WI - Teresa Marie Halbach, 25, Manitowoc, 31 Oct 2005

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
My friend is SOOOO cool. Here's her answer - but a few disclaimers first. 1) She (and I) are not attorneys, and this is not advice. 2) Most of her knowledge comes from her years of experience as a Probation/Parole agent in WI, some from her training as an FBI intern, and a little from her volunteer work at the law school in Legal Aid to Institutionalized Persons (her particular work involves making motions to the court to get sentences reduced for people who have been convicted). This is provided so you can make decisions about her info, possible biases, etc.

For the PO hold: can't post bail on PO hold. Last I knew, the agent
can initially hold for 3 business days starting the day after the hold,
during which a statement should be taken and the case staffed/decision
made on what to do made (so if picked up on Tuesday, agent should have
till Friday to have initial investigation done and a decision made);
however, custodies can be extended if time for further investigation is
needed. If decision is to revoke, can keep in or release while awaiting
the hearing (usually in - there's a number of reasons that would allow
the DOC to keep someone in while awaiting a hearing, and the supervisor
is to sign off on that on second page/back side of the 414; if I
remember correctly, it incl's stuff like there's a likelihood offender
will engage in noncompliant behavior, will engage in criminal behavior,
will flee, faces subst'l time on a revocation [over 6 months], stuff
like that), and if decision is to not revoke, might release, or if it's
an ATR of some kind, like to a halfway house or inpatient treatment,
might keep holding till bed available and then release from jail to bed
when it's open. If decision is to initiate revocation, unless s/he
waives right to hearing, there's a revocation hearing in which s/he can
fight it (for ex deny allegations, or yeah I did it but need another
chance). Statements made to agent can be used against him/her at rev
hearing but not in any criminal case (although I think there's some
exception if s/he testifies at the crim case and his testimony is
directly contradictory to his probation/parole statement).

THEN I GAVE her a Shaun Rudy scenario, but it's not her area of expertise - here's what she said...

S far as trial on weapons, that's up to State. It's separate from the
question of whether there's a rev hearing (can have one w/o the other).
I'd guess the state's decision would Prob'ly depend in part on what
weapon is and what the evidence is to prove it (is it a felon possess
firearm thing? Carry Concealed weapon?). Might end up with sitch
where he gets signature bond or cash bail on pending crim case but even
if he signs it or pays it he can't get out cuz of PO hold. Sometimes
they do a "signature bond to revert to cash bail in the event the PO
hold is lifted" thing.
 
OK - and I know this is off track of the Halbach case, so one more post on bail. (BTW - if you all indulge me, at some point I promise to post on the recent motion to suppress the videotape in Dassey's charge.)

Under Section 969 of WI Statutes, (969.035) bail can be denied, but it's a process. First, the person has to be charged with 1st degree murder, or first degree sex assault of adult, or sex assault of a child OR be charged with another violent crime and have already committed one.

So Avery would have qualified. Then prosecution must petition for bail denial, and they have a mini-trial w/in 10 days after arrest, basically, and the prosecution has to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant did what they were charged with.

Finally, if the judge denies bail, then the trial is on an expedited calendar and given priority.

So, as far as trial strategy, it's rarely going to be a good idea for the prosecution to ask for a denial of bail. 10 days after you charge is a VERY quick timeline to build a mini-trial. In the Avery case, it's simply too complicated of a case to want to expedite for the full trial. Think of it - had they gone that route, they probably wouldn't have had Dassey as a witness for a jury trial. Also, although there's been some fancy footwork as far as bail in this case, the prosecution could count on the fact that it would be set pretty darn high - high enough to not release him.

With Rudy - the prosecution wouldn't petition there either, b/c the longer they wait for trial, the more chance they have to gather evidence and hope that Christine's body will be found.
 
>First, I stand corrected on the running the woman off the road charge - you are right. I believe the flashing incidents were the ones that were not charged. And, I did say "minor record" when I should have considered my perspective vs. others - I'm used to long rap sheets, and big felonies. I downplayed the incidents b/c I think they were minor as compared to murder, and not predictive of murder. I see where others would have a different perspective. <<


It's not just a matter of perspective. You were wrong on a couple of things. The fact that the Innocence Project made a mistake in this case and an error in judgement resulted in the death of a woman. I don't think that is overemotional or not blaming just Avery. The fact is that if Avery had been left in prison Teresa would still be alive. While Steven may have actually committed the crime, others helped to give him opportunity. If you think that all others are abolved of any blame in this, well, we just have a big difference of opinion. That may be the perspective you are speaking of but the facts speak for themselves.

I haven't got a fancy law degree but I do have a huge helping of brains and common sense. Even I could see that Steven Avery was bad news. While you may not have seen his crimes and past as serious I did. Perhaps I may be better suited for your job than you? LOL!!

If you downplayed these matters then you made a serious error. Your viewpoints are very liberal compared to mine. While you see the dangers in law enforcement and government I see a far greater danger in the numbers of criminals on the loose that should be behind bars.


Sherlockmom
 
Didn't that nephew go in and talk to LE on his own? Maybe ole Steven isn't aware of that. I'm surprised that he didn't say that LE are framing his nephew too. He is such a creepy piece of chit.
 
Avery does show some knowledge of the law, however, when talking about "coercion" - that's the proper term, and if proven, can get the confession thrown out.

He's also setting up another prong of the test - how susceptible the confessor is - by talking about Dassey's lack of intelligence, which the court will consider. However, the "evidence" he uses is something I think you'd only find in WI -

"You figure he can't even cut deer up ... he can't even do none of that."
 
>Avery does show some knowledge of the law, however, when talking about "coercion" - that's the proper term, and if proven, can get the confession thrown out. <


Nah, that stuff isn't coming from Avery. He's not that much brighter than his nephew. That BS is coming from his lawyers. You know, the ones who are trying to help both of them get away with murder?

That's what I mean when I say there is a difference between making sure your client has his rights protected and helping them get away with a crime. Coming up with out and out lies to help your client get off scott free when you know he's guilty. Probably the next thing we'll hear out of them is that gypsies did it.

Why would LE need to coerce the nephew into a false confession? They had enough against Avery including DNA evidence. They didn't need the nephew. They aren't going to be able to prove coercion and Dassey's confession won't be thrown out because it didn't happen and both of them are guilty.

Sherlockmom
 
I would have to agree with Sherlockmom in this guy is not one of the brightest bulbs in the string or, he is awfully embittered. Who would sit 18 years for a crime they did not commit; is probably looking at a multi-million dollar compensation then turn around and commit one of the most heinous crimes discribed?

I think Penny Beerntsen should take solace in the fact that her mistake took this guy out of the community for 20 years and may well have saved more than one life.

I hear reported that he settled his suit against the state for $400,000. in order to pay his defense.

He may as well plead guilty, I don't think a change of venue will help at all.
 
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Lawyer Len Kachinsky wonders whether Steven Avery was trying to send a message to Kachinsky's client when Avery said Brendan Dassey was not very smart. [/font][/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"I think Avery's trying to say a couple things — I think he's trying to intimidate Brendan into not testifying at Avery's trial, and I think the meaning of the words 'not very smart' is a reference to possible consequence to Dassey if he testifies against Avery, if that occurs," Kachinsky, Dassey's attorney, told WLUK-TV in Green Bay Saturday. [/font][/font]


http://htrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060403/MAN0101/604030457/1358

Some trial strategy predictions, based on this article...

I just wrote a 40 page scholarly Law Review article on State v. Jerrell, which is a WI Supreme Court case decided this summer. (So I'm a geek that is particularly interested in Dassey's confession...) Jerrell was a juvenile confession case, and you might have heard about it b/c it now requires electronic recording of interrogations of juveniles, IF the confession is to be used in court. No recording, no evidence about a confession. If there is a recording, then a judge will review it to determine if the confession is voluntary.

BUT - Jerrell is also interesting because the Supreme Court threw out his confession b/c they determined it was not voluntary. Voluntariness is decided on a case-by-case basis, but a judge looks at age of defendant, prior experience with LE, IQ, length of interrogation, and other factors. Dassey being a juvenile, "Special Ed" as I think I read, and with a 4 hour interrogation has a decent chance of challenging the confession and winning...

Also, in order to throw the confession out, there must be coercion by the interrogators - enough to "overbear the will" of the defendant. It doesn't require bad intent on the part of police, just coercive conduct. Another part of the Jerrell decision suggests that if LE didn't notify Dassey's parents that he was in custody, then it could be viewed as "strong evidence" of coercion. Kachinsky could challenge on that basis, or make comparisons to Jerrell and Dassey and try to get the confession out that way.

If Bobbisangel is right (and it seems like that was the story in the beginning), and Dassey went in on his own, little of this matters, and Kachinsky's got a HUGE uphill battle.

But I think Kachinsky either made a mistake here, or is revealing trial strategy. In the article, he's saying that Dassey isn't that dumb. BUT - one of the things he will want to argue in a confession suppression motion is that his client isn't smart, because the lower the client IQ, the easier it is to get the confession thrown out. (I believe in an earlier article I read Dassey's in special ed classes...)

I think instead he may pull back on the confession suppression, and make a really good deal for his client in exchange for testimony (Dassey's videotape could not be used at Avery's trial), and his argument will be "See - Avery is still trying to intimidate and threaten Dassey even from prison. Dassey was definitely coerced/forced by Avery in this crime, so he should be allowed to plead to a lesser crime..." If the Shaun Rudy case is any indication, Dassey may get off "light" depending on how bad the prosecution thinks they need him to seal the deal and ensure an Avery conviction. And, IMHO, Avery will DEFINITELY go to trial, and Dassey's testimony would ensure a conviction.

***Side note - the WI legislature passed a bill this session mandating recording in ALL felony cases for adults now. And, despite initial grumbling from LE, all other states that have mandated it now have HUGE advocates in LE for recording. It's great for them b/c there are a lot less in-court battles over suppression - more efficiency, officers don't get accused of improper conduct b/c it's all on tape, and it's absolutely damning when it makes it into court. ***
 
Can this case get its own forum? I don't know how to make that happen. Can someone more familiar with WS see if they can make it happen? I think this case deserves it.

Thanks,
Hoppy
 
>***Side note - the WI legislature passed a bill this session mandating recording in ALL felony cases for adults now. And, despite initial grumbling from LE, all other states that have mandated it now have HUGE advocates in LE for recording. It's great for them b/c there are a lot less in-court battles over suppression - more efficiency, officers don't get accused of improper conduct b/c it's all on tape, and it's absolutely damning when it makes it into court. ***



Excellent!!! For everyone's protection including LE. I can't understand why this wasn't routinely done.

As for Dassey being less than intelligent he was smart enough to know right from wrong and that is all that should matter in the eyes of the law. I've been around a few people with down's syndrome over the years and IQ is not a measure of moral conduct. All of them had been taught the difference between right and wrong and understood. Dassey was hardly that severely mentally impaired that he did not.

Seems that low IQ is the new thing to try get people excused of crimes. It should not be a factor. I believe if a person is that mentally impaired that would be covered with an insanity plea. Otherwise anyone who isn't in the mainstream is not held to the same moral standards as the rest of us. Pretty soon we may as well just throw all laws out the window and say "what the heck!"

Most people have not led a perfect life. There are many many people who come from poor underpriveledged backgrounds, abusive situations, child molestation, violent backgrounds and less than mensa IQ's who never commit a crime. If IQ is the standard then everyone who has a low IQ should be committing crime left and right. These kinds of defenses irritate me as it leads one to believe that if you were ever molested as a child you have an excuse to be absolved from molesting another child. If you were physically abused as a child you are absolved from responsibility if you kill your own children.

This is all part of the liberalism of our laws that hold no one responsible for their own actions. Dassey wasn't mentally retarded. He may never have gotten into MENSA but that is so for alot of people. He may or may not have been easily led but that does not absolve him from taking full responsibility for his actions. We've all tried the "He made me do it" defense when we were kids. Did it work for you? It never worked for me LOL!

Since Avery was his uncle, an adult and perhaps a bit scary but so are parents. Dassey made a moral choice. A pretty basic one that didn't require a PHD to figure out. When I read his confession something keep sticking out in my mind. Dassey wasn't saying "I had to do it. Can't you see I HAD TO. My uncle was threatening me with a gun that if I didn't do it he would kill me."

His mother claimed later, after his arrest, that Avery threatened her son and told him that he would do the same to him if he talked but never during his confession did he mention that he felt under duress. He coldly and matter of factly described to LE how he helped his uncle torture, rape and kill this woman. He never said he felt bad about it either. I think that will hold more sway over the jury in making their decision and that is the REAL reason that his attorneys want that confession thrown out. How despicable! They know that kid wasn't coerced. They just want it thrown out because it is damning. If his confession is thrown out won't they have to release him? If his confession is not good in court why is he in jail? What crime then has he legally committed?

This is what I mean about attorneys crossing the line. Unless they have undisputed evidence that the cops twisted this kids arm, literally, they are making a moral decision to help him get away with the murder and rape of Teresa Halbach. There is an awful lot of detail in that confession for one that was obtained by coercion.

Without video of the confession Dassey's attorneys can claim whatever they wish. Without video evidence of Dassey's being tortured by LE to confess to something he didn't do it's his word against the cops. Gee, who are we going to believe. That's a hard one LOL!

Questioning someone for 4 hours is not coercion. He held up long enough to torture, rape and help to murder a woman. I don't think he's that fragile. He looks pretty sturdy to me. If he would have told the truth in the first place the police wouldn't have had to spend so much time talking to him.

Sherlockmom
 
AMEN! Well said........
 
Dassey admitted to raping her too. He wasn't mentally impaired when it came to the rape. :doh:
 
cheko1 said:
Dassey admitted to raping her too. He wasn't mentally impaired when it came to the rape. :doh:
Hi Cheko!! You and I are the WI die-hards!

Here's the thing - Dassey's not claiming insanity or anything like that yet. (A really high standard in WI, anyway...) It's just that any confession/admission given to police is reviewed before it can be used in court. When it's reviewed, the court decides whether or not the statement was voluntary. (Courts used to admit "confessions" that had literally been beaten out of suspects prior to the 1960's.)

Now the voluntariness test looks at a lot of factors to ensure that the confession was voluntary. One of the factors is the intelligence of the suspect, as is age, experience with police, length of questioning, etc. I think, but we haven't confirmed, that Dassey approached the police, not the other way around, and that's something the court could also consider. BUT - that in and of itself doesn't make the confession voluntary.

This is just for a confession - and in Dassey's case, even if the confession was found to be not voluntary, and thrown out, the prosecution still has other evidence to convict him, and could still have him testify in Avery's case. The only thing that would be out is that police couldn't take the stand in Dassey's case and tell what he said if the confession was tossed.

**Side note again - compare this to Rudy's case. Heather Teschler confessed to the police like Dassey. If she hadn't made a plea, her lawyer could have made the same motion to have her confession thrown out b/c it was involuntary. This is a pretty standard motion, b/c a confession is so damning, and whether it gets in or not also affects plea deals. (Which is what I think will happen in Dassey's case - with or w/o the confession in.)
 
Sherlockmom said:
>***Side note - the WI legislature passed a bill this session mandating recording in ALL felony cases for adults now. And, despite initial grumbling from LE, all other states that have mandated it now have HUGE advocates in LE for recording. It's great for them b/c there are a lot less in-court battles over suppression - more efficiency, officers don't get accused of improper conduct b/c it's all on tape, and it's absolutely damning when it makes it into court. ***



Excellent!!! For everyone's protection including LE. I can't understand why this wasn't routinely done.

As for Dassey being less than intelligent he was smart enough to know right from wrong and that is all that should matter in the eyes of the law. I've been around a few people with down's syndrome over the years and IQ is not a measure of moral conduct. All of them had been taught the difference between right and wrong and understood. Dassey was hardly that severely mentally impaired that he did not.

Seems that low IQ is the new thing to try get people excused of crimes. It should not be a factor. I believe if a person is that mentally impaired that would be covered with an insanity plea. Otherwise anyone who isn't in the mainstream is not held to the same moral standards as the rest of us. Pretty soon we may as well just throw all laws out the window and say "what the heck!"

Most people have not led a perfect life. There are many many people who come from poor underpriveledged backgrounds, abusive situations, child molestation, violent backgrounds and less than mensa IQ's who never commit a crime. If IQ is the standard then everyone who has a low IQ should be committing crime left and right. These kinds of defenses irritate me as it leads one to believe that if you were ever molested as a child you have an excuse to be absolved from molesting another child. If you were physically abused as a child you are absolved from responsibility if you kill your own children.

This is all part of the liberalism of our laws that hold no one responsible for their own actions. Dassey wasn't mentally retarded. He may never have gotten into MENSA but that is so for alot of people. He may or may not have been easily led but that does not absolve him from taking full responsibility for his actions. We've all tried the "He made me do it" defense when we were kids. Did it work for you? It never worked for me LOL!

Since Avery was his uncle, an adult and perhaps a bit scary but so are parents. Dassey made a moral choice. A pretty basic one that didn't require a PHD to figure out. When I read his confession something keep sticking out in my mind. Dassey wasn't saying "I had to do it. Can't you see I HAD TO. My uncle was threatening me with a gun that if I didn't do it he would kill me."

His mother claimed later, after his arrest, that Avery threatened her son and told him that he would do the same to him if he talked but never during his confession did he mention that he felt under duress. He coldly and matter of factly described to LE how he helped his uncle torture, rape and kill this woman. He never said he felt bad about it either. I think that will hold more sway over the jury in making their decision and that is the REAL reason that his attorneys want that confession thrown out. How despicable! They know that kid wasn't coerced. They just want it thrown out because it is damning. If his confession is thrown out won't they have to release him? If his confession is not good in court why is he in jail? What crime then has he legally committed?

This is what I mean about attorneys crossing the line. Unless they have undisputed evidence that the cops twisted this kids arm, literally, they are making a moral decision to help him get away with the murder and rape of Teresa Halbach. There is an awful lot of detail in that confession for one that was obtained by coercion.

Without video of the confession Dassey's attorneys can claim whatever they wish. Without video evidence of Dassey's being tortured by LE to confess to something he didn't do it's his word against the cops. Gee, who are we going to believe. That's a hard one LOL!

Questioning someone for 4 hours is not coercion. He held up long enough to torture, rape and help to murder a woman. I don't think he's that fragile. He looks pretty sturdy to me. If he would have told the truth in the first place the police wouldn't have had to spend so much time talking to him.

Sherlockmom
Excellent post Sherlockmom
I agree about the attorney's and moral decisions.I know the defendents should have good defense BUT we see so many attorney's who do cross the line .I some times wonder how they sleep at night and if they look at their own families and say what would i do if this happened to a member of my family.
I am still shaking my head over Avery murdering poor theresa and thinking he would get away with it. He asks for her to do the photographs (even though he used another family members name) and leaves her car in the wrecking yard .he rapes and murders her where he lives and leaves lots of DNA evidence for LE to find .To me it sounds like he is very low IQ too.-or he wanted to go back to prison.
 
Hi Ang,

Yes we are the Wi die-hards......lately to many things are happening here. Chai Vang was moved from Waupun to Ia for his own safety in case you never heard.(deer hunting murders)

Thanks for clarifying that for us on Dassey.....
Also going to send you a pm!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
82
Guests online
224
Total visitors
306

Forum statistics

Threads
609,157
Messages
18,250,194
Members
234,549
Latest member
raymehay
Back
Top