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

[missy1974]

Hey all

Here is the link to the petition requesting an en banc hearing

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...hearing-and-Petition-for-Rehearing-Enbanc.pdf

I have just read that there is a docket entry that says:

A Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc was filed by counsel for appellant on July 5, 2017.
Counsel for appellee is requested to file an answer to the petition by July 20, 2017. Counsel shall file thirty (30) copies of the answer, which shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages. Fed. R. App. P. 40(b). The cover of the answer, if used, must be white. Fed. R. App. P. 32(c)(2)(A).

Which means that BD's lawyers will have the opportunity to answer the States petition.



I have read the State's petition. They relied HEAVILY and quoted Hamilton's dissenting opinion in their petition. This could be a good thing/bad thing. I am actually happy that BD's lawyers will get to respond, I hope they can set the record straight, because Hamilton's dissenting opinion was FULL of misinformation and factually incorrect statements. It was like he didn't even try, I remember him from the hearing and I thought he had made up his mind at that point already.

Things have been crazy busy for me, but I am trying to keep up, I don't always have the time to post though! I hope everyone had a great holiday weekend and everyone is enjoying their summer

 

[Karinna]

Is there any word on what's going on with the En Banc hearing? Have the 7th. circuit court made a decision yet on if it will go ahead or not?
Was there supposed to be a reply from BD's legal team by today?

 

[missy1974]

Hi Karinna I think BD's lawyers have until the 20th (tomorrow) to file an answer to the States en banc request. Then I think it will take a few weeks before we know whether they will hear it again or not.

 

[Karinna]

Hi Karinna I think BD's lawyers have until the 20th (tomorrow) to file an answer to the States en banc request. Then I think it will take a few weeks before we know whether they will hear it again or not.

Hi missy , how are you? Hope all is going well there. Thanks for your reply. Will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[missy1974]

and of course BD's lawyers filed a day early ;-)

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...e-to-Request-for-En-Banc-Hearing_redacted.pdf

The next step is just a waiting game...

(found on reddit) according to this appeals handbook http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/forms/Handbook.pdf

When a petition for rehearing en banc is made, the petition is distributed to each active judge on the court, including the panel that originally heard and decided the appeal. Unless a judge in regular active service or a judge who was a member of the initial panel requests that a vote be taken on the en banc request, no vote will be taken. Fed. R. App. P. 35(f). If no vote is requested, the panel’s order acting on the petition will bear the notation that no member of the court requested a vote on the en banc request. Only active circuit judges are authorized to vote. Rehearing en banc will be granted only if a majority of the voting active judges vote to grant such a rehearing.

 

[Karinna]

and of course BD's lawyers filed a day early ;-)

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...e-to-Request-for-En-Banc-Hearing_redacted.pdf

The next step is just a waiting game...

(found on reddit) according to this appeals handbook http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/forms/Handbook.pdf

When a petition for rehearing en banc is made, the petition is distributed to each active judge on the court, including the panel that originally heard and decided the appeal. Unless a judge in regular active service or a judge who was a member of the initial panel requests that a vote be taken on the en banc request, no vote will be taken. Fed. R. App. P. 35(f). If no vote is requested, the panel’s order acting on the petition will bear the notation that no member of the court requested a vote on the en banc request. Only active circuit judges are authorized to vote. Rehearing en banc will be granted only if a majority of the voting active judges vote to grant such a rehearing.

Thanks for posting the info. missy. So now we wait again for another decision.

 

[guruagain]

The States petition for a Rehearing En Banc has been granted. "The panel’s opinion and judgment issued on June 22, 2017, are VACATED. Oral argument will be heard on Tuesday, September 26, 2017.
Case: 16-3397 Document: 58 Filed: 08/04/2017 Pages: 1"

 

[htiff]

The States petition for a Rehearing En Banc has been granted. "The panel’s opinion and judgment issued on June 22, 2017, are VACATED. Oral argument will be heard on Tuesday, September 26, 2017.
Case: 16-3397 Document: 58 Filed: 08/04/2017 Pages: 1"

Not good.

 

[Karinna]

Is this just another stall tactic by the 7th. Circuit to wait & see what happens with SA's case first?
What is their reasoning behind allowing an en banc hearing? What a waste of taxpayer money IMO.

 

[Karinna]

Not good.

Why do you say that? It could still go in Dassey's favor in the long run. Won't know till it gets there. How much longer now for this i wonder?

 

[htiff]

Is this just another stall tactic by the 7th. Circuit to wait & see what happens with SA's case first?
What is their reasoning behind allowing an en banc hearing? What a waste of taxpayer money IMO.

En banc hearings are not common. It may be that the dissenting judge voted in favor. The oral arguments are in September, so though it's not clear when the judges will reach their decision, I don't think it's just a stall tactic.

Dassey can still win. Or if the en banc hearing doesn't go his way, perhaps this goes to the Supreme Court next. Maybe.

Whatever happens, this case is too big to just go away.

 

[Karinna]

En banc hearings are not common. It may be that the dissenting judge voted in favor. The oral arguments are in September, so though it's not clear when the judges will reach their decision, I don't think it's just a stall tactic.

Dassey can still win. Or if the en banc hearing doesn't go his way, perhaps this goes to the Supreme Court next. Maybe.

Whatever happens, this case is too big to just go away.

Well IMO 2 out of 3 judges voted in Brendan's favor, what more do they want. Oh and i agree the world is watching how this pans out.
I think it takes more than 1 judge to vote in favor of en banc doesn't it?

 

[htiff]

Well IMO 2 out of 3 judges voted in Brendan's favor, what more do they want. Oh and i agree the world is watching how this pans out.
I think it takes more than 1 judge to vote in favor of en banc doesn't it?

I think only one of the original judges has to vote in favor. But who votes for this, is not known. I'm just assuming it's the dissenting judge. I didn't read the last decision. I was just thrilled Dassey won. But now I will read it.

 

[htiff]

"(2) En Banc Requests. If en banc consideration of a motion is requested, no morethan the normal number of judges required for such a motion need act on it. If en bancreconsideration of the decision on a motion is requested, the motion will be consideredby the same judge or judges who acted on the motion originally and, if and to theextent necessary to constitute a panel of three, one or more members of the motionspanel. A judge may request that any motion be considered by the court en banc."

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/forms/Seventh_Circuit_Operating_Procedures.pdf
So it will be 11 judges who hear the oral arguments in September (I think).



From KZ today, explaining how the decision to take case en banc works:

http://epstein.wustl.edu/research/courses.LAPSGiles.pdf

Recent Seventh Circuit decision made en banc. This decision might bode well for Dassey.

https://www.law360.com/articles/910186/7th-circ-gives-gcs-reason-to-hone-title-vii-approaches

 

[Karinna]

Thanks for posting up the links Gracie. I guess it could all go either way, will just be another waiting game, again.

 

[htiff]

Thanks for posting up the links Gracie. I guess it could all go either way, will just be another waiting game, again.

KZ puts a good spin on it. I have faith in her. I believe she's right.

 

[Karinna]

KZ puts a good spin on it. I have faith in her. I believe she's right.

I have clicked on the links and glanced over them, but not read all of it in full yet. Did Ms. Zellner write one of the pdf articles? Not sure where her spin on it is otherwise?

 

[htiff]

I have clicked on the links and glanced over them, but not read all of it in full yet. Did Ms. Zellner write one of the pdf articles? Not sure where her spin on it is otherwise?

Zellner posted on Twitter explaining the En Banc process, and that this hearing was to be expected. Weirdly though, her twitter account is now "closed." You have to be an approved follower, which I guess I wasn't before. That's just from last night when I could read everything.

Here's what she posted by way of information: http://epstein.wustl.edu/research/courses.LAPSGiles.pdf But this isn't her writing, it's just an explanation of how En Banc hearings work, and why they are granted.

And to be honest, this aspect of the court system is a little confusing to me. One upside I do see, is that the higher Brandon's case goes in the court system, the more lives will benefit from his final win. Zellner hints that this may go all the way to the Supreme Court. And even if Brendan wins with the En Banc panel. the Wisconsin DOJ may appeal to the Supreme Court, just as Brendan's team is certain to if he loses, at the 7th circuit.

If this case prevails at SCOTUS, then it will set a federal standard for interviewing subjects like Brandon. And this could have a very real and important impact nationally. If this case stops with a win at the Circuit Court level, then the decision is only binding for the states within that circuit.

But the huge downside to this case NOT just being won now, is that Brendan will likely be incarcerated for the entire appeals process as it goes before SCOTUS, and that could take years and years.

I'd just like to see the kid get back to his family. Brendan's case has always bothered me. Even more so than Steven Avery's.

 

[htiff]

I have clicked on the links and glanced over them, but not read all of it in full yet. Did Ms. Zellner write one of the pdf articles? Not sure where her spin on it is otherwise?

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.

 

[Karinna]

Zellner posted on Twitter explaining the En Banc process, and that this hearing was to be expected. Weirdly though, her twitter account is now "closed." You have to be an approved follower, which I guess I wasn't before. That's just from last night when I could read everything.

Here's what she posted by way of information: http://epstein.wustl.edu/research/courses.LAPSGiles.pdf But this isn't her writing, it's just an explanation of how En Banc hearings work, and why they are granted.

And to be honest, this aspect of the court system is a little confusing to me. One upside I do see, is that the higher Brandon's case goes in the court system, the more lives will benefit from his final win. Zellner hints that this may go all the way to the Supreme Court. And even if Brendan wins with the En Banc panel. the Wisconsin DOJ may appeal to the Supreme Court, just as Brendan's team is certain to if he loses, at the 7th circuit.

If this case prevails at SCOTUS, then it will set a federal standard for interviewing subjects like Brandon. And this could have a very real and important impact nationally. If this case stops with a win at the Circuit Court level, then the decision is only binding for the states within that circuit.

But the huge downside to this case NOT just being won now, is that Brendan will likely be incarcerated for the entire appeals process as it goes before SCOTUS, and that could take years and years.

I'd just like to see the kid get back to his family. Brendan's case has always bothered me. Even more so than Steven Avery's.

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.