Dassey: 7th Circuit AFFIRMS Judge Duffin in 2-1 decision.

[htiff]

And what happens if en banc votes in the states favor? Then Brendan has what options after that? To stay incarcerated? Because i have my doubts about the SCOTUS taking this case on after an en banc hearing has been decided.

I'm not sure that an en banc decision, would influence whether SCOTUS grants a hearing on this case. That's the whole point of the appeals process, that there is some sort of checks and balances in the court system. But the Supreme Court would be next, and Zellner is already alluding to this possibility in her tweets.

Again, the sooner Brendan Dassey can go home to his family, the better. But if his case were to get to the supreme court, and win, that would change things at the federal level.

 

[Karinna]

I'm not sure that an en banc decision, would influence whether SCOTUS grants a hearing on this case. That's the whole point of the appeals process, that there is some sort of checks and balances in the court system. But the Supreme Court would be next, and Zellner is already alluding to this possibility in her tweets.

Again, the sooner Brendan Dassey can go home to his family, the better. But if his case were to get to the supreme court, and win, that would change things at the federal level.

The case has been heard on a federal level by the 7th CC, and will get a rehearing again by the 7th CC on the 26th Sept. almost a couple of months away. The scotus is as high up as a case can go for a hearing in the U.S. Beyond that i doubt the case can be taken to the European Court of Human Rights as some cases have? I don't think U.S. citizens qualify for that one?

 

[Karinna]

I've been following the Dassey case, but I haven't read any of the motions, or court decisions, so I'm not sure. Interesting article, though.

I thought it was interesting too, and shows how citizens in the U.S. can slowly get their constitutional rights eroded.

 

[Karinna]

I think my real concern in Dassey's case is aside from a coerced confession, because the kid just wanted to get the heck out of there and go back to school is, "Where for god's sake is there any evidence forensic or otherwise that BD was involved in a crime"? That disturbs me more than anything about this whole fiasco. So they could drag anyone's adolescent child into a cop shop for questioning and with absolutely no evidence incarcerate them for the rest of their lives. It really is shocking and there should be outrage about that most definitely.
And coerced confessions from what i read about them are fairly commonplace, especially in kids like Brendan at the time.
And for sure IMO there should be more than just a confession to support a conviction of murder, because evidence needs to be there along with it. Innocent people do sometimes confess to crimes they didn't commit for varying reasons.
It is such a shame Brendan Dassey didn't plead the 5th. when questioned, and that really is the crux of the whole problem in this case. They should teach kids that stuff in high school.

 

[htiff]

The case has been heard on a federal level by the 7th CC, and will get a rehearing again by the 7th CC on the 26th Sept. almost a couple of months away. The scotus is as high up as a case can go for a hearing in the U.S. Beyond that i doubt the case can be taken to the European Court of Human Rights as some cases have? I don't think U.S. citizens qualify for that one?

That's an interesting question. I believe that there are reasons why someone might be granted a new trial, or exonerated, even if they run out of appeals. It's also possible that Brendan might be pardoned before his prison term is up.

I think, though, that this case will prevail in the long run. I believe both Dassey and Avery will be set free. But righting a wrong in our criminal justice system can be a herculean task. Zellner is amazing. And there are lots of other attorneys doing the same good work. I follow wrongful convictions, like some follow the super bowl. And I have been following these cases, for a very long time. But it used to be that very few people cared about this issue. One of the great things that is occurring right now is that society at large is finally caring about this. And if enough people give a damn, the system will improve.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Reading elsewhere and clicked on this article and read it. Isn't this part of Hamilton's decision in his vote from the panel of 3 judges that decided previously?
(quote)
The Destruction of Defendants’ Rights
When A.E.D.P.A. became law, it fell like an “atomic bomb” on the federal judiciary and the “structure of habeas corpus law,” according to “Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure,” the leading treatise by Randy Hertz and James S. Liebman. Of the seventy or so cases in which the Justices have interpreted the statute, there are some in which a defendant seeking a new trial through a writ of habeas corpus has prevailed, but they are in the minority. The Court’s A.E.D.P.A. jurisprudence is basically made up of decisions in which the Justices have increasingly narrowed the chances of review under the statute.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-destruction-of-defendants-rights

I could be wrong (I'm no lawyer :blushing but it sounds like a panel of federal judges agreed with the California Supreme Court in the Ayala case and denied Habeas Corpus relief. In another words, they refused to hear the case at the 9th Circuit court level. Since they were denied Habeaus Corpus relief, they appealed to the Federal Supreme Court and the decision was overturned at the Federal Supreme Court level.

This would be similar to when Brendan first appealed to the 7th circuit. The judges could have denied his petition for Habeas Corpus relief and thus the 3 panel judge would not have heard the case. But that didn't happen. Brendan's petition for Habeaus Corpus was granted and the 3 panel judge's ruled in his favor. (unlke in trial courts, cases in appellate courts always ultimately are heard before more than one appellate judge-usually in set groups ("panels") of three or more judges.) The state didn't like that decision and appealed to the whole 7th circuit (en blanc) and IIRC~~at least 1/2 of the judges (qualified and non-disqualified judges) have to agree to take the case (note 3 had to accept his original petition for Habeas Corpus relief) Since at least 1/2 of the judges on the 7th Circuit granted Wisconsin's petition to take the case, oral arguments will take place in September 2017. The Court will have time to make a decision~~(hopefully in Brendan's favor). If they don't rule in his favor, then Brendan can petition the Supreme Court to hear his case. I believe 4 of the 9 Supreme Court justices have to agree to hear the case.

Zellner stated in early July, 2017 that she doubted the Supreme Court would take up the case. I don't know if her opinion has changed since then. If that is the case, then this en blanc hearing is a really important decision for Brendan and I don't expect a decision to be made before then end of the year. I'm guessing sometime early 2018 for a decision on the en blanc.

 

[Karinna]

That's an interesting question. I believe that there are reasons why someone might be granted a new trial, or exonerated, even if they run out of appeals. It's also possible that Brendan might be pardoned before his prison term is up.

I think, though, that this case will prevail in the long run. I believe both Dassey and Avery will be set free. But righting a wrong in our criminal justice system can be a herculean task. Zellner is amazing. And there are lots of other attorneys doing the same good work. I follow wrongful convictions, like some follow the super bowl. And I have been following these cases, for a very long time. But it used to be that very few people cared about this issue. One of the great things that is occurring right now is that society at large is finally caring about this. And if enough people give a damn, the system will improve.

I agree undoing a wrong to make it right is certainly a long drawn out and painful process when someone is wrongfully convicted, and the tragic part of it is that no amount of monetary compensation can ever give someone back the years of their life stolen from them if innocent.
You must be quite knowledgeable on cases like this from following them for a while. I must admit it's the first of one of these cases i have ever followed, and generally i would hope as in other criminal cases i have followed to trial there is good forensic evidence to convict the right perpetrator. But sometimes juries like to err on the side of caution on DP cases it seems.
And you are right we should all care about these issues more passionately because we never know in our personal lives what could happen, and it could happen to anyone really.

 

[Karinna]

I could be wrong (I'm no lawyer :blushing but it sounds like a panel of federal judges agreed with the California Supreme Court in the Ayala case and denied Habeas Corpus relief. In another words, they refused to hear the case at the 9th Circuit court level. Since they were denied Habeaus Corpus relief, they appealed to the Federal Supreme Court and the decision was overturned at the Federal Supreme Court level.

This would be similar to when Brendan first appealed to the 7th circuit. The judges could have denied his petition for Habeas Corpus relief and thus the 3 panel judge would not have heard the case. But that didn't happen. Brendan's petition for Habeaus Corpus was granted and the 3 panel judge's ruled in his favor. (unlke in trial courts, cases in appellate courts always ultimately are heard before more than one appellate judge-usually in set groups ("panels") of three or more judges.) The state didn't like that decision and appealed to the whole 7th circuit (en blanc) and IIRC~~at least 1/2 of the judges (qualified and non-disqualified judges) have to agree to take the case (note 3 had to accept his original petition for Habeas Corpus relief) Since at least 1/2 of the judges on the 7th Circuit granted Wisconsin's petition to take the case, oral arguments will take place in September 2017. The Court will have time to make a decision~~(hopefully in Brendan's favor). If they don't rule in his favor, then Brendan can petition the Supreme Court to hear his case. I believe 4 of the 9 Supreme Court justices have to agree to hear the case.

Zellner stated in early July, 2017 that she doubted the Supreme Court would take up the case. I don't know if her opinion has changed since then. If that is the case, then this en blanc hearing is a really important decision for Brendan and I don't expect a decision to be made before then end of the year. I'm guessing sometime early 2018 for a decision on the en blanc.

Thanks for explaining it so well BCA, and IANAL either But we do learn a lot from people that are.

 

[missy1974]

It's unfortunate that the en banc hearing has been granted, but I think this case will end with the Supreme Court either way, this is just going to make the case that much longer. Poor Brendan.

 

[htiff]

I could be wrong (I'm no lawyer :blushing but it sounds like a panel of federal judges agreed with the California Supreme Court in the Ayala case and denied Habeas Corpus relief. In another words, they refused to hear the case at the 9th Circuit court level. Since they were denied Habeaus Corpus relief, they appealed to the Federal Supreme Court and the decision was overturned at the Federal Supreme Court level.

This would be similar to when Brendan first appealed to the 7th circuit. The judges could have denied his petition for Habeas Corpus relief and thus the 3 panel judge would not have heard the case. But that didn't happen. Brendan's petition for Habeaus Corpus was granted and the 3 panel judge's ruled in his favor. (unlke in trial courts, cases in appellate courts always ultimately are heard before more than one appellate judge-usually in set groups ("panels") of three or more judges.) The state didn't like that decision and appealed to the whole 7th circuit (en blanc) and IIRC~~at least 1/2 of the judges (qualified and non-disqualified judges) have to agree to take the case (note 3 had to accept his original petition for Habeas Corpus relief) Since at least 1/2 of the judges on the 7th Circuit granted Wisconsin's petition to take the case, oral arguments will take place in September 2017. The Court will have time to make a decision~~(hopefully in Brendan's favor). If they don't rule in his favor, then Brendan can petition the Supreme Court to hear his case. I believe 4 of the 9 Supreme Court justices have to agree to hear the case.

Zellner stated in early July, 2017 that she doubted the Supreme Court would take up the case. I don't know if her opinion has changed since then. If that is the case, then this en blanc hearing is a really important decision for Brendan and I don't expect a decision to be made before then end of the year. I'm guessing sometime early 2018 for a decision on the en blanc.

Look at KZ's most recent tweets.

 

[Karinna]

It's unfortunate that the en banc hearing has been granted, but I think this case will end with the Supreme Court either way, this is just going to make the case that much longer. Poor Brendan.

Hi missy, and i agree poor Brendan and also agree with what you say about the en banc. I hope no one has given him false hope he is getting out anytime soon, and i would think his legal team have explained to him what a lengthy process it can be. And right now he still only has federal magistrate judge Duffin's ruling because it's been redacted with the 7th. CC on their initial decision,

 

[Karinna]

Look at KZ's most recent tweets.

Her tweets are now set to where you have to join and follow her. I personally don't do twitter and don't know if i can do that as far as KZ's tweets outside the U.S. currently?

 

[htiff]

It's unfortunate that the en banc hearing has been granted, but I think this case will end with the Supreme Court either way, this is just going to make the case that much longer. Poor Brendan.

I agree. If Brendan wins this next round (and he really could), the Wisconsin DOJ may appeal to the Supreme Court.

I really didn't understand the appeals process all that well before, but one reason for an en banc hearing is that the issue at hand is important and needs clarification---because of the impact it will have.

Here, in a nutshell, is the basis on which the Supreme Court takes a case---

"The (Supreme) court will typically grant the petitions of cases that are exceptionally unique and that present an issue of law that would be considered far-reaching throughout the United States. The Supreme Court also prefers cases that are clear examples for the lower court so that exact guidance can be given."

https://law.freeadvice.com/litigation/appeals/supreme_court_case_hearing.htm

 

[htiff]

Her tweets are now set to where you have to join and follow her. I personally don't do twitter and don't know if i can do that as far as KZ's tweets outside the U.S. currently?

This was the tweet. It was from yesterday:

[FONT=&amp]"Let entire 7th Cir. review, SCOTUS & every judge in America. Truth will not change: A ridiculous story force fed to a child.[/FONT]#MakingaMurderer"


But earlier, now deleted, she had written something about taking Brandon's case all the way, to SCOTUS, if necessary---and I am paraphrasing. I don't recall the exact wording.

 

[Karinna]

This was the tweet. It was from yesterday:

[FONT=&]"Let entire 7th Cir. review, SCOTUS & every judge in America. Truth will not change: A ridiculous story force fed to a child.[/FONT]#MakingaMurderer"


But earlier, now deleted, she had written something about taking Brandon's case all the way, to SCOTUS, if necessary---and I am paraphrasing. I don't recall the exact wording.

Thanks Gracie for posting it. I'm sure Ms. Zellner has seen lots of underhanded tactics in her very successful career, and she certainly gets it and has done some great work. And certainly in Brendan Dassey's case the confession doesn't even support any evidence because there is none. And what about him not even receiving a fair trial with the ineffective counsel he received.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

It's unfortunate that the en banc hearing has been granted, but I think this case will end with the Supreme Court either way, this is just going to make the case that much longer. Poor Brendan.

I think they had to Missy. They had a split decision with one judge (Hamilton) with a hard line dissent. They have to make sure they get it right since this case has far greater reaching effects than just Brendan. His case will set a precedent for other children who's rights are violated in the same manner. In 2015, 1 in 45 children were diagnosed with Autism. ~~~Think about that a minute~~~ that is 1 child in every 2 classrooms. These children are much like Brendan. (Oh, by the way~~I think Brendan is Autistic, just JMHO) That means the issue will be brought up again. If it's not Brendan, it will be another child before the courts, acknowledging that there is such thing as psychological coercion. It's real and it happened and probably is happening as we speak. That's why this case has far reaching effects beyond just this case. So, the en blanc was a no brainer, they want to make sure they get it right. The state even acknowledged that this has far reaching effects beyond just this case~~as it should. These children need safeguards and protections. They are not throw away children (like MCSD) thought they were. I love that fact that schools are now teaching acceptance of these children and that they have a lot to offer the world despite their social quirks. (O/T a bit) I once read an article that over half of the tech workers in Silicon Valley have some form of Autism.

I have to agree with you~~either way~~this case is going to SCOTUS. The question is whether or not SCOTUS will take it up and if they do, anything is possible. Just look at the Terri Shiavo case. I think you will see the same type of outrage here as well.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

FYI~~~There are 11 judges on the 7th Circuit. Currently, there are 3 vacancies. The president on August 3, 2017 nominated Michael B. Brennan from Milwaukee, WI to one vacancy and Amy Coney Barrett from Indiana to fill the other vacancy. The third and last vacancy is Ann Claire Williams. She was one of the panel of (3) that upheld Judge Duffin's decision. As I understand, even though she has received "senior status", she will still be one of the judges to hear the case.

So, breaking that down~~of the 11 judges that will hear the case, Brendan has 2 that will already be on his side and one against him. That leaves 8 judges.

Here is a list of judges on the 7th circuit:
1. Diane Pamela Wood. 67 years old. Earned her law degree in Texas. She is a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School. She assumed office on the 7th circuit in 2013. She appears to be liberal. Wood has pursued various law reform projects through the American Bar Association and the Brookings Institution Project on Civil Justice Reform. She was also instrumental in developing the University of Chicago’s first policy on sexual harassment. While still a full-time law school professor (prior to joining the Department of Justice and the Court of Appeals), she was a member of Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women.

2. Richard Allen Posner. Yale/Harvard. 78 years old. Also a senior lecturer at the U of C. Seen more recently as a liberal. Views on education: Posner's views of public education policy are informed by his view that groups of students differ in intellectual ability, and therefore, that it is faulty to impose uniform educational standards on all schools. His view in this regard is undergirded by his view that different races differ in intelligence. (However, Posner says that he thinks it is "highly unlikely" that these differences are rooted in genetics, rather than environment.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Wood

Since this post is long already, I'll continue in another post for the other judges.

 

[htiff]

FYI~~~There are 11 judges on the 7th Circuit. Currently, there are 3 vacancies. The president on August 3, 2017 nominated Michael B. Brennan from Milwaukee, WI to one vacancy and Amy Coney Barrett from Indiana to fill the other vacancy. The third and last vacancy is Ann Claire Williams. She was one of the panel of (3) that upheld Judge Duffin's decision. As I understand, even though she has received "senior status", she will still be one of the judges to hear the case.

So, breaking that down~~of the 11 judges that will hear the case, Brendan has 2 that will already be on his side and one against him. That leaves 8 judges.

Here is a list of judges on the 7th circuit:
1. Diane Pamela Wood. 67 years old. Earned her law degree in Texas. She is a law professor at the University of Chicago Law School. She assumed office on the 7th circuit in 2013. She appears to be liberal. Wood has pursued various law reform projects through the American Bar Association and the Brookings Institution Project on Civil Justice Reform. She was also instrumental in developing the University of Chicago’s first policy on sexual harassment. While still a full-time law school professor (prior to joining the Department of Justice and the Court of Appeals), she was a member of Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women.

2. Richard Allen Posner. Yale/Harvard. 78 years old. Also a senior lecturer at the U of C. Seen more recently as a liberal. Views on education: Posner's views of public education policy are informed by his view that groups of students differ in intellectual ability, and therefore, that it is faulty to impose uniform educational standards on all schools. His view in this regard is undergirded by his view that different races differ in intelligence. (However, Posner says that he thinks it is "highly unlikely" that these differences are rooted in genetics, rather than environment.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Wood

Since this post is long already, I'll continue in another post for the other judges.

Excellent analysis. Thank you.

 

[htiff]

I think they had to Missy. They had a split decision with one judge (Hamilton) with a hard line dissent. They have to make sure they get it right since this case has far greater reaching effects than just Brendan. His case will set a precedent for other children who's rights are violated in the same manner. In 2015, 1 in 45 children were diagnosed with Autism. ~~~Think about that a minute~~~ that is 1 child in every 2 classrooms. These children are much like Brendan. (Oh, by the way~~I think Brendan is Autistic, just JMHO) That means the issue will be brought up again. If it's not Brendan, it will be another child before the courts, acknowledging that there is such thing as psychological coercion. It's real and it happened and probably is happening as we speak. That's why this case has far reaching effects beyond just this case. So, the en blanc was a no brainer, they want to make sure they get it right. The state even acknowledged that this has far reaching effects beyond just this case~~as it should. These children need safeguards and protections. They are not throw away children (like MCSD) thought they were. I love that fact that schools are now teaching acceptance of these children and that they have a lot to offer the world despite their social quirks. (O/T a bit) I once read an article that over half of the tech workers in Silicon Valley have some form of Autism.

I have to agree with you~~either way~~this case is going to SCOTUS. The question is whether or not SCOTUS will take it up and if they do, anything is possible. Just look at the Terri Shiavo case. I think you will see the same type of outrage here as well.

I agree. The public is taking notes at this point. You get enough people engaged in an issue like this, change will happen.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

3. Joel Martin Flaum. 80 years old.Hudson NY Union College/Northwestern University School of Law. Naval Reserve. Lecturer at Northwestern during the 1960's. He has been a 7th Circuit Judge since 1983. I couldn't find much on his ideology, but I believe he leans conservative.

4. Frank H. Easterbrook. 69 years old. Originally from Buffalo NY Swarthmore College/U of C. Lecturer at U of C as well. He has been on the 7th Circuit since 1985. An interesting character for sure. Considered a conservative.

5. Michael Stephen Kane. Indiana University/Indiana University Maurer School of Law. Served in the US Air Force. Appointed in 1987. Also considered a conservative.

6. Dinae Sykes. 59 from Milwaukee WI. Northernwestern/Marquette Unversity Law School. Appointed in 2005. Considered Conservative.

7. Ilana Rovner. Issued majority opinion in Brendan's favor.

8. Ann Claire Williams. Same.

9. David Hamilton. Issued dissenting opinion.

10. Vacancy. Nominee Michael Brennan from Milwaukee, WI.

11. Vacancy. Nominee Amy Coney Barrett.