me ask you this. Are you a forensic pathologist? No. Are you aware that Dr. Miller also testified that he could not provide a specific sequence of shots based on the wound patterns that he found

in the medical evidence? Yeah, I'm aware. How sure are you that this is how it happened? I would call this the most probable version of the events based on the evidence. So it's still a version. It's still a theory. Correct. But a probable version, a probable theory.

So you are telling me you are doing additional medical determinations beyond what the coroner themselves? It's not medical. It's not medical? No. All right, thank you. I have no further questions, John. And once again, Colleen takes the stand to tell her story. And I'm like, I'm leaving, you know, I'm leaving and I'm trying to walk towards the stairs and he's like, you're not going anywhere. And I ended up raising the gun and he saw and I started screaming back up, back up, back up and he did it. And he did it. So I pulled the trigger. And again, Colleen is crossed by the prosecution.

Stand up, please. Objection. Okay, sustained. Mr. Barr, if you are going to ask the witness to do something, then ask her to demonstrate. Would you put your arms out like you're shooting a gun, please? Did you get this close? Overruled. He was there. He was very close.

And you're pointing at my chest, right? I don't know. I just pulled the trigger. And he could have went like this, couldn't he? He could have grabbed that gun if he was that close. He was close enough, yes. After six days of testimony. She is not a battered woman, ladies and gentlemen. She is a murderer.

The evidence proves it. And I ask you to return that verdict. Thank you. We ask that you return a not guilty verdict to the charge of murder against Colleen McKernan. Both sides rest, and for a second time, the case goes to the jury. So going into deliberations, what are you thinking? I'm thinking we had an acquittal. I felt very good that we had an acquittal.

But things don't always go as you think. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, with additional time, do you believe that it would be possible for you to reach a unanimous verdict? Deja vu all over again. The same identical deliberation. They deliberate for two days. They come back.

They're deadlocked again. Again? Again. Because you are unable to reach a verdict, I will declare this case a mistrial. All that work? We're right back where we started. How frustrating is that?

It's very frustrating, but, you know, that's the jury system that we have. You know, I guess at this point, maybe we get ready for round three. But as it turned out, there would be no round three. Six months after the second mistrial, the state of Ohio had had enough. On March 17th, 2017. state of Ohio had had enough. On March 17, 2017, it has been brought to the court's attention that a resolution of this matter has been reached. Colleen and her family and the McKernan family find themselves back in court one last time. Ms. McKernan, then as to one count of voluntary manslaughter, a felony of the first degree, how do you plead? Guilty. And with that one word, more than two years of waiting for justice are over. The prosecutor called my lawyers and presented a plea offer. I decided that what was best for me, my family,

was to take the plea offer. I can't look at, I can't go up against life in jail one more time and sit through it all over again. I could see there was, how do I put this, justice served to a certain point. It's not the type of justice I wanted to see. We lost our son, okay, over a vicious act from a lunatic woman. We know that they lost a son, a brother, a dad.

We know, We understand that. And I can tell you, I can tell the McKernan family and everyone, that Colleen is sorry that Rob is dead. But she's not sorry for defending herself. It will be the further sentence of the court that you serve a total prison term of seven years. sentence of the court that you serve a total prison term of seven years. I thought she'd turn around and say how sorry she was for her actions on that night, on December 31st, 2014. She did not.

In this situation, there's no winner, and nobody's coming out on top, and it's not lost on me, the pain that Rob's family's feeling. And I hope that they're able to find peace and healing and move forward and are able to let it all go. Colleen McKernan is currently serving her sentence at the Ohio Reformatory for Women. She could be released as early as September 2020 by a judge's decision based on her behavior in prison.