The hit show ‘Making a Murderer’ followed two subjects in their journey of becoming apparent murderers. The series followed Dassey’s uncle, Steven Avery, and himself through the trials. The two were convicted for the murder of Teresa Halbach and sentenced to life in prison. The judge, William E. Duffin, felt that the boy was wrongfully manipulated by police due to him being an apparent “slow learner” according to nbcchicago.com.
All throughout the case the legal team defending Dassey always held onto the fact that the confession was obtained through the wrong tactics. Drizin is one of the lawyers on Dassey’s team that has been with the case for a while. Steven Drizin works with the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth legal team. This is due to the fact the confession was obtained through wrongful practices. Yet eventually, the investigators denied this allegation.
Now with the overturn of Dassey’s case, he has to be released from prison within a 90 day period. This, of course, is not mandatory if the state schedules a new trail for Dassey. The judge, William E. Duffin also noticed that police made apparent “false promises” to Dassey. In his confession, no lawyer or parent was present according to the nytimes.com. This was violating multiple rights of Dassey who was a minor at the time.
Drizin is very excited that the case has finally been reviewed for what is was. Judges and investigators have not paid much if any mind towards the claims of a wrongfully obtained confession. Each person has passed the claim off as false. Yet more evidence has now arisen as to how the case might have actually gone. Earlier this year a juror had spoken up about their experience on dealing with the case.
Steven Avery’s sentence was not effected at all by the overturn of Dassey’s case. Yet in January a juror spoke out against the court ruling for Avery. The juror came forward and felt that Avery was not actually guilty in the murder of Teresa Halbach. The juror claims that they only enforced the opinion of guilty due to them fearing for their “personal safety” states rollingstone.com. Since then many have questioned what truth is.
If the decisions made by the jury were false then why was Avery convicted? The decisions are then marked as false if there was intimidation present within the deliberations. The other big question then is how many other jurors went along with a guilty vote due to fear? The entire decision is then marked as invalid and untrue. Yet even when this claim came forth no other investigations appear to have occurred.
The juror hinted that the police might have cut the case in order to frame Steven Avery. This could have been done for a multitude of reasons. The family needed answers to feel closure. The police felt the pressure in order to nab a suspect and serve justice. Yet either way, the true murderer should be paying the punishment.
The rule is that the person can only be convicted guilty if they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This means that there is not much if any doubt at all as to whether or not the person committed the crime. Though one has to keep in mind that some of the jurors may have fully supported this opinion. Therefore their own votes do not really fall under the ones that were seemingly forced. However, if some of the jurors did feel pressure to follow suit then theirs would call the deliberations into question.
Drizin is working hard in order to appeal Dassey’s case. Whether Dassey’s team will win the appeal remains to be unseen. The court can go either way at this point. However, it is good that the interrogation tactics are finally being recognized for what they were. One will simply have to wait in order to find out what will become of Brendan Dassey.
