To overturn the conviction.
Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk
In a different case, not the Brendan Dassey Case.
To overturn the conviction.
Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk
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.
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.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
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 LOLYes 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.
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 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
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
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.
The Judge cites "United States vs Villalpando" on page 61.
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.
The Judge cites "United States vs Villalpando" on page 61.
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.
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).
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 dont confess in
the detail provided to the extent this defendant provided it. They dont 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 Dasseys post-conviction
hearing and discussed at length (see, e.g., ECF No. 19-27 at 273-81)
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.
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.