AvaAdore, I understand the concept of reasonable doubt, as did the jury, who was explained the burden of proof by both prosecutors and the defense. Reasonable doubt does not mean no doubt. The documentary introduced nothing new. The jury saw the same things we saw, and much more. They were presented all the acts of evidence tampering and the motive that LE had to plant it, and they ultimately decided that the State met their prima facie case and found Avery guilty. Just because LE tampered w. evidence doesn't mean that Avery couldn't have committed the crime. That being said, if the State had used Dassley as a witness and relied on his confession to convict Avery, the outcome may have been different. Dassley and Avery's cases are entirely different. Avery had great attorneys who were clearly advocating for him, and there was plenty of other evidence, both circumstantial and forensic presented that could lead a reasonable person to believe he was guilty of the crimes as charged. Dassley, however, had an attorney who allowed him to meet w. investigators w.o being there, knowing he was a minor and had a lower level of intelligence. His attorney looked for evidence to corroborate a confession that was clearly coerced and didn't fit the facts, when they should have been immediately focusing on getting it thrown out due to his age, mental capacity, and lack of counsel. The confession was the nearly the entire case against Dassley. There is no question in my mind that that confession should have never been allowed into evidence, and w.o it they would have been unable to convict Dassley. What happened to Dassley is an absolute miscarriage of justice, no doubt.
If anyone is going to be granted a new trial as a result of this documentary, it'll be Dassley. I can't see any legal reason why an appellate court would overturn Avery's conviction. Appellate courts don't hear evidence or determine the facts of the case, they decide whether the lower court made the correct legal determinations. Avery didn't give a coerced confession, he had good legal representation, and he clearly had an impartial jury as some of them voted not guilty during the initial poll. The law entitles you to a fair trial, not a perfect one. There are errors that can occur during trial that are not appealable. At this point, I can't see what error was committed during Avery's trial that would entitle him to a new trial. Appeals are not easy to get, and that's for a reason. Disagreeing w. the jury's interpretation of the evidence is not enough to get a new trial- if it was, the appellate courts would be overwhelmed by people who are convicted and unhappy w. the conviction. If this documentary had brought out new evidence that was not introduced or hidden from the jury in his trial, then this would be a whole different story, but that isn't the case. The jury saw all the evidence and heard the defense's case, and they rejected it. Courts are extremely reluctant to throw out jury decisions.
What frustrates me most about this case is the large amount of people who have become entirely convinced of Avery's innocence just from watching a documentary that isn't free from bias and left out important evidence included at a trial, and haven't taken the time to try and learn the facts or understand the legal proceedings. If they did, we wouldn't see change.org petitions w. thousands of signatures asking Obama for an immediate pardon of Avery...the petitions would be to Scott Walker, the governor, who holds the ability to grant a pardon for state crimes.
For the record, I'm not 100 percent convinced Avery is guilty, but I can see how a reasonable person would find him guilty. I think it's extremely telling that the Innocence Project has had no involvement in Avery's second conviction, and distanced themselves from him. His case put the Wisconsin Innocent Project on the map, one would think that if they thought the same cops were coming back to frame him for murder a second time, they'd fight for him, without a doubt.
