You're irrationally butthurt about this. Is there a reason you're crying so much about people discussing this?
Making a Murderer
- Thread starter chemmie
- Start date
You're irrationally butthurt about this. Is there a reason you're crying so much about people discussing this?
The biggest mystery to me is how this Steven Avery guy can get a girlfriend and other people I know can't!
LOL at the people on here claiming they know more about the criminal justice system (and/or this particular case) because they watched a documentary and others didnt.
First of all, its a ****ing movie. What did you expect? After ten hours it would just conclude with: "Yep, the scumbag did it."? They went to the time and expense to film this case because they expected him to be found guilty and they wanted to make a movie that highlights the strained notions of reasonable doubt on both sides of the criminal justice debate, the lack of resources available to law enforcement to make sure people get it right despite the tragic personal risks on the line, and they wanted to manipulate the public's preconceived notions of how the criminal justice system operates based on what the public has seen on TV. On TV, cops have unlimited time, only one case, all this scientific evidence and equipment, and everything is done in a neat bow in an hour, usually with a confession. Well, real life aint that way.
As far as I know, Im the only one on this board that regularly comments that has any experience at all in a criminal courtroom. (Im not counting all you deviants that have pled no contest). Ive never defended someone accused of murder, because I am not capital qualified. But I have sat second chair in a murder defense and I've tried and defended solicitation to commit first degree murder. (I won both cases I handled. The second chair case got life no release).
So, let's go to school for a minute, shall we?
It's a murder trial. 99% of murder cases involve circumstantial evidence only. People generally don't murder someone when other people are around to say they did it.
There are three types of evidence. Direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, and forensic evidence. Generally, there is no direct evidence in murder cases that go to trial.
Direct evidence is generally testimony of a live witness. When you have someone who is going to stand up in court and say "Yeah, that guy right over there shot her in the head. I saw him do it and he turned to me and said I hope she suffered" then the prosecution won't take the death penalty off the table. With death an option, you start pushing around to avoid a trial and plea to life or life no release. In most cases, the State bites on that, there is no trial, and the guy gets to enjoy an extra can of Del Monte fruit cocktail for every christmas the rest of his life.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that requires an inference to make a finding of fact. Nearly all of the evidence pointing to Stephen Avery's guilt is circumstantial. There is also circumstantial evidence that negates his guilt. Its up to the jury to consider all of that evidence and decide what creates a reasonable inference of fact. The jury must disregard inferences that are unreasonable or that cannot form the basis of a fact finding. For instance, there was some discussion above Avery not being allowed to refer the fact that someone else might have done the crime. That is because THE DEFENSE NEVER OFFERED ANY EVIDENCE THAT SOMEONE ELSE DID IT. When you raise an affirmative defense, like alibi or other person responsible, there has to be some evidence, no matter how small, that the jury can create an inference that a particular persons or persons did it. (It was a one-armed man that fled the scene, etc.) So while you can argue he was framed by the way the evidence was handled, (the tampering with the blood sample), you can't argue that someone else did it because the blood sample was tampered with. You have to make a showing that there is evidence someone else committed the murder before you can argue that. Avery's team for tactical reasons chose not to do that. I suspect that is because the client himself insisted on going with a tampering/framing theory in hopes of inflaming jury sympathy/confusion and getting an acquittal that way. And that is the problem with the movie. It presents information as admissible evidence, even if it wasn't, that negates his guilt, but does glosses over or does not present conflicting evidence that jury may have found more reasonable, so they chose to disregard his information. And this assumes that the information was even reliable enough to be presented to the jury at all. And that's part of the problem with the defense here and my problem with the movie and the controversy. Avery wants a second bite at the apple. He tried one defense (I was framed) and now he wants a second trial using another defense to see if that will work (evidentiary inconsistencies in the first trial). He had the choice to go with a defense of conflicting evidence or the absence of evidence. He wanted to throw in the info about him being framed. So he could have said "The bus driver testified that she saw something inconsistent with the confession given by the nephew. You should disregard the confession because of that AND there is no independent circumstantial evidence to support support the nephews claims (no blood in trailer or garage)" Instead, he tried to say that AND he was framed. Under those circumstances, the jury can disregard that defense as unreasonable and make a finding that guilt was proven.
Forensic evidence is evidence using the application of forensic science to infer conclusions of facts based on available data. The problem with forensic evidence is that it does not usually demonstrate conclusively that guilt can be established simply on the face of that evidence alone. But the public has that expectation because that is the way that scientific evidence is presented on television and film. In reality, it only creates circumstantial evidence that can be evaluated and scrutinized using the scientific method of hypothesis and observation.
For instance, just because some other public hair other than a victim and your suspect is found on her panties in the rape kit doesnt conclusively prove that your suspect didnt rape her. It could reasonably mean that she had consensual sex with another person recently or uses a laundromat. Now, if that hair matches a known sex offender who lives two blocks away from the victim, you can draw an inference circumstantially that reasonable doubt exists that your client, the ex-doctor who became a priest and who looks like the sex offenders brother didnt do it. Most jurors and prosecutors would agree and the case goes nowhere.
The problem you have is that the State doesnt have the resources or the incentive to test things like that third hair. If they've got other evidence, for instance like in the Avery case where the victim is alive and says "That's the guy" in open court after the opportunity to confront her and find out if she is sure or whether it was suggested to her. Then they have no obligation to spend money testing that hair. Its up to the defense in many cases to do that. And that costs money. Why? Because the prosecutor only has to establish guilty beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Having someone say "That's him" establishes that. Collateral evidence like that hair is mere possible doubt that the defense can raise as an affirmative defense. It isnt reasonable to conclude that the defendant didnt do something based on the mere presence of the hair for the reasons stated above.
And that's the problem with the film and the messages above. The purpose of the movie is to manipulate the public's understanding of reasonable doubt to a level that requires the government to affirmative exclude all possible doubt. That isn't our system and it isn't practical, even in death cases. (Whether we should have death as a sentence for this reason is a different issue).
So in the end, the movie does nothing but echo Avery's defense and the preconceptions of those that have an emotional reaction to it: "The government is bad and can't be trusted, therefore I must go free because they can't disprove to my satisfaction my claim that I didnt do it." No crime would ever be solved without a confession under those standards. The state would spend all its time disproving elusive negatives. And giving people as many trials as the number of defense theories they can create sitting in prison.
First of all, its a ****ing movie. What did you expect? After ten hours it would just conclude with: "Yep, the scumbag did it."? They went to the time and expense to film this case because they expected him to be found guilty and they wanted to make a movie that highlights the strained notions of reasonable doubt on both sides of the criminal justice debate, the lack of resources available to law enforcement to make sure people get it right despite the tragic personal risks on the line, and they wanted to manipulate the public's preconceived notions of how the criminal justice system operates based on what the public has seen on TV. On TV, cops have unlimited time, only one case, all this scientific evidence and equipment, and everything is done in a neat bow in an hour, usually with a confession. Well, real life aint that way.
As far as I know, Im the only one on this board that regularly comments that has any experience at all in a criminal courtroom. (Im not counting all you deviants that have pled no contest). Ive never defended someone accused of murder, because I am not capital qualified. But I have sat second chair in a murder defense and I've tried and defended solicitation to commit first degree murder. (I won both cases I handled. The second chair case got life no release).
So, let's go to school for a minute, shall we?
It's a murder trial. 99% of murder cases involve circumstantial evidence only. People generally don't murder someone when other people are around to say they did it.
There are three types of evidence. Direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, and forensic evidence. Generally, there is no direct evidence in murder cases that go to trial.
Direct evidence is generally testimony of a live witness. When you have someone who is going to stand up in court and say "Yeah, that guy right over there shot her in the head. I saw him do it and he turned to me and said I hope she suffered" then the prosecution won't take the death penalty off the table. With death an option, you start pushing around to avoid a trial and plea to life or life no release. In most cases, the State bites on that, there is no trial, and the guy gets to enjoy an extra can of Del Monte fruit cocktail for every christmas the rest of his life.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that requires an inference to make a finding of fact. Nearly all of the evidence pointing to Stephen Avery's guilt is circumstantial. There is also circumstantial evidence that negates his guilt. Its up to the jury to consider all of that evidence and decide what creates a reasonable inference of fact. The jury must disregard inferences that are unreasonable or that cannot form the basis of a fact finding. For instance, there was some discussion above Avery not being allowed to refer the fact that someone else might have done the crime. That is because THE DEFENSE NEVER OFFERED ANY EVIDENCE THAT SOMEONE ELSE DID IT. When you raise an affirmative defense, like alibi or other person responsible, there has to be some evidence, no matter how small, that the jury can create an inference that a particular persons or persons did it. (It was a one-armed man that fled the scene, etc.) So while you can argue he was framed by the way the evidence was handled, (the tampering with the blood sample), you can't argue that someone else did it because the blood sample was tampered with. You have to make a showing that there is evidence someone else committed the murder before you can argue that. Avery's team for tactical reasons chose not to do that. I suspect that is because the client himself insisted on going with a tampering/framing theory in hopes of inflaming jury sympathy/confusion and getting an acquittal that way. And that is the problem with the movie. It presents information as admissible evidence, even if it wasn't, that negates his guilt, but does glosses over or does not present conflicting evidence that jury may have found more reasonable, so they chose to disregard his information. And this assumes that the information was even reliable enough to be presented to the jury at all. And that's part of the problem with the defense here and my problem with the movie and the controversy. Avery wants a second bite at the apple. He tried one defense (I was framed) and now he wants a second trial using another defense to see if that will work (evidentiary inconsistencies in the first trial). He had the choice to go with a defense of conflicting evidence or the absence of evidence. He wanted to throw in the info about him being framed. So he could have said "The bus driver testified that she saw something inconsistent with the confession given by the nephew. You should disregard the confession because of that AND there is no independent circumstantial evidence to support support the nephews claims (no blood in trailer or garage)" Instead, he tried to say that AND he was framed. Under those circumstances, the jury can disregard that defense as unreasonable and make a finding that guilt was proven.
Forensic evidence is evidence using the application of forensic science to infer conclusions of facts based on available data. The problem with forensic evidence is that it does not usually demonstrate conclusively that guilt can be established simply on the face of that evidence alone. But the public has that expectation because that is the way that scientific evidence is presented on television and film. In reality, it only creates circumstantial evidence that can be evaluated and scrutinized using the scientific method of hypothesis and observation.
For instance, just because some other public hair other than a victim and your suspect is found on her panties in the rape kit doesnt conclusively prove that your suspect didnt rape her. It could reasonably mean that she had consensual sex with another person recently or uses a laundromat. Now, if that hair matches a known sex offender who lives two blocks away from the victim, you can draw an inference circumstantially that reasonable doubt exists that your client, the ex-doctor who became a priest and who looks like the sex offenders brother didnt do it. Most jurors and prosecutors would agree and the case goes nowhere.
The problem you have is that the State doesnt have the resources or the incentive to test things like that third hair. If they've got other evidence, for instance like in the Avery case where the victim is alive and says "That's the guy" in open court after the opportunity to confront her and find out if she is sure or whether it was suggested to her. Then they have no obligation to spend money testing that hair. Its up to the defense in many cases to do that. And that costs money. Why? Because the prosecutor only has to establish guilty beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Having someone say "That's him" establishes that. Collateral evidence like that hair is mere possible doubt that the defense can raise as an affirmative defense. It isnt reasonable to conclude that the defendant didnt do something based on the mere presence of the hair for the reasons stated above.
And that's the problem with the film and the messages above. The purpose of the movie is to manipulate the public's understanding of reasonable doubt to a level that requires the government to affirmative exclude all possible doubt. That isn't our system and it isn't practical, even in death cases. (Whether we should have death as a sentence for this reason is a different issue).
So in the end, the movie does nothing but echo Avery's defense and the preconceptions of those that have an emotional reaction to it: "The government is bad and can't be trusted, therefore I must go free because they can't disprove to my satisfaction my claim that I didnt do it." No crime would ever be solved without a confession under those standards. The state would spend all its time disproving elusive negatives. And giving people as many trials as the number of defense theories they can create sitting in prison.
Last edited:
That's all well and good but did you even watch it?
I've noticed that every "lawyer" has gone nuts about this movie. Frequently doing what you did.
The problem with what you just wrote is that the system has been shown to get things wrong, very wrong, MANY times. You reference "the system" numerous times yet it's obvious that "the system" severely f*cks up the lives of innocent people.
This response proves my point. You watched the film with that belief. The film does a masterful job of manipulating you into believing that is what happened here. Unless you sit through the whole trial, you can't make that conclusion. I don't have a quarrel with people that point out the system is flawed. I defend criminals every day. Some guilty, some not. I know the flaws better than any of you ever will. I have a big problem with assuming Avery fits into that category simply because there are a few hundred outliers out of hundreds of millions of criminal cases.
Your point above made no sense.
Yes, he HAD to involve the "I was framed" angle since a lot of damning evidence just happened to show up, weeks after initial searches, sometimes on the 6th or 7th search of the same building, and this evidence happened to be found by the local guys. It wasn't enough just to say "Hey, I had nothing to do with that key despite my DNA being on it". They had to provide a reasonable reason as to how and why that key got there, with his DNA on it, and the only way to do that was to insist that it was staged.
Yes, he HAD to involve the "I was framed" angle since a lot of damning evidence just happened to show up, weeks after initial searches, sometimes on the 6th or 7th search of the same building, and this evidence happened to be found by the local guys. It wasn't enough just to say "Hey, I had nothing to do with that key despite my DNA being on it". They had to provide a reasonable reason as to how and why that key got there, with his DNA on it, and the only way to do that was to insist that it was staged.
No, let me make this clear: I'm not a lawyer, nor do I give a shit that I'm not. I don't recall every other profession telling lawyers to STFU if they comment on something outside the courtroom. So kindly STFU about trying to silence any "non lawyers" on having an opinion on this.
I've never said it's clear cut the guy is innocent. I've always said that this documentary raised valid questions, especially regarding the Dassey conviction, and also raised valid criticisms of the criminal justice system, which is clearly not infallible and has often put innocent people in jail, or to die. If you're insisting that these questions aren't valid then you're telling us that we simply must accept the system always works and to shut up about it.
Although the burden of proof is supposed to be on the prosecution, what bugs me is that this doesn't seem to be the case in a lot of trials. These two cases, as depicted in the documentary, are no exception.
You are assuming that you can't be guilty if you were framed. US law does not recognize jury nullification. You can't ask the jury to set guilty people free simply because the police added extra evidence.
I am assuming you think OJ Simpson is innocent? After all, that was his defense. Evidence planting, inconsistent and incompetent evidence evaluation, investigators refusing to investigate other suspects, prejudice based on prior offenses.
At least with Simpson, we had two things that the public never talks about: 1. The uncontroverted evidence that Nicole Brown's blood sample seized from the crime scene was not entered into the evidence locker with other items seized at the time and was instead transported to the Simpson residence. 2. Evidence that the blood stains on the socks worn by Simpson were the same on both socks, allowing the jury to infer that blood was poured on the two socks as they lay on top of each other.
Here we have evidence like the key, that was obviously tampered with -- no DNA of the victim on an object she handled that day and every day.
But just because the cops fill in the blanks doesnt make him not guilty or entitled to acquittal. Only the jury knows why they disregarded the evidence of evidence tampering. Should the law enforcement unit be decertified by the state and placed under supervision? Perhaps. They should investigate the cops, but that does not negate guilt in this case.
I am assuming you think OJ Simpson is innocent? After all, that was his defense. Evidence planting, inconsistent and incompetent evidence evaluation, investigators refusing to investigate other suspects, prejudice based on prior offenses.
At least with Simpson, we had two things that the public never talks about: 1. The uncontroverted evidence that Nicole Brown's blood sample seized from the crime scene was not entered into the evidence locker with other items seized at the time and was instead transported to the Simpson residence. 2. Evidence that the blood stains on the socks worn by Simpson were the same on both socks, allowing the jury to infer that blood was poured on the two socks as they lay on top of each other.
Here we have evidence like the key, that was obviously tampered with -- no DNA of the victim on an object she handled that day and every day.
But just because the cops fill in the blanks doesnt make him not guilty or entitled to acquittal. Only the jury knows why they disregarded the evidence of evidence tampering. Should the law enforcement unit be decertified by the state and placed under supervision? Perhaps. They should investigate the cops, but that does not negate guilt in this case.
n Again, public misconception. The burden is on the State to prove beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. In crimes with no direct evidence, there must be a showing that there is no reasonable hypothesis of innocence. HOWEVER, if you choose to mount a defense, it is up to you to prove that defense to the jury. So part of the burden shifts back to you. You do that knowingly and voluntarily. Good lawyers, and Avery had some of the best, go over that fact umpteen times. He chose to go with the framing defense knowing he was going to have to prove it. Apparently he didnt. Now he wants a second bite at the apple. I call BS
Thanks for the insight since IANAL. Every documentary out there does the same thing so it is easy to get caught up in the drama and I watched this knowing that. However, this seems to me to be quite a bit different than Blackfish.
Since you are a defense attorney, do you ever collaborate with the prosecutors to get a confession?
Have you ever tried co-defendants on the same crime while offering two completely different stories to the events of said crime like the "she was killed int he garage alone" and the "she was raped and killed in the trailer by two?"
Is it common to have this much conspiracy and circumstantial evidence that points to a conspiracy?
He probably did do it but It all seemed pretty horseshit to me.
Sure I suppose I can agree with that. However, that evidence should not be admissible. So you can ask/expect a retrial or something to that effect.
Since you are a defense attorney, do you ever collaborate with the prosecutors to get a confession?
Have you ever tried co-defendants on the same crime while offering two completely different stories to the events of said crime like the "she was killed int he garage alone" and the "she was raped and killed in the trailer by two?"
Is it common to have this much conspiracy and circumstantial evidence that points to a conspiracy?
He probably did do it but It all seemed pretty horseshit to me.
Sure I suppose I can agree with that. However, that evidence should not be admissible. So you can ask/expect a retrial or something to that effect.
There is absolutely no reason why evidence should be admissible to convict someone to prison if there's a strong likelihood that the evidence was tampered with, or worse, planted by the very LEO's working on the case. Which is exactly what happened a few times during this case.
The Prosecution ended up referencing the coerced Dassey "confession" even though it was deemed inadmissible in the Avery case! How should that be possible? How should a Prosecutor be allowed to reference evidence that was already thrown out for being bullshit and not have any systematic reaction to protect the person on trial?
In the absence of a pre-trial motion to exclude the evidence, the issue of whether evidence may have been mishandled or tampered with almost always goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. There are some exceptions, but good luck in a murder trial getting a judge to rule a key with blood on it excluded when the issue could have been raised before trial. It happens, but waiting is a bad idea unless you've got a really good reason. In other words, Avery did not argue that the key should not have been admitted as evidence. He WANTED the evidence to come in so the jury could reach the conclusion that the key was planted to support his overall defense. Even if they lost pre-trial motions on that issue and the key was allowed in, the jury hears there is blood on the key, but the jury is free to weigh whether the allegation that it establishes Avery's guilt has more weight than the counter allegation that it establishes that he was framed. For whatever reason, the jury apparently went with the former. Im sorry you disagree. On any given day, there could have been 12 people who agree with you on the jury. People go to prison for the rest of their lives based on the makeup of a jury. Its the way the system works and its far better than any other system out there.
I would have to know more facts to respond on the confession issue and I simply don't recall them at this time.
Last edited:
It would be a far better system if there was a more rigorous appeals and review process. The fact that Dassey couldn't get a re-trail is downright criminal.
The next time you argue for smaller government and less government oversight generally, I will remind you of this statement.
First, nobody wants to pay for that. Try running for election on a platform that includes giving criminals more ability to escape conviction and see how far you get. Even if you get over the hurdle of arguing for greater funding of due process protections, you are going to have to defeat the folks in the Legislature that think spending money on criminal procedure infrastructure is nothing more than lawyer welfare and kiss ass quasi-bribery for judges to sit on a fluffier pillow so if you get caught doing something you will have leverage with them later. But hey, if you vote for my bill instead we can all claim we dropped car tag fees $5 next election cycle. Now which bill is coming out of committee?
Second, that increase in spending adds to the bottom line. Nobody wants to be in the position of Jeb Bush. Cut taxes and spending dramatically. Figure out that state government will collapse if you don't fund certain sectors adequately, increase spending exponentially and leave office with a reputation as a big government Republican. So even if you get the bill out of the Legislature, you've got a governor that you probably voted for that doesnt want spending increases of any kind on their watch.
Last edited:
SMH
You can't be serious?
If there's one goddamn function of government that SHOULD take priority in terms of funding, it would be assuring there are adequate means for people to seek a proper appeals process and/or re-trial, you know, to assure that we aren't incarcerating innocent people or worse, executing innocent people.
I'm not saying we must re-try every single case. But please don't tell me about "big government" simply because I think that maybe kids like Dassey should be granted a re-trial when there are severe and obvious issues with the trial that landed him in prison for 35 years.
Thank you, Huffy!! This is what I've been saying all along. I think the fact that the documentary intentionally passes over any of the pre-trial motions is very suspect (and very Hollywood, as they really only want to focus on the "juice" of the trial anyway). They simply show one of the lawyers saying "well, the judge wouldn't let us say anyone else could have done it" which is misleading and probably contradictory to the actual proceedings. It's shocking to the audience because it's presented in the bias of the director, who doesn't want to show the court's justification for such an order. Baez was able to get away with the "someone else could have done this" defense in the Casey Anthony case, because he didn't get that kind of order in pre-trial. If there's no evidence that anyone else did it, and by the accounts presented in this documentary there isn't any, then you're strategy should be to prove you didn't do it. That wasn't Avery's strategy though. He went with "the police framed me" and as Huffy and I have pointed out, that doesn't mean he didn't do it.
Im not saying I agree with it. Im just saying that is the reality after 15 years of practicing criminal law and working with the legislature as a lobbyist.
You might find it interesting to know that you can't pass a criminal statute without it being routed through the budget committee to be evaluated regarding the cost of implementation. So let's say tomorrow someone invents something you think ought to be declared criminal. Let's say a software program that hypnotizes you into donating to a charity like the Golden Hurricane Club or something. To pass a law to make it a felony to use such a device, you have to have state government do a fiscal study regarding the fiscal impact of enforcing the law. How many additional cops, how many additional prosecutors, how many additional jail and prison personnel, how many post conviction people, how much prison space, etc. If it is too much or too little, good luck with it getting passed. Too much raising of the bottom line and you will be told that existing law covers the conduct in many cases because that will add to the bottom line of our "run government like a business" governor. Too few victims and get ready for the argument coming out of committee that it costs more to enforce such a law than the increased costs justify, therefore, no new law, just use existing fraud statutes, etc. -- which may or may not be adequate. A good example of this is the internet cafe problem that slipped through the cracks for years, in part because of this type of policy/analysis.
The bottom line is the Republican Party, of which I am a die hard member, often does a balancing test between public safety/public benefit vs. the political cost of defending the action to the insane right wing of the party that insists on evaluating performance based on statistics that are taken out of context. As long as the Grover Norquists of the world go around making people sign documents that say No New Taxes Ever, then people will hesitate to spend money -- even when it makes great sense like additional post conviction relief.
As an aside, I don't think anyone in Florida who practices law with a nodding sense of reality thinks that the current procedural rules/statutes for post conviction are inadequate. Most who work within the system will agree that the system as a whole is woefully underfunded and always will be. Just like the schools, people move to Florida after their kids are grown and they never plan on being arrested their last ten years on the planet. So they don't see the need to fund either. So they don't vote for people who raise their taxes to pay for that type of stuff. So politicians vote against it.
If you can't self-finance your way through the justice system in this country, you are in trouble. Plain and simple.
You can allow it in with the knowledge it may or may not be good evidence. As long as the jury has heard what the defense says [ may] be wrong, I see no issues. with it be admitted.
We have no idea what the jury decided on, nor what they looked at. I have only been on 2 juries but my experience is in the end, they take their job pretty serious. and you almost always have a group that comes down on both sides.
Last edited:
The Dassey confession wasn't ruled inadmissible. It simply wasn't introduced by the prosecution because it didn't fit their narrative of their version of Avery's story. The whole confession issue just continues to reinforce my belief that you never EVER talk to the cops without a lawyer present.
FIFY. As we have seen, some lawyers are idiots. Just because they are sitting next to you saying it is OK to talk, doesnt mean it really is ....
True, but I'd be willing to bet that cops are less willing to go down coercive avenues if there's a witness present.
Sorry to dig up an old thread, but Brandon Dassey's case was just shunned by the SCOTUS. For those not following along, Dassey was initially granted a new trial on appeal to a Federal Judge based on the coerced confession, but the US Court of Appeals ruled 4-3 that his confession was voluntary and therefore admissible - and thus denying his new trial. Dassey's legal team tried to petition SCOTUS to review the case, but they denied to review it, meaning the US Appeals Court ruling stands and Dassey has to fulfill his sentence. He's eligible for parole in 2048.
http://www.wbay.com/content/news/US-Supreme-Court-will-not-review-Brendan-Dassey-case-486449321.html
http://www.wbay.com/content/news/US-Supreme-Court-will-not-review-Brendan-Dassey-case-486449321.html
That kid got a severe dicking, with everything on tape, and they still won't let him go. The system has failed.
Yes. A clearly innocent kid with learning disabilities is apparently sitting in prison until 2048 for something he didn't do.
All because of a coerced, false testimony that was exposed every which way possible, yet still not enough to even grant a new trial.
