Not On Record Podcast

Possibly Correct Media
  • 5.0 (8)
  • Education
  • Updated Biweekly

Criminal Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger and YouTube personality, legal researcher and host of the UnTrue Crime podcast Diana Davison, sit down and discuss the aftermath of their case loads and what really goes on behind the scenes. A behind the scenes inside look into the real court room drama.

  1. 3d ago

    EP#231 | Drunk, Drugged or Incapable? Sexual Assault Law; USA vs Canada

    EP#231 | Drunk, Drugged or Incapable? Sexual Assault Law; USA vs Canada Sponsored by EasyDNS Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record: https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord Use promo code: notonrecord Neuberger & Partners HIGHLY EXPERIENCED AND SKILLED TORONTO Criminal Defence Law Firm https://nrlawyers.com/ In Episode 231 of Not On Record, criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger is joined for the first time by Yuvika to examine the Jane Doe civil lawsuit against Cornell University and a fraternity chapter arising from 2024 allegations of sexual assault. Using the case as a backdrop, they compare New York’s approach to capacity to consent where voluntary intoxication does not itself establish incapacity unless the complainant is unconscious or physically helpless with Canada’s broader framework under Criminal Code section 273.1 and leading decisions such as R v GF (2021 SCC), R v Alrawi (2018 NSCA 10), and R v Ryu (2025 SCC 34). The discussion covers the practical differences for sexual assault prosecutions, myth-based reasoning, and why these distinctions matter, while carefully distinguishing allegations from established facts.

    EP#231 | Drunk, Drugged or Incapable? Sexual Assault Law; USA vs Canada

  2. Oct 12

    EP#230 | Eight and a Half Years in Prison: Sean Parker on His Case and the UK Justice System

    EP#230 | Eight and a Half Years in Prison: Sean Parker on His Case and the UK Justice System Sponsored by EasyDNS Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record: https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord Use promo code: notonrecord Should an accused person testify in their own defence, even when cross-examination could expose them to difficult questions? In Episode 230 of Not On Record, hosts Joseph Neuberger, Michael Bury and Diana Davison speak with British artist, writer and musician Sean B.W. Parker about his book, Magnolia Graffiti, which chronicles his experience of conviction, imprisonment and the British criminal justice system. Parker discusses his account of the allegations against him, the decisions made during his trial, his reasons for not testifying, and the challenges of maintaining his innocence while incarcerated. He also reflects on his experience with the appeals process and the personal impact of spending eight and a half years in prison. The conversation explores broader questions about criminal defence strategy, jury selection, cross-examination, sexual assault proceedings and the difficulties faced by people who maintain their innocence following conviction. The hosts conclude with a discussion of the decision to testify in one’s own defence, including why explaining a speech impediment to a jury may be an important consideration when preparing an accused to give evidence. In this episode: - Sean Parker’s book, Magnolia Graffiti - His account of the allegations, trial and conviction - The strategic decision not to testify - Speech impediments and the challenges of cross-examination - Jury selection in the UK and Canada - Maintaining innocence while incarcerated - Appeals and the criminal justice system - Lessons for criminal defence lawyers and accused persons Guest: Sean B.W. Parker Book: Magnolia Graffiti Subscribe to Not On Record for discussions about criminal law, courtroom strategy, controversial cases and issues affecting the Canadian justice system.

    EP#230 | Eight and a Half Years in Prison: Sean Parker on His Case and the UK Justice System

  3. Oct 5

    EP#229 | 18 Months in Prison for The Wrong Username

    18 Months in Prison for The Wrong Username Sponsored by EasyDNS Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record: https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord Use promo code: notonrecord ## Description How can one tiny difference in a digital username lead to an innocent man spending 18 months in prison? In Episode 229 of Not On Record, Joseph Neuberger, Michael Bury and Diana Davison examine the extraordinary case of R. v. Klayme, 2026 NSCA 59, in which the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal ultimately found that Brandon Klayme was factually innocent and should never have been charged. The investigation began with a Kik username containing two underscores. Police records instead pursued a username containing only one. That small discrepancy sent investigators down the wrong digital trail, ultimately leading them to Klayme. Despite searches of his devices producing no evidence connecting him to the alleged communications, the case proceeded and resulted in a conviction and an 18-month prison sentence. The episode explores digital tunnel vision, the danger of treating digital evidence as infallible, the importance of investigating exculpatory evidence, and the enormous consequences when an investigative theory becomes institutional truth. The discussion also examines comments about sexual-assault trials, cross-examination, the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, support measures for complainants, and concerns about expanding the use of CCTV testimony. A powerful episode about wrongful convictions, digital evidence, due process and why the safeguards of the criminal justice system matter.

    EP#229 | 18 Months in Prison for The Wrong Username

  4. Sep 28

    EP#228 | When Judges Apply Two Standards: The Appeal Court Response

    Not On Record | EP#228 | When Judges Apply Two Standards: The Appeal Court Response Sponsored by EasyDNS Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record: https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord Use promo code: notonrecord In Episode 228 of *Not On Record*, Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison examine **R. v. Hornsby, 2026 ONCA 604**, a significant Ontario Court of Appeal decision dealing with credibility assessment and “uneven scrutiny” in a criminal trial. The Court of Appeal quashed convictions on all counts and ordered new trials after finding that the trial judge applied different standards when assessing the accused and complainant’s evidence. The judgment provides a useful framework for identifying flawed credibility analysis, including disproportionate attention to minor inconsistencies, treating detail as evidence of credibility for one witness but evidence of fabrication for another, relying on stereotypes or generalizations, failing to grapple with material weaknesses, and effectively reversing the burden of proof. Joseph and Diana also discuss why detailed written closing submissions matter, how lawyers can build the record for an appeal, and why credibility analysis must be conducted carefully and independently for each count.

    EP#228 | When Judges Apply Two Standards: The Appeal Court Response

  5. Sep 21

    Not On Record | EP#227 | Judge Cross-Examines Accused, Conviction Overturned

    EP#227 | Judge Cross-Examines Accused, Conviction Overturned Sponsored by EasyDNS Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record: https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord Use promo code: notonrecord Can a trial judge cross-examine an accused? A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision raises that question in dramatic fashion. In Episode 227 of Not On Record, Joseph Neuberger, Michael Bury and Noriana discuss a 2026 Ontario Court of Appeal decision in which a sexual assault conviction was overturned because the trial judge’s conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The judge questioned the accused extensively after the Crown had already completed its cross-examination, with seven pages of transcript devoted to the judge’s questioning. The Court of Appeal found that the questions went far beyond simple clarification and amounted to cross-examination. Even more significantly, the trial judge relied on evidence that emerged from her own questioning when assessing the accused’s credibility and reliability. The episode examines the limits of judicial intervention, reasonable apprehension of bias, the importance of an impartial trial, delayed allegations, credibility assessments, memory, and what defence counsel can do when they believe a judge has crossed the line. The case is a fascinating reminder that justice must not only be done, but must also appear to be done.

    Not On Record | EP#227 | Judge Cross-Examines Accused, Conviction Overturned

  6. Sep 14

    EP#226 | The Lindsey Clancy Trial: When Morality Collides With the Law

    Sponsored by EasyDNS Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record: https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord Use promo code: notonrecord The discussion looks at the unusual legal position now facing the defence, including a motion asking the judge to enter an acquittal following the hung jury. We examine how reasonable doubt works, why a jury cannot simply substitute its personal morality for the law, and the important differences between the Massachusetts approach and Canada’s law on not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Joseph also draws on his 19 years sitting on the Ontario Review Board and his experience handling mental health cases to explain psychosis, command hallucinations, postpartum depression, infanticide and what actually happens when someone is found not criminally responsible. The episode also addresses the evidence surrounding Clancy’s alleged suicide attempts, the role of her reported mental illness, her civil action against physicians, and why finding someone not criminally responsible is absolutely not a “get out of jail free card.” A difficult case raises difficult questions, but the legal system still requires jurors to apply the law, even when the facts are emotionally overwhelming. Subscribe to *Not On Record*, leave a comment, and let us know what you think. This discussion is for informational purposes and is not legal advice.

    EP#226 | The Lindsey Clancy Trial: When Morality Collides With the Law

  7. Sep 7

    EP#225 | The Affidavit Trap: A Dangerous New Trend

    **Sponsored by EasyDNS** Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record: https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord Use promo code: **notonrecord** In Episode 225 of Not On Record, criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger and Michael Bury examine a little-discussed legal issue that could have major consequences in sexual assault trials. Can Crown counsel cross-examine an accused on what was omitted from a section 276 affidavit, effectively turning defence strategy into evidence? Joined by articling student Noriana, they explore solicitor-client privilege, the purpose of section 276 applications, key Supreme Court of Canada decisions including R. v. Darrach, R. v. Goldfinch, and R. v. J.J., and why this emerging courtroom tactic could have significant implications for fairness, trial strategy, and future appeals.

    EP#225 | The Affidavit Trap: A Dangerous New Trend

  8. Aug 31

    EP#224 | He Never Touched Her… So Why Was It Sexual Assault?

    **Sponsored by EasyDNS** Move your domain or web hosting to EasyDNS and support Not On Record: https://easydns.com/NotOnRecord Use promo code: **notonrecord** Can a person be convicted of sexual assault without any sexual intent? In Episode 224 of *Not On Record*, criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger and Diana Davison examine the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in **R. v. Roan, 2026 ABCA 260**, exploring how Canadian law defines sexual assault through the protection of a person’s sexual integrity rather than sexual motive. They also discuss the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in **R. v. SSD, 2026 ONCA 579**, and its application of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in **R. v. Berg**, reinforcing the importance of the reasonable doubt standard, the proper application of **W.(D.)**, and why judges must provide clear, consistent reasons for conviction. This episode examines two significant appellate decisions that highlight fundamental principles of Canadian criminal law and the safeguards that protect the integrity of the justice system.

    EP#224 | He Never Touched Her… So Why Was It Sexual Assault?
See All (236)

5
out of 5
8 Ratings

About

Criminal Defence Lawyer Joseph Neuberger and YouTube personality, legal researcher and host of the UnTrue Crime podcast Diana Davison, sit down and discuss the aftermath of their case loads and what really goes on behind the scenes. A behind the scenes inside look into the real court room drama.

Information

  • Creator
    Possibly Correct Media
  • Years Active
    2021 - 2026
  • Episodes
    236
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © All rights reserved
  • Show Website
    Not On Record Podcast

You Might Also Like