Brendan Dassey's Habeas Corpus Petition Granted

[BigCityAccountant]

I totally agree with all your previous statements, Karinna. I also don't find it odd that Duffin used a quote from Drizin's book/article. Drizin is an accepted and accomplished authority in the field, so......

Also, Karinna, I just wanted to say that I am very sorry for your loss. Thanks for sharing your perspective, as it is important to understand what might be going through the minds of t TH's family members. Hugs to you, Karinna.

:ditto: :grouphug: :rose: Sorry for your loss, RIP young man! Hugs to you Karinna!!! Prays for you and your entire family!!!

 

[CoolJ]

A very well written rebuttal to Duffin's decision. In my opinion, it is the best article ever written regarding this case and he gives clear examples to explain his opinion. It is a long article but I am including here a very bizarre and very unethical action by Judge Duffin.

"Duffin doesn’t think so, and to back this up, he cites a book on false confessions co-written by Steven Drizin...Brendan Dassey’s attorney. *Seriously: "

Intuitively, one would not expect Dassey to provide the level of detail he did on March 1 had he not been involved in the events he described. The prosecution emphasized as much in its closing argument: “People who are innocent don’t confess in the detail provided to the extent this defendant provided it. They don’t do that.” (ECF No. 19-23 at 144.) Research, however, shows that some people do make detailed confessions to crimes they did not commit. (ECF No. 19-27 at 202-08); see also Steven A. Drizin & Richard A. Leo, The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World, 82 N.C. L. Rev. 891, 933-43 (2004).


Judge Duffin citing a book co-authored by Dassey's attorney as a reference is disgraceful and pretty dumb. I feel very confident that the State will win their appeal.

http://newstalk1130.iheart.com/onai...50465/?desktop=true&desktopviewduration=86400

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

You feel confident the state will win their appeal? Really? I mean really truly you feel that way? C'mon, the 7th circuit is not going to overturn Duffin's decision because of this. That is silly to even think IMO. I would wager good money on that.

This is grasping at straws if this is their argument and it proves nothing other than the fact that the state knows they are toast and are just prolonging the inevitable.... Two innocent men are going to be sent free and a whole bunch of crooked LE and government officials are going to the clink.

Mark my words. This is going to end up being a much bigger case than it already is

 

[Karinna]

:ditto: :grouphug: :rose: Sorry for your loss, RIP young man! Hugs to you Karinna!!! Prays for you and your entire family!!!

Thankyou so much.

 

[missy1974]

Not when it is the Judge and the co-author is the Attorney of the Defendant.

It is laughable that KK being in a band 30 yrs ago with Schimel is considered unethical but what this Judge has done is deemed ok.

Maybe by the time the State's appeal is being reviewed, KK'S book will be completed and the Judge could use that as a reference to overturn Duffin's decision?

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

Again, I think you are misunderstanding. It's not a book. It's an article in a law review, that has been cited by more than just Judge Duffin in decisions. Did you know the Supreme Court cited it too? He is considered an expert on false confessions. There is a huge difference between a book and law article.

I don't think anyone here said that it was unethical if KK and BS were in a band together.... however, it was just another example of the good ole boys club. JMO

 

[missy1974]

You feel confident the state will win their appeal? Really? I mean really truly you feel that way? C'mon, the 7th circuit is not going to overturn Duffin's decision because of this. That is silly to even think IMO. I would wager good money on that.

This is grasping at straws if this is their argument and it proves nothing other than the fact that the state knows they are toast and are just prolonging the inevitable.... Two innocent men are going to be sent free and a whole bunch of crooked LE and government officials are going to the clink.

Mark my words. This is going to end up being a much bigger case than it already is

I am hopeful that this will be a basis for changing laws when it comes to youth.

It would be a Dassey Violation if LE interviewed a youth without an adult or representative present. Sounds good to me JMO

 

[IDK]

I am hopeful that this will be a basis for changing laws when it comes to youth.

It would be a Dassey Violation if LE interviewed a youth without an adult or representative present. Sounds good to me JMO

LOVE this idea.

 

[Limaes]

You feel confident the state will win their appeal? Really? I mean really truly you feel that way? C'mon, the 7th circuit is not going to overturn Duffin's decision because of this. That is silly to even think IMO. I would wager good money on that.

This is grasping at straws if this is their argument and it proves nothing other than the fact that the state knows they are toast and are just prolonging the inevitable.... Two innocent men are going to be sent free and a whole bunch of crooked LE and government officials are going to the clink.

Mark my words. This is going to end up being a much bigger case than it already is

Yes, I do feel confident. I was just posting one example. I wasn't insinuating this fact alone would see it reversed.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[Limaes]

Again, I think you are misunderstanding. It's not a book. It's an article in a law review, that has been cited by more than just Judge Duffin in decisions. Did you know the Supreme Court cited it too? He is considered an expert on false confessions. There is a huge difference between a book and law article.

I don't think anyone here said that it was unethical if KK and BS were in a band together.... however, it was just another example of the good ole boys club. JMO

Was SD the attorney of the defendant when they cited it?



Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

I would think the fact that BD's habeas corpus petition was granted by a federal judge in and of itself is a big deal. It's very difficult from my understanding to get a conviction overturned and not commonplace. This was what his decision was based upon.
(quote)
…the state courts unreasonably found that the investigators never made Dassey any promises during the March 1, 2006 interrogation. The investigators repeatedly claimed to already know what happened on October 31 and assured Dassey that he had nothing to worry about. These repeated false promises, when considered in conjunction with all relevant factors, most especially Dassey’s age, intellectual deficits, and the absence of a supportive adult, rendered Dassey’s confession involuntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments….

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Brendan Dassey’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED. The respondent shall release Dassey from custody unless, within 90 days of the date of this decision, the State initiates proceedings to retry him. See Jensen v. Schwochert, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177420, 55 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 18, 2013). The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Because of those very reasons i don't really see the 7th. circuit not upholding that. JMO

 

[CoolJ]

Yes, I do feel confident. I was just posting one example. I wasn't insinuating this fact alone would see it reversed.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

What are some other examples? What else is there that could possibly make this appeal be successful? Do the "good ole boys" have control over the the 7th circuit too?

 

[Madeleine74]

In my state there was/is a case of a guy who murdered his wife. First trial ended in a hung jury. Second trial he was convicted. He appealed and the Court of Appeals overturned his conviction. The state appealed to the Supreme Court and the State Supreme Court slapped down the Court of Appeals for overturning the case and reinstated the conviction. The final appeal issue (a Hail Mary move) is for the convicted to assert "Ineffective Assistance of Counsel." He's got nothing else to appeal. And that will fail because on his defense team he had the head of the indigent program (an attorney who is now a superior court judge).

I'm *not* saying this will happen to BD's case, but it is an example of what can happen and that you never know. Until the highest court rules and no higher court either exists or will take the case, you don't know.

 

[Limaes]

What are some other examples? What else is there that could possibly make this appeal be successful? Do the "good ole boys" have control over the the 7th circuit too?

I posted the article, if you wish not to read it that is your choice.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

In my state there was/is a case of a guy who murdered his wife. First trial ended in a hung jury. Second trial he was convicted. He appealed and the Court of Appeals overturned his conviction. The state appealed to the Supreme Court and the State Supreme Court slapped down the Court of Appeals for overturning the case and reinstated the conviction. The final appeal issue (a Hail Mary move) is for the convicted to assert "Ineffective Assistance of Counsel." He's got nothing else to appeal. And that will fail because on his defense team he had the head of the indigent program (an attorney who is now a superior court judge).

I'm *not* saying this will happen to BD's case, but it is an example of what can happen and that you never know. Until the highest court rules and no higher court either exists or will take the case, you don't know.

In the case you cite in your post i think is irrelevent to Brendan Dassey's case. For starters BD was 16 years old, not an adult, and there is also absolutely no forensic evidence that has him having anything to do with being at a supposed crime scene. He wasn't an adult that killed his wife either. Also the factors stated in the decision of the federal judge in granting the habeas corpus petition in BD's favor are very appropriate all things considered.
And no, no one can predict how this will turn out on appeal for certain, but i think there is a pretty good chance of the appeal being unsuccessful, and i have read other legal opinions on how this could go, so it's all just speculation as to the outcome, but some interesting opinions nevertheless.

 

[Limaes]

I would think the fact that BD's habeas corpus petition was granted by a federal judge in and of itself is a big deal. It's very difficult from my understanding to get a conviction overturned and not commonplace. This was what his decision was based upon.
(quote)
…the state courts unreasonably found that the investigators never made Dassey any promises during the March 1, 2006 interrogation. The investigators repeatedly claimed to already know what happened on October 31 and assured Dassey that he had nothing to worry about. These repeated false promises, when considered in conjunction with all relevant factors, most especially Dassey’s age, intellectual deficits, and the absence of a supportive adult, rendered Dassey’s confession involuntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments….

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Brendan Dassey’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED. The respondent shall release Dassey from custody unless, within 90 days of the date of this decision, the State initiates proceedings to retry him. See Jensen v. Schwochert, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177420, 55 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 18, 2013). The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Because of those very reasons i don't really see the 7th. circuit not upholding that. JMO

From the above article I posted.

"Duffin here cites as his controlling precedent for this standard*United States v. Villalpando, a case the 7th Circuit decided in 2009. *In it, Christopher Villalpando, a 21 year-old college student who was on probation for drug violations was stopped by a Madison, Wisconsin Police detective.

After she found 3.6 grams of marijuana in Villalpando’s car, she read him his Miranda rights and put him in the back of her squad car, where she began to question him about his involvement in cocaine trafficking.

Police weren’t interested in Villalpando’s marijuana, the detective told him; they wanted to know who his cocaine supplier was. *The detective then told Villalpando that if his marijuana possession were to be reported to his probation officer, he would very likely go back to jail.

Instead, she said, if Villalpando cooperated with police, she “would try and use her influence on the district attorney and Villalpando's probation officer to work out a situation where they would offer leniency in return for Villalpando's help.”

Villalpando didn’t initially agree, but after the detective repeatedly told him that she would “go to bat for him,” he told her that there was more marijuana, nine ounces of cocaine, and a pistol in his apartment.

When Villalpando was charged with possession of this cocaine, he argued that his admission to the detective were involuntary because she made false promises to him.

Duffin cites this case as the controlling precedent for police officers making false promises to defendants—as he claims Wiegert and Fassbender made to Dassey during their interrogation of him—but he neglects to mention in his decision that the 7th Circuit actually agreed with the State Court in finding that the detective didn’t make false promises to Villalpando! "







Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[Madeleine74]

Here's the relevant point since it was missed: no one knows what will happen until all is said and done. You can think you know exactly what will happen in an appeal and be wrong. It doesn't matter how important you think the judge is who made the decision. In an appeal it can go the other way. That's the point.

I thought "no way" the Supreme Court would hear the appeal in my state and then overturn the CoA. No.Way! I would have put $$ on it. I was 100% wrong (and happy to be wrong, at that). That was a lesson that it ain't over till it's over and just when you think you know exactly how a decision will go...you don't.

 

[Karinna]

From the above article I posted.

"Duffin here cites as his controlling precedent for this standard*United States v. Villalpando, a case the 7th Circuit decided in 2009. *In it, Christopher Villalpando, a 21 year-old college student who was on probation for drug violations was stopped by a Madison, Wisconsin Police detective.

After she found 3.6 grams of marijuana in Villalpando’s car, she read him his Miranda rights and put him in the back of her squad car, where she began to question him about his involvement in cocaine trafficking.

Police weren’t interested in Villalpando’s marijuana, the detective told him; they wanted to know who his cocaine supplier was. *The detective then told Villalpando that if his marijuana possession were to be reported to his probation officer, he would very likely go back to jail.

Instead, she said, if Villalpando cooperated with police, she “would try and use her influence on the district attorney and Villalpando's probation officer to work out a situation where they would offer leniency in return for Villalpando's help.”

Villalpando didn’t initially agree, but after the detective repeatedly told him that she would “go to bat for him,” he told her that there was more marijuana, nine ounces of cocaine, and a pistol in his apartment.

When Villalpando was charged with possession of this cocaine, he argued that his admission to the detective were involuntary because she made false promises to him.

Duffin cites this case as the controlling precedent for police officers making false promises to defendants—as he claims Wiegert and Fassbender made to Dassey during their interrogation of him—but he neglects to mention in his decision that the 7th Circuit actually agreed with the State Court in finding that the detective didn’t make false promises to Villalpando! "







Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

I'm not really sure what your point is with this? A different case entirely to Brendan Dassey. BD was still a minor and with intellectual disability so those factors were also a big part of Judge Duffin's decision on the habeas corpus decision.

 

[Limaes]

I'm not really sure what your point is with this? A different case entirely to Brendan Dassey.

The Judge cited this case in his decision.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

Here's the relevant point since it was missed: no one knows what will happen until all is said and done. You can think you know exactly what will happen in an appeal and be wrong. It doesn't matter how important you think the judge is who made the decision. In an appeal it can go the other way. That's the point.

I thought "no way" the Supreme Court would hear the appeal in my state and then overturn the CoA. No.Way! I would have put $$ on it. I was 100% wrong (and happy to be wrong, at that). That was a lesson that it ain't over till it's over and just when you think you know exactly how a decision will go...you don't.

I don't think anyone here is claiming to know exactly what the outcome will be are they?

 

[Karinna]

The Judge cited this case in his decision.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

In what decision?

 

[Limaes]

In what decision?

To overturn the conviction.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk