Brendan Dassey's Habeas Corpus Petition Granted

[Karinna]

To overturn the conviction.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

In a different case, not the Brendan Dassey Case.

 

[IDK]

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.

Yep, and it works both ways, doesn't it?

 

[Limaes]

In a different case, not the Brendan Dassey Case.

Judge Duffin, who overturned BD's conviction, cited the Villalpando case regarding false confessions, however, the 7th Circuit Judges disagreed and reinstated Villalpando's conviction.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[Madeleine74]

Of course it works both ways! That's the point. You don't know until the final decision--no one knows. I don't try to predict anything in a criminal case anymore and that includes what any jury will decide. I learned my lesson on that. So the simple fact is: the appeal could go the state's way or the defendant's way.

 

[Karinna]

Judge Duffin, who overturned BD's conviction, cited the Villalpando case regarding false confessions, however, the 7th Circuit Judges disagreed and reinstated Villalpando's conviction.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

Yes i got that. But Brendan Dassey's case involves much more than that, so i don't know what that has to do with the other case? You are citing about false confessions in the other case only. They reinstated Villalpando's conviction on that, and that is all. No comparison really IMO between the two cases. I guess as a Judge you win some you lose some.

 

[Limaes]

Yes i got that. But Brendan Dassey's case involves much more than that, so i don't know what that has to do with the other case? You are citing about false confessions in the other case only. They reinstated Villalpando's conviction on that, and that is all. No comparison really IMO between the two cases. I guess as a Judge you win some you lose some.

I don't think you understand. It is Judge Duffin that cited the Villalpando case, not me. If you think it has nothing to do with it then tell it to the Judge LOL

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[RANCH]

Of course it works both ways! That's the point. You don't know until the final decision--no one knows. I don't try to predict anything in a criminal case anymore and that includes what any jury will decide. I learned my lesson on that. So the simple fact is: the appeal could go the state's way or the defendant's way.

I should have learned that lesson after the OJ trial. After a couple more I think I've finally got it.

 

[Karinna]

I don't think you understand. It is Judge Duffin that cited the Villalpando case, not me. If you think it has nothing to do with it then tell it to the Judge LOL

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

Do you have a link to where he cites that case in regard to Dassey, i haven't seen or heard that one before. TIA.

 

[Limaes]

It is in the article I posted earlier. It is also in the 91 page written decision.

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

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

It is in the article I posted earlier. It is also in the 91 page written decision.

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

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

Who actually are those people that wrote up that article or is it transcribed from a radio show, as the site you linked looks to be a radio show, and again who's opinion piece is it?

 

[Karinna]

(quote)
The Court’s decision rests on a fundamental principle that is too often forgotten by courts and law enforcement officers: interrogation tactics which may not be coercive when used on adults are coercive when used on juveniles, particularly young people like Brendan with disabilities. And when these tactics are used on juveniles, the risk that a young suspect will give a false confession increases exponentially.

In this case, the Court held that numerous promises of leniency were used by investigators to cause Brendan to make a confession that was coerced. Importantly, the Court also expressed 'doubts as to the reliability of Dassey’s confession.' We look forward to taking the appropriate next steps to secure Brendan’s release from prison as soon as possible and are thrilled for him."

Dassey, whose case rose to national prominence in late 2015 when it was featured in the Netflix documentary series Making a Murderer, has been represented by the Bluhm Legal Clinic’s Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth since 2008. Nirider coauthored the petition for writ of habeas corpus that led to the decision to overturn by Magistrate William Duffin.
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/about/news/newsdisplay.cfm?ID=822

 

[Karinna]

It is in the article I posted earlier. It is also in the 91 page written decision.

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

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

BTW, could you please tell me what page of the 91 page decision of Judge Duffin that particular case is cited? There are tons of case law information cited in the 91 page decision. Again TIA.

 

[RANCH]

BTW, could you please tell me what page of the 91 page decision of Judge Duffin that particular case is cited? There are tons of case law information cited in the 91 page decision. Again TIA.

The Judge cites "United States vs Villalpando" on page 61.

 

[Karinna]

The Judge cites "United States vs Villalpando" on page 61.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[CoolJ]

Who actually are those people that wrote up that article or is it transcribed from a radio show, as the site you linked looks to be a radio show, and again who's opinion piece is it?

Dan O'Donnel is a right wing conspiracy theorist IMO. It is an opinion piece and probably the only one on the internet who thinks the appeal will be successful. All of the LEGAL opinions I have seen said an appeal of this type is very rarely granted, as the 7th circuit is quite Liberal and doesn't look to fondly upon constitutional rights being violated.

 

[Karinna]

Dan O'Donnel is a right wing conspiracy theorist IMO. It is an opinion piece and probably the only one on the internet who thinks the appeal will be successful. All of the LEGAL opinions I have seen said an appeal of this type is very rarely granted, as the 7th circuit is quite Liberal and doesn't look to fondly upon constitutional rights being violated.

Thanks for clarifying CoolJ. I agree with what you say about the legal opinions, because that is pretty much where i get an idea of what this process all involves.

 

[missy1974]

The Judge cites "United States vs Villalpando" on page 61.

Just jumping off your post Ranch.

So I went down the rabbit hole and decided to pull up that case. That particular sentence that was cited from that case is part of the Analysis of the case.

from the United States vs Villalpando

III. Analysis

 An incriminating statement is voluntary if it is “the product of rational intellect and free will and not the result of physical abuse, psychological intimidation, or deceptive interrogation tactics that have overcome the defendant's free will.”  United States v. Dillon, 150 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir.1998).   Villalpando alleges that his free will was overcome by the interrogating detective's offer of deceptive promises of leniency.   To date, our cases dealing with this issue have generally imagined the hypothetical circumstance where a false promise would make a confession involuntary even as we found that such a circumstance did not exist in the case at issue.   See, e.g., United States v. Kontny, 238 F.3d 815, 818 (7th Cir.2001);  Sprosty v. Buchler, 79 F.3d 635, 646-47 (7th Cir.1996);  United States v. Baldwin, 60 F.3d 363, 365 (7th Cir.1995), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 517 U.S. 1231, 116 S.Ct. 1873, 135 L.Ed.2d 169 (1996);  United States v. Rutledge, 900 F.2d 1127, 1130 (7th Cir.1990).   In these cases, we made clear that while a false promise of leniency may render a statement involuntary, police tactics short of the false promise are usually permissible.

The red above is what is interesting to me. It cites cases that deal with the issue in hypotheticals (which BD's case is not). I did go and look at a few of those cases, interesting.

The bolded above and the quote below is from Duffin's decision.

From Judge Duffin's decision:

Indeed, more subtle police pressures such as a false promise of leniency may render a confession involuntary. See United States v. Villalpando, 588 F.3d 1124, 1128 (7th Cir. 2009).

So I just continued to read Judge Duffin's decision... and look what I found on Page 68

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) (documenting 125 “proven false” confessions) (presented as
an exhibit by the state in its cross-examination of Leo at Dassey’s post-conviction
hearing and discussed at length (see, e.g., ECF No. 19-27 at 273-81)

Bolded by me.... yep, IMO hardly a conflict of interest that the Judge would also reference the article if the State actually introduced it as evidence, and discussed it at length on cross-examination. Also, I didn't realize that Leo (the co-author with Drizin) testified for BD.

 

[RANCH]

Just jumping off your post Ranch.

So I went down the rabbit hole and decided to pull up that case. That particular sentence that was cited from that case is part of the Analysis of the case.

from the United States vs Villalpando



The red above is what is interesting to me. It cites cases that deal with the issue in hypotheticals (which BD's case is not). I did go and look at a few of those cases, interesting.

The bolded above and the quote below is from Duffin's decision.

From Judge Duffin's decision:


So I just continued to read Judge Duffin's decision... and look what I found on Page


Bolded by me.... yep, IMO hardly a conflict of interest that the Judge would also reference the article if the State actually introduced it as evidence, and discussed it at length on cross-examination. Also, I didn't realize that Leo (the co-author with Drizin) testified for BD.

What article are you talking about? What conflict of interest? I'm not sure what your saying here.

 

[missy1974]

It's in reference to post 408 in this thread Ranch.

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

Dan O'Donnel is a right wing conspiracy theorist IMO. It is an opinion piece and probably the only one on the internet who thinks the appeal will be successful. All of the LEGAL opinions I have seen said an appeal of this type is very rarely granted, as the 7th circuit is quite Liberal and doesn't look to fondly upon constitutional rights being violated.

His rebuttal of the original MaM was refreshing IMHO. He makes some very valid points in this broadcast, although I would have to say that he does intertwine facts with his opinion, something I think we are all guilty of.

That said, I firmly believe that Brendan Dassey will not be getting out of jail. His first confession was not coerced and he refused legal representation. The claim he was misrepresented is simply not going to fly. At trial, his lawyers did a decent job, but they probably knew that getting around that confession, was going to be a tough ask. That on the stand he switched history, was a further nail.

No one knows what happened that day, but my guess is that Avery bullied Dassey into helping him. The right two people are in jail and I hope that a real miscarriage of Justice is avoided.