While I wholly support innocence organizations, I cannot say that I fully understand how they work. Or, rather, I have always thought they basically found exculpating evidence... generally DNA, to get their client's cases overturned.
Having said that, the more I read articles regarding Ms. Zellner's involvement in both SA's and Dassey's cases, along with her tweets, the more I am inclined to think she is going for getting both of their convictions overturned, as opposed to, say, going for a retrial.
I could quite obviously be wrong. Regardless, I am interested in what others think.
Whilst it is different over here in the UK, my University Innocence Project ran (and still runs) alongside the Innocence Project over at Princeton. Some background:
The innocence projects here took on Client's on a first basis after some initial correspondence between them and us, after which the whole caseloads could be taken. We didn't actually get as many letters as one might consider, but the ones that we did get would often be very serious crimes- rape, s18 assault, attempted murder, murder. We would interview the Client if possible, or a representative would be sent, and then a decision made on whether we would attempt to take this further based on what they were presenting to us- note that it was a very, for lack of a better saying, people based decision and could boil down to how the person presented themselves I believe. I am not sure I agree with how the initial selection was made but funding is ever an issue here.
This would undoubtedly take some time combing through any evidence and trial documents that we would receive if we took on a case. The whole process of getting trial documents is an absolute pain as there are often, in big cases, upwards of 40 boxes of bundles to go through and really get through. Multiple appeals add more and more to the workload. It requires a team and a lot of effort which is why many University Innocence Projects do them, as although they work on a charity basis with a lead Solicitor, students are not paid for their work which is often months, days and days worth of foraging and building even an idea of the case.
Here, at this point, we would 'take on a case' but the case wouldn't really be 'going for any kind of result' until after all these documents had been taken on and thoroughly examined- imagine how difficult this actually is in practice. Usually we would take on higher profile cases as funding was more likely to come if there was public interest in the case. No matter what the personal outlook of the team may be entering a case. It may become apparent that this is how they work over there too, it is very easy for it to become public that you are touching base with someone maintaining their innocence and 'taking their case', but this is a layered process and there is a point when you have to walk away or dive in. I cannot stress enough how 'taking a case' initially really isn't taking on someones case to fight for them. Its an exploratory process, the first green light in a long line of reds, and doesn't always lead somewhere. I don't know how long Zellner has been involved with the Avery case behind the scenes, but I would be interested to find out to give a better impression of where I think she will try and go with this, and whether in fact she will continue down the road once she has had a full team investigating this (or if she already has, instead of jumping on the hype bandwagon).
With regard to Zellner's approach to the cases and going for a retrial or acquittal, most of the cases I have worked on have not in fact turned on evidence. Old cases crossed over with Princeton which were extremely old, yes (most of which were 'committed' before I was even born!), but these have become fewer and further between as times have gone on. They were mostly cases of men being picked up because of things like colour, poverty, general 'known round town' but very very obvious and severe cases of being picked for this reason.
The main process used now to try and acquit, here in the UK from what I have experienced, and to some extent to our friends across the Atlantic, is a procedural impropriety that would nullify the validity of the case/trial. That at some point there was such a mess up, such an unreasonable and unfathomable wrong that the case could only be seen when really picked apart and reviewed by a Judge, that it could not have reached the correct conclusion from this wrong having occurred or been present.
When I look at Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey's case, I find it disturbingly easy to find points which I would find irreparably wrong with the whole set up (the confession of Brendan, the Police departments conduct) despite the fact that upon weight I err that Steven is guilty.
Here in the UK, I would have considered they would have been freed by now if this trial had occurred here or at least the case reopened.
