Brendan Dassey's Habeas Corpus Petition Granted

[dexter75]

I am extra P!$$E@ OFF tonight just thinking about the fact BD is STILL sitting in PRISON:steamed: How do those responsible for him being there sleep at night? IMO, even though polygraph's are NOT admissible in court, just for " shiggles " have a BEST of the BEST, EXPERIENCED independent examiner run THE BEST test on the main cast of characters...see what happens

 

[missy1974]

Found them...
so here is the States Motion to Supplement the Record:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0p3omr9ifyjsqub/32-main.pdf?dl=0

Here is the response to the State by BD's lawyers:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1a6vmpspyp93ksd/Response to State.pdf?dl=0

and of course... here is Duffin's decision to DENY the motion:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2ojt3k4a2ag6a90/Motion to Supplement denied.pdf?dl=0

the poster from reddit, or one of them, that posted these, also noted that "on Pacer the docket for the 7th Circuit appeal, it says: "Appellant's brief due on or before 10/19/2016 for Michael A. Dittmann." "

 

[missy1974]

I am extra P!$$E@ OFF tonight just thinking about the fact BD is STILL sitting in PRISON:steamed: How do those responsible for him being there sleep at night? IMO, even though polygraph's are NOT admissible in court, just for " shiggles " have a BEST of the BEST, EXPERIENCED independent examiner run THE BEST test on the main cast of characters...see what happens

it really is sad IMO I hope that his 'team' is taking the time to prepare him for what awaits him in the real world, so when he does get out the process/adjustment will be easier on him.

 

[missy1974]

okay, so reading the decision again

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e)“If anything material to either party is omitted from or misstated in the record by error or accident, the omission or misstatement may be corrected and a supplemental record may be certified and forwarded[to the court of appeals].” Fed. R. App. P. 10(e)(2).

This provision is not an invitation for parties to add to the appellate record matters that were not presented to the district court. See, e.g., Shasteen v. Saver, 252 F.3d 929, 935 (7th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Hillsberg, 812 F.2d 328, 336 (7th Cir. 1987) (“Rule 10(e) does not give this court authority to admit on appeal any document which was not made a part of the record in the district court.”) “The purpose of rule 10(e) is to ensure that the record on appeal accurately reflects the proceedings in the [district] court (thereby allowing [the court of appeals] to review the decision that the [district] court made in light of the information that was actually before it), not to enable the losing party to add new material to the record in order to collaterally attack the [district]court’s judgment.” United States v. Elizalde-Adame, 262 F.3d 637, 641 (7th Cir. 2001).​

If I understand it correctly, he is saying.... Look, you didn't even use these on the district court level (during the trial), and now that there is a decision that you don't like, you don't get to add stuff that you "think" might help your appeal.

He also went on to basically say, most of what they wanted to admit to the record was actually already in the record anyway.

Moreover, some of the proposed additional exhibits are cumulative. Exhibits 2 and 4 are simply the audio recordingsof interviewsof whichthe transcripts are already in the record. (CompareExhibit 2 withECF No. 19-24; Exhibit 4withECF No. 19-25 at 2-15.) Exhibit 1 is a transcript of an interview at the Two Rivers Police Departmentand Exhibit 3 is the video recordingof the same interview.This police department interviewwas conducted at the urging of the district attorney due to the poor quality of the audio recording (Ex. 2) of the earlier February 27, 2006 interview (seeECF No. 19-19 at 6) and was intended to be a re-do of the interview that is already in the record(ECF No. 19-24)​

It will be interesting to see the brief that the State should file next week

 

[dexter75]

good point BCA.

And if Fassbender/Wiegert or anyone else didn't know there was any sort of conflict.... why did MTSO (Colborn and Lenk specifically) need to have a babysitter with them at all times? And why would Kratz need to be on the scene on the 5th and named special prosecutor almost immediately? And wasn't there a meeting on the Avery property almost immediately between some of the investigators and prosecutors, basically when they decided that it WAS a conflict of interest and CASO would take over. I find it hard to believe that they didn't discuss what that conflict was, and if a lead investigator didn't know or understand the dynamics, he is not a good investigator IMO

:cheers::goodpost::ditto::thumb:

 

[Hoosen_Fenger]

Whilst those whom might wish to see Dassey released seem to be happy with these developments, all it essentially means (as pointed out by Missy1974 above,) is that nothing extra is going to be added to the decision making process.

Let us not forget, a Jury found Dassey Guilty based upon the evidence presented to them. A Judge decided that Dassey was not coerced and his confession was admissible for them to hear. That Duffin thinks there was coercion, is being challenged by the State and I have every confidence he will be over ruled.

Unless anything material like this changes and is sanctioned by a higher court, Dassey is not getting out. I know those that are keen on him being released are overjoyed at this latest development, but I would not be putting the Bunting up just yet, there is a long way to go.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Whilst those whom might wish to see Dassey released seem to be happy with these developments, all it essentially means (as pointed out by Missy1974 above,) is that nothing extra is going to be added to the decision making process.

Let us not forget, a Jury found Dassey Guilty based upon the evidence presented to them. A Judge decided that Dassey was not coerced and his confession was admissible for them to hear. That Duffin thinks there was coercion, is being challenged by the State and I have every confidence he will be over ruled.

Unless anything material like this changes and is sanctioned by a higher court, Dassey is not getting out. I know those that are keen on him being released are overjoyed at this latest development, but I would not be putting the Bunting up just yet, there is a long way to go.

A jury also found Joseph Burrows, Kevin Fox, Mario Casciaro, Ryan Ferguson, Omar Saunders, Larry Ollins, Calvin Ollins, Jerry Hobbs, Juan Rivera, Terrill Swift, Daniel Taylor, Jacques Rivera and Leroy Orange all based upon evidence presented to them. But as we all know, that is just a partial of those that are convicted falsely. Just because the jury convicted Dassey based upon evidence, doesn't mean he is truly guilty. Prosecutorial Misconduct does happen and IMHO it happened in Manitowoc County.

https://reason.com/blog/2016/10/06/prosecutorial-misconduct-is-now-a-felony

http://nypost.com/2016/10/15/innocent-man-freed-from-jail-honors-ken-thompson-at-funeral/

 

[missy1974]

The State should be filing a brief on or before the 19th, I think it will be interesting to see the appeal and why they think Duffin was wrong. That 91 page decision was well written and well cited. I also think it's interesting that the State thought they needed additional interviews added to the record to substantiate their appeal. JMO

 

[dexter75]

A jury also found Joseph Burrows, Kevin Fox, Mario Casciaro, Ryan Ferguson, Omar Saunders, Larry Ollins, Calvin Ollins, Jerry Hobbs, Juan Rivera, Terrill Swift, Daniel Taylor, Jacques Rivera and Leroy Orange all based upon evidence presented to them. But as we all know, that is just a partial of those that are convicted falsely. Just because the jury convicted Dassey based upon evidence, doesn't mean he is truly guilty. Prosecutorial Misconduct does happen and IMHO it happened in Manitowoc County.

https://reason.com/blog/2016/10/06/prosecutorial-misconduct-is-now-a-felony

http://nypost.com/2016/10/15/innocent-man-freed-from-jail-honors-ken-thompson-at-funeral/

:goodpost:
:yourock:

 

[Limaes]

Whilst those whom might wish to see Dassey released seem to be happy with these developments, all it essentially means (as pointed out by Missy1974 above,) is that nothing extra is going to be added to the decision making process.

Let us not forget, a Jury found Dassey Guilty based upon the evidence presented to them. A Judge decided that Dassey was not coerced and his confession was admissible for them to hear. That Duffin thinks there was coercion, is being challenged by the State and I have every confidence he will be over ruled.

Unless anything material like this changes and is sanctioned by a higher court, Dassey is not getting out. I know those that are keen on him being released are overjoyed at this latest development, but I would not be putting the Bunting up just yet, there is a long way to go.

I too feel his conviction will remain. Its been a little bit since I've read it but I don't recall Duffin declaring him not guilty or the confession was false. Hopefully no decisions by the courts will be based on other cases, because as we know, they have nothing to do with this case and are in no way evidence.

 

[missy1974]

PETITIONER’S REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RELEASE ON PERSONAL RECOGNIZANCE

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...s-Response-to-Motion-for-Release_redacted.pdf

Exhibits:

1 http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Exhibit-1.pdf
2 http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Exhibit-2.pdf
3 http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Exhibit-3.pdf
4 http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Exhibit-4.pdf
5 http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Exhibit-5.pdf

Motion filed in response to this motion from the State opposing release of BD. http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...ponse-in-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Release.pdf

 

[CoolJ]

I too feel his conviction will remain. Its been a little bit since I've read it but I don't recall Duffin declaring him not guilty or the confession was false. Hopefully no decisions by the courts will be based on other cases, because as we know, they have nothing to do with this case and are in no way evidence.

Duffin overturned the conviction and stated BD's constitutional rights were violated. So, according to the law, he is now considered innocent. I am not a lawyer but to me, that means "not guilty".

 

[missy1974]

Aren't all cases based on other cases? I mean.... decisions and cases are how decisions are made at all court levels, isn't it? Judges cite cases in decision.... lawyers on both sides, cite cases that are relevant. The dang Denny rule is based on another case ( State v. Denny,I20 Wis. 2d 614,624,357 N.W.2d 12 (Ct, App. 1984) ). So if the courts didn't base their decisions on other court cases.... Denny may not have held SA's lawyers back, right? Judge Duffin cited so many cases to back up his decision that it took him 91 pages :biggrin:

Of course the courts will base their decisions on other cases. JMO

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Aren't all cases based on other cases? I mean.... decisions and cases are how decisions are made at all court levels, isn't it? Judges cite cases in decision.... lawyers on both sides, cite cases that are relevant. The dang Denny rule is based on another case ( State v. Denny,I20 Wis. 2d 614,624,357 N.W.2d 12 (Ct, App. 1984) ). So if the courts didn't base their decisions on other court cases.... Denny may not have held SA's lawyers back, right? Judge Duffin cited so many cases to back up his decision that it took him 91 pages :biggrin:

Of course the courts will base their decisions on other cases. JMO

JMHO and I'm no lawyer either~~but~~it seems to me some manipulation going on there. A kind of, if you will...Hey were are smarter than you.
Implied but not said.

 

[krkrjx]

Aren't all cases based on other cases? I mean.... decisions and cases are how decisions are made at all court levels, isn't it? Judges cite cases in decision.... lawyers on both sides, cite cases that are relevant. The dang Denny rule is based on another case ( State v. Denny,I20 Wis. 2d 614,624,357 N.W.2d 12 (Ct, App. 1984) ). So if the courts didn't base their decisions on other court cases.... Denny may not have held SA's lawyers back, right? Judge Duffin cited so many cases to back up his decision that it took him 91 pages :biggrin:

Of course the courts will base their decisions on other cases. JMO

Yes, most decisions are based on other cases. In fact, usually a decision is based on whether or not a party is able to cite a precedent in support of their position. Often cases in appeals courts are lost simply because no precedent was cited. And often judges will recess for an opportunity to do research, typically of other case rulings, before making a decision.

 

[dexter75]

Duffin overturned the conviction and stated BD's constitutional rights were violated. So, according to the law, he is now considered innocent. I am not a lawyer but to me, that means "not guilty".

One doesn't need a law degree to know you are correct, COOLJ, knowing the definition of " overturn " http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overturn would be helpful I ( for those who might not know what it means )

 

[missy1974]

Yes, most decisions are based on other cases. In fact, usually a decision is based on whether or not a party is able to cite a precedent in support of their position. Often cases in appeals courts are lost simply because no precedent was cited. And often judges will recess for an opportunity to do research, typically of other case rulings, before making a decision.

Which is kinda what BD's lawyer stated in the latest filing:


Finally, the Respondent complains that the Court did not cite to U.S. Supreme Court
caselaw about promises of leniency; but the Court did, in fact, cite to a wealth of governing U.S.
Supreme Court law fully explicating the voluntariness standard. (ECF No. 23 at 60-61 (citing,
e.g., Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 517 (U.S. 1963) (discussing, inter alia, the promises
made to the defendant that induced his confession))). To the extent the Respondent is suggesting
that this Court overlooked U.S. Supreme Court law, it does not identify a single case that it
believes should have been cited, much less one that supports a finding of error. (ECF No. 31 at
11-12.) In short, the Respondent cannot be said to have established a substantial case on the
merits. Its failure here resolves the issue: this Court should grant Petitioner’s request for bond.

 

[Karinna]

Which is kinda what BD's lawyer stated in the latest filing:


Finally, the Respondent complains that the Court did not cite to U.S. Supreme Court
caselaw about promises of leniency; but the Court did, in fact, cite to a wealth of governing U.S.
Supreme Court law fully explicating the voluntariness standard. (ECF No. 23 at 60-61 (citing,
e.g., Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 517 (U.S. 1963) (discussing, inter alia, the promises
made to the defendant that induced his confession))). To the extent the Respondent is suggesting
that this Court overlooked U.S. Supreme Court law, it does not identify a single case that it
believes should have been cited, much less one that supports a finding of error. (ECF No. 31 at
11-12.) In short, the Respondent cannot be said to have established a substantial case on the
merits. Its failure here resolves the issue: this Court should grant Petitioner’s request for bond.

I hope BD gets bond until it is all resolved.

 

[missy1974]

So the State should be filing their brief today in the Seventh Circuit. I am not expecting them to ask for an extension, considering they wanted Judge Duffin to rule quickly on the Supplementing the record motion, and their reason was because they needed to file by October 19th.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0p3omr9ifyjsqub/32-main.pdf?dl=0
Respondent also respectfully requests this Court to expedite the motion and dispose of it before October 19, 2016, the date by which the State must file its brief-in-chief in the Seventh Circuit. Therefore, the State proposes that this Court order Dassey to file his response to this motion, if any, by October 12, 2016

I have to go to work but will be watching for it Have a great day websleuthers!

ETA: It's also BD's birthday!

 

[Limaes]

I wasn't talking about precedents with other cases as far as citing how the law was applied in those cases. I'm talking about using Kevin Fox's wrongful conviction for example, as evidence in this case. KF will have no bearing on the court's decision.