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

[Karinna]

I just got back on KZ's twitter. I guess I was approved. She's changed some of her tweets from last night.

At some point people have to wake up and ask the very simple question, what is the Wisconsin DOJ so afraid of?

Those in that office took an oath to protect the people, not to protect themselves.

If they are so certain that Brendan Dassey is guilty, than why not give him a new trial and satisfy the matter? These appeals ain't cheap. That's tax payer money being spent. So spend that money instead, on making certain there wasn't a miscarriage of justice.

I agree with what you say and i think most of us know the judicial system is full of all kinds of corruption which is probably a topic for the political area of the forum. And i think law reform from old outmoded systems is definitely something that is desperately needed, IMO. Definitely that any child under the age of being an adult has to have an attorney or adult present in an interrogation.
As to Dassey's coerced confession it definitely doesn't support the evidence. In fact there is no evidence in regard to Brendan Dassey having been involved or committing any crime at all.
I just wish that Brendan would have told his interrogators that he will not speak to them until he gets a lawyer, and this mess and travesty of justice would never have happened to him or any other minor especially one that is intellectually challenged. There should definitely be a law against that.
If in the interim Steven Avery is exonerated where will that leave Brendan, seeing as the state had to have BD's coerced confession to get Avery's conviction secured, IMO.

 

[Karinna]

I also wonder how on earth they could retry Brendan Dassey with no evidence against him, because they would never win with nothing to support their fairytales at a new trial.

 

[htiff]

Thanks for clarification. Now i understand if it was info. from KZ's tweets. I did read some about the en banc hearings when this was initially an option in the legal process. But en banc is quite rare and most cases never go en banc. I think they should get rid of en banc hearings if a panel of judges has already decided at a federal level, but that is just my opinion.

Yes. Except, what if Brendan had lost that appeal, petitioning for en banc panel would have been an option for him as well. And actually, one of the most recent en banc decisions made by the 7th circuit was great. Sometimes a full panel gets it right. There was a great victory for protections against sexual discrimination recently, by way of a 7th circuit en banc review.

 

[htiff]

I agree with what you say and i think most of us know the judicial system is full of all kinds of corruption which is probably a topic for the political area of the forum. And i think law reform from old outmoded systems is definitely something that is desperately needed, IMO. Definitely that any child under the age of being an adult has to have an attorney or adult present in an interrogation.
As to Dassey's coerced confession it definitely doesn't support the evidence. In fact there is no evidence in regard to Brendan Dassey having been involved or committing any crime at all.
I just wish that Brendan would have told his interrogators that he will not speak to them until he gets a lawyer, and this mess and travesty of justice would never have happened to him or any other minor especially one that is intellectually challenged. There should definitely be a law against that.
If in the interim Steven Avery is exonerated where will that leave Brendan, seeing as the state had to have BD's coerced confession to get Avery's conviction secured, IMO.

I agree with all the above. And the frightening aspect of all this for me with the Brendan verdict, was that not only did the evidence not support or corroborate Brendan's confession, the evidence contradicted that confession---as did claims made by Kratz at the Avery trial. Basically, Kratz gave two, totally contradictory versions of the crime in those trials.

There was no real evidence, ever, to convict Brendan Dassey. That poor kid was a pawn in an unconscionable miscarriage of justice all the way around.

And what about the victim!! Theresa Halbach has not gotten justice. This is also about her.

OMG. It doesn't have to be this way. We really don't have to do this one another. It shouldn't always be about winning. It should be about getting it right.

 

[Karinna]

Yes. Except, what if Brendan had lost that appeal, petitioning for en banc panel would have been an option for him as well. And actually, one of the most recent en banc decisions made by the 7th circuit was great. Sometimes a full panel gets it right. There was a great victory for protections against sexual discrimination recently, by way of a 7th circuit en banc review.

If Brendan had lost his initial appeal which he didn't in the 7th. circuit, i think there would of been other options available to him and his legal team other than en banc. So the state gets another crack at it and how many more do they need? Until they get the right answer that suits them? If the hearing en banc is in the state of Wisconsin i'm not real hopeful, but that's just my take on it.

 

[Karinna]

I agree with all the above. And the frightening aspect of all this for me with the Brendan verdict, was that not only did the evidence not support or corroborate Brendan's confession, the evidence contradicted that confession---as did claims made by Kratz at the Avery trial. Basically, Kratz gave two, totally contradictory versions of the crime in those trials.

There was no real evidence, ever, to convict Brendan Dassey. That poor kid was a pawn in an unconscionable miscarriage of justice all the way around.

And what about the victim!! Theresa Halbach has not gotten justice. This is also about her.

OMG. It doesn't have to be this way. We really don't have to do this one another. It shouldn't always be about winning. It should be about getting it right.

The state deserved to have their * handed to them as far as Brendan is concerned IMO.

 

[htiff]

If Brendan had lost his initial appeal which he didn't in the 7th. circuit, i think there would of been other options available to him and his legal team other than en banc. So the state gets another crack at it and how many more do they need? Until they get the right answer that suits them? If the hearing en banc is in the state of Wisconsin i'm not real hopeful, but that's just my take on it.

His only other option would be the U.S. Supreme court--and they don't have to grant a hearing, so I think en banc, might have been a good try, (that hearing might not be granted either, but take every opportunity available, I would think) especially if you have a dissenting opinion in your favor. Here's a really good breakdown of how the appeals process works:

http://www.cocklelegalbriefs.com/blog/supreme-court/appeals-process-trial-court-supreme-court/

 

[Karinna]

His only other option would be the U.S. Supreme court--and they don't have to grant a hearing, so I think en banc, might have been a good try, (that hearing might not be granted either, but take every opportunity available, I would think) especially if you have a dissenting opinion in your favor. Here's a really good breakdown of how the appeals process works:

http://www.cocklelegalbriefs.com/blog/supreme-court/appeals-process-trial-court-supreme-court/

Yes read about that before too, but thanks for posting up the link. You know IMO Retry Brendan and publicise the Trial so all the State's dirty lies and how they did BD, and all their underhanded tactics should be thoroughly exposed to the public so that there is outrage at how that kid was treated when he was just 16 yrs. old when his life didn't matter to them and they threw him in prison just to save manitowoc county's * against a civil lawsuit by Avery for the previous wrongful incarceration for rape they set him up with. Bunch of dirty dogs is what they are. All JMO

 

[Karinna]

And lets not forget this
(quote)
A federal judge on Friday granted Brendan Dassey’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, ordering the state of Wisconsin to release him from custody within 90 days, unless they decide to retry him. Although, absent a successful appeal of the ruling, it is all but certain Dassey will be released from custody. This is because Federal Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin found the then-teenager’s confession was involuntarily obtained in violation the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Without the ability to use that confession, it is doubtful the state has sufficient evidence to bring charges against Dassey for the death of Teressa Halbach.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/her...an-dasseys-confession-so-clearly-involuntary/
This is about the Violation of Brendan Dassey's constitutional rights and if the 7th. Circuit didn't note that big issue in all of this, then what is an en banc going to figure out?

 

[BigCityAccountant]

https://livestream.com/accounts/18968940/events/7055388/videos/159163345

I found this recent interview between the silver fox Aaron Keller and John Ferak talking about, among other things about these two cases, the fact of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in BD's favor. I wanted to post it here for others to watch because I found it very interesting considering who both these men are. JF is very familiar with the local area (and, of course, my favorite reporter ) as that is where he is from and AK was the journalist who went on to get a law degree because of these cases and how they were conducted affected him so dramatically. I found it especially enlightening when JF talks about the closer one gets to Manitowoc, that city officials and LE officials go out of their way to stifle discussion about these two cases and their outcomes,and just try to keep up the status quo with the local public. Anyway, enjoy. :discuss:

Thanks Jaddie!!!

Since JF was the only reporter really seeking out the truth, I wonder if they made life difficult for him and that was the reason he left Wisconsin for Joliet IL?

 

[BigCityAccountant]

I agree with all the above. And the frightening aspect of all this for me with the Brendan verdict, was that not only did the evidence not support or corroborate Brendan's confession, the evidence contradicted that confession---as did claims made by Kratz at the Avery trial. Basically, Kratz gave two, totally contradictory versions of the crime in those trials.

There was no real evidence, ever, to convict Brendan Dassey. That poor kid was a pawn in an unconscionable miscarriage of justice all the way around.

And what about the victim!! Theresa Halbach has not gotten justice. This is also about her.

OMG. It doesn't have to be this way. We really don't have to do this one another. It shouldn't always be about winning. It should be about getting it right.

Great Post!!:goodpost:

 

[BigCityAccountant]

If Brendan had lost his initial appeal which he didn't in the 7th. circuit, i think there would of been other options available to him and his legal team other than en banc. So the state gets another crack at it and how many more do they need? Until they get the right answer that suits them? If the hearing en banc is in the state of Wisconsin i'm not real hopeful, but that's just my take on it.

The en banc hearing will be by the entire 7th Circuit. The 7th Circuit is in Chicago. IIRC, the 7th circuit covers Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit

 

[Karinna]

The en banc hearing will be by the entire 7th Circuit. The 7th Circuit is in Chicago. IIRC, the 7th circuit covers Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit

Thanks BCA. I should of worded it "for the state of Wisconsin" then.

 

[Karinna]

So some people are speculating with an en banc hearing it will address how minors are interrogated etc. ? Are the 7th. Circuit through an en banc hearing going to change the law? Do they have that power to change those laws, (ie) Reid method etc., for future police interrogations of minors? What is an en banc hoping to achieve i wonder, that a normal 3 panel of judges had already decided on?

 

[BigCityAccountant]

So some people are speculating with an en banc hearing it will address how minors are interrogated etc. ? Are the 7th. Circuit through an en banc hearing going to change the law? Do they have that power to change those laws, (ie) Reid method etc., for future police interrogations of minors? What is an en banc hoping to achieve i wonder, that a normal 3 panel of judges had already decided on?

It won't necessarily change the law, but it will set a precedent. Obviously, if someone with a disability is interrogated like Brendan was~~then they could have their constitutional rights violated and have their case thrown out. It is basically a precedent, just like what Brendan's lawyers are citing in their motion. IE: Strickland is often mentioned as well as Denny. Those were cases that were appealed to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. (FYI~~Supreme Court of Wisconsin decision are appealed to the Federal Level)
But that is what they are talking about when they talk about changing the law.

I'll also have to add, that if he is successful, there is a petition going around to make it law as well. I suspect it will be successful if Brendan is successful....and I hope he is....and I hope this law passes.

https://www.change.org/p/wisconsin-...ile-interrogation-protection-law-in-wisconsin


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Supreme_Court

ETA: I didn't realize the petition was closed. It's been a while since I saw it.

 

[Karinna]

It won't necessarily change the law, but it will set a precedent. Obviously, if someone with a disability is interrogated like Brendan was~~then they could have their constitutional rights violated and have their case thrown out. It is basically a precedent, just like what Brendan's lawyers are citing in their motion. IE: Strickland is often mentioned as well as Denny. Those were cases that were appealed to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. (FYI~~Supreme Court of Wisconsin decision are appealed to the Federal Level)
But that is what they are talking about when they talk about changing the law.

I'll also have to add, that if he is successful, there is a petition going around to make it law as well. I suspect it will be successful if Brendan is successful....and I hope he is....and I hope this law passes.

https://www.change.org/p/wisconsin-...ile-interrogation-protection-law-in-wisconsin


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Supreme_Court

ETA: I didn't realize the petition was closed. It's been a while since I saw it.

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.

 

[htiff]

It won't necessarily change the law, but it will set a precedent. Obviously, if someone with a disability is interrogated like Brendan was~~then they could have their constitutional rights violated and have their case thrown out. It is basically a precedent, just like what Brendan's lawyers are citing in their motion. IE: Strickland is often mentioned as well as Denny. Those were cases that were appealed to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. (FYI~~Supreme Court of Wisconsin decision are appealed to the Federal Level)
But that is what they are talking about when they talk about changing the law.

I'll also have to add, that if he is successful, there is a petition going around to make it law as well. I suspect it will be successful if Brendan is successful....and I hope he is....and I hope this law passes.

https://www.change.org/p/wisconsin-...ile-interrogation-protection-law-in-wisconsin


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Supreme_Court

ETA: I didn't realize the petition was closed. It's been a while since I saw it.

I believe actually that a decision of the court of appeals, does change the law. But the change is only binding to the courts below the court that rendered the decision. So if the 7th circuit upholds Brendan's appeal, then that decision is binding to all the lower courts to the 7th circuit. But this won't be binding to states outside that circuit. Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. (but the decision can still be used in court as persuasive)

Roe v. Wade is a perfect example of this. This was a court case that legalized abortion at the federal level, because the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all courts in this country.

 

[Karinna]

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

 

[Karinna]

Oral arguments for the “en banc” rehearing will be heard on Sept. 26. An en banc review involves the entire panel of judges rather than just the three who made the initial ruling. En banc reviews are rarely granted in the federal courts, criminal law experts say.

“This is somewhat surprising simply because en banc review is so unusual," Marquette University Law School professor Michael O’Hear told USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin on Friday. "However, the fact that there was a strong dissenting opinion from one of the judges on the original panel makes this development less surprising.

"This is, of course, not good news for Mr. Dassey, but no one can be certain about what will happen next. The issues are legally and factually difficult, and we've already seen that a number of different judges have reached different conclusions about the right outcome."
http://www.postcrescent.com/story/n...ants-rehearing-brendan-dassey-case/540907001/

 

[htiff]

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'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.