Sep 14, 2016 · Federal Criminal Appeals: Lessons from Netflix’s “Making a Murderer” Brendan Dassey Case. How can a judge overturn a conviction as being wrongful and unjust, and the defendant still remain behind bars? That’s what is happening in the Brendan Dassey case — and it’s a great lesson to all of us on how the criminal justice system works.
Jun 25, 2018 · Dassey was charged March 2, 2006. In mid-April, 2006, Dassey’s first trial attorney, Len Kachinsky, moved to suppress Dassey’s confession statements as evidence. The judge who handled the case, Jerome Fox, disagreed and ruled that the confessions should be allowed into evidence. Dassey asked to fire Kachinsky as his attorney.
Jun 05, 2021 · American professor of law. On Feb. 27, 2006, Brendan Dassey's life was changed forever. The 16-year-old boy, who has intellectual impairments, was called out of school to be questioned by law ...
Jul 10, 2019 · Len Kachinsky. Photo from the Winnebago County Jail. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended Brendan Dassey’s former lawyer from acting as a reserve municipal judge because of his unusual ...
Steven Avery | |
---|---|
Criminal penalty | Life imprisonment without parole |
After conviction, Dassey’s original appeals attorneys took his case to an intermediate state appellate court, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. That court affirmed Dassey’s conviction in an officially “unpublished” opinion. The Court of Appeals gave deference to the trial judge and ruled that Dassey’s confession was voluntary because the police didn’t coerce him:
The defense called an expert to describe false confessions to the jurors and put Dassey himself on the stand. There, Dassey said he made up his confession. A defense expert testified about Dassey’s level of suggestibility (in other words, that the interrogators could have fed him answers).
The federal district court judge said that while the interrogators, Mark Wiegert and Tom Fassbender, did not mount “an intentional and concerted effort to trick Dassey into confessing,” their words and actions constituted a slowly wore Dassey down in a way that is not Constitutionally permissible.
From there, Dassey’s attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to take the case, leaving the language above as the crux of Dassey’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
He is a former anchor and executive producer for the Law&Crime Network and is now a Senior Editor for the Law&Crime website . DISCLAIMER: This website is for general informational purposes only. You should not rely on it for legal advice. Reading this site or interacting with the author via this site does not create an attorney-client relationship. This website is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. Speak to a competent lawyer in your jurisdiction for legal advice and representation relevant to your situation.
Video footage of Dassey's interrogation was included in the hit Netflix docuseries "Making A Murderer, " which questions the convictions of Dassey and Avery. The interrogation footage in particular inflamed audiences, as many believed the young teen was pressured into making a confession. That's certainly what Laura Nirider, his lawyer, thinks, as she made clear during her panel " Un-making a Murderer: A Conversation with Brendan Dassey’s Lawyer Laura Nirider" at CrimeCon 2021, presented by Oxygen.
At the time, Evers' office said that Dassey didn't meet the criteria for a pardon because he hadn't completed his prison sentence and has to register as a sex offender, The Associated Press reported at the time.
And even though Dassey has yet to be freed, his story has already had ramifications on the legal system. In May 2021, Illinois lawmakers passed a bill that bars police from lying to children during questioning in an effort to prevent false confessions, The New York Times reported. Illinois is the first state to put forth such a law. The bill, which had bipartisan support, was partially inspired by Dassey's conviction, Nirider said.
It's possible they can file for post-conviction relief based on new ly discovered evidence and have a team working to investigate the case and uncover new findings.
In May 2021, Illinois lawmakers passed a bill that bars police from lying to children during questioning in an effort to prevent false confessions, The New York Times reported. Illinois is the first state to put forth such a law. The bill, which had bipartisan support, was partially inspired by Dassey's conviction, Nirider said.
His uncle Steven Avery had recently been arrested for the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach. Detectives from the Manitowoc Sheriff's Department interrogated Dassey four times over the next 48 hours with no lawyer or parents present until Dassey finally confessed to helping his uncle rape and murder Halbach.
They subsequently requested a pardon from Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, which was denied in December 2019.
Their relationship became strained partly because of an incident in which Kachinsky popped up from his hiding place behind a counter and shouted, “Roar!”. Kachinsky also referred to the manager as one of his best friends in an email and asked her to pose in selfie pictures with him and in the courtroom.
After his suspension from the bench, he will have to establish his fitness if he applies to serve as a reserve judge. Kachinsky told Law360 that the ethics case stemmed from a “personality conflict” that got out of hand, leading to a false accusation that he had engaged in some form of sexual harassment.
He did not seek reelection this spring and has been suspended since last July, when he was arrested on a felony stalking charge based on his treatment of the staff member at the municipal court in Fox Crossing, Wisconsin. Kachinsky’s former client Dassey was profiled in the Making a Murderer Netflix docuseries.
In an email to the human resources manager, Kachinsky said the court manager should be advised to “give a little bit on the work-only thing,” and if she didn’t change her behavior, he had no alternative but to fire her. The village attorney responded with a letter telling Kachinsky his behavior constituted retaliatory conduct.
Kachinsky says he told the manager about his knowledge because he wanted her mother to know that her cellphone was broadcasting location information to others on Facebook.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has suspended Brendan Dassey’s former lawyer from acting as a reserve municipal judge because of his unusual interactions with a court manager who accused him of harassment.
Kachinsky was acquitted in the criminal stalking case in December. His former lawyer in the criminal case had blamed the stalking charge partly on his client’s quirky personality, which included meowing randomly. The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended Kachinsky despite the acquittal in a July 9 opinion, finding that his behavior toward ...
Many were shocked to learn at the end of Making a Murderer that Dassey was convicted in 2007 and sentenced to life in prison with no parole for 41 years; he was only 17 years old. Nirider and Dassey’s other attorneys argue that there are serious questions around the confession that Dassey gave police and that led to his conviction.
Laura Nirider (LN): I first learned about Brendan Dassey’s case, believe it or not, when I was still a law student at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law. I was a year away from graduation and decided to enroll in a wrongful convictions class taught by clinical professor Steve Drizin.
LN: The mandatory recording of interrogations is a crucial reform for which many organizations, including our Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, have joined the Innocence Project in advocating. In fact, a rule requiring juvenile interrogations to be videotaped was instituted in Wisconsin only a short time before Brendan was questioned, making his interrogation one of the first to be fully recorded under the new rule.
But mandatory recording, while an essential reform, does not ensure that the innocent will be acquitted; it simply ensures transparency. It is then up to attorneys to argue why the videotape shows a confession that was involuntary and/or false. Those arguments were not persuasively made to the jury in Brendan’s case.
Armed with a semiautomatic rifle and acting on calls on social media, he left Illinois to respond to the demonstrations in Kenosha, where a police officer had shot a Black man, Jacob Blake, setting off a wave of protests against police brutality. Rittenhouse's defense team is expected to argue that he was attacked as he was trying to protect businesses from looters, prompting him to open fire in self-defense.
While Kenosha County Judge Bruce Schroeder may set boundaries for the language in his court, his decision sets the stage for more scrutiny, legal experts say.
Schroeder had allowed the letter and voicemails in the original trial, triggering two decades of litigation. Jensen is awaiting a new trial.
Juliet Sorensen , a professor at Northwestern University's Pritzker School of Law, said a judge who wants to appear impartial "should not want unfair prejudice to creep in through any language."
Civil rights lawyer David Henderson, a former prosecutor in Texas, said on MSNBC that even if any of the men who were shot had engaged in criminal behavior before the encounter, "that wouldn't have given Kyle Rittenhouse the right to shoot them."
Schroeder was also in the national spotlight in the trial of Mark Jensen, a Wisconsin man who was accused of murdering his wife by poisoning her with antifreeze in 1998. Schroeder sentenced him to life in prison. Jensen's conviction was vacated in April when the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution couldn't use a letter that his wife, Julie, had written.
As he set the ground rules for the trial, Schroeder said this week that the label "victim" is a "loaded word" and that even the use of "alleged victim" is too close, telling prosecutors that "complaining witness" or "decedent" are acceptable alternatives.
The judge has not allowed prosecutors to describe the two men Rittenhouse killed as “victims,” calling it a “loaded term, ” but said he would allow the defense to refer to them as “looters” and “arsonists” if they can prove that they were.
Schroeder, 75, has admonished prosecutors throughout the trial, telling Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger on Wednesday, "Don't get brazen with me!" after Binger mentioned Rittenhouse’s right to remain silent in front of the jury.
Schroeder did not respond to a request for comment from Forbes.
Testimony in Kyle Rittenhouse’s double murder trial kicked off Thursday with the jury giving a round of applause to a witness called by the defense after Judge Bruce Schroeder advised the courtroom to recognize the witness’ military service for Veterans Day, the latest action by the judge that critics say show he is biased in favor of the defense.
Rittenhouse shot three men, killing two of them, with an AR-15-style rifle during a chaotic protest against police brutality in Kenosha last year. A jury deliberated about 3 1/2 days before finding Rittenhouse not guilty on Friday of five felony charges, including a murder charge that could have carried a life in prison sentence.
-- Prosecutors in Kyle Rittenhouse ’s murder trial may have lost their best chance at convicting the Illinois man of something when the judge threw out a charge that Rittenhouse was a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon.
But when he acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length allowed under state law, Schroeder dismissed the charge.
The current wording of the overarching law seems clear: “Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.” A lead-in paragraph defines dangerous weapon as several things, including “any firearm, loaded or unloaded.”
Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee attorney and a former Waukesha County prosecutor, speculated that the long-gun exception was drafted to ensure children could hunt and lawmakers didn't envision it could be used to protect children who carry long guns at protests like the demonstrations in Kenosha.
Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge. Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.
Grieve and Cicchini both said they’ve never seen the long-gun exception come into play like it did in Rittenhouse’s case, largely because juveniles tend to use handguns when committing crimes and in those cases prosecutors tend to charge them with far more serious offenses, such as armed robbery.
Prosecutorial misconduct. Witnesses are uncooperative or the victim recants. Scientific analysis, such as DNA test results, reveals new information. The defendant has agreed to work with the government in exchange for a dismissal. Violation of the double jeopardy clause. Prosecutorial discretion.
When a criminal case is dismissed, then it is over with no finding of guilt or conviction. Legal action has been terminated and the state is not moving forward with the prosecution — at least for now. A case can be dismissed at any time during the process, including before trial, during trial, or even after trial ...
A case can be dismissed at any time during the process, including before trial, during trial, or even after trial (if a convicted defendant wins on appeal.)
Yes , unless you take additional action. Many people wrongly believe that if their case is dismissed then it automatically comes off their record. The fact of the matter is that the arrest will stay on your record unless you obtain an expunction or nondisclosure — legal mechanisms that allow your record to be destroyed or sealed. Until you get an order granting an expunction or nondisclosure, your arrest will remain a matter of public record and could adversely affect your life, including your ability to get a job or secure a home loan, among other things.
Until you get an order granting an expunction or nondisclosure, your arrest will remain a matter of public record and could adversely affect your life, including your ability to get a job or secure a home loan, among other things.
If the case is dismissed “with prejudice,” the case is over permanently. The case cannot be re-filed and you are in the clear.
When you’ve been charged with a crime and your freedom and livelihood are on the line, there’s nothing better than hearing the words, “Case Dismissed.” Getting criminal charges dismissed before trial is definitely a best-case scenario for a defendant, but is it really the end of your legal issues? Here’s a look at answers to some frequently asked questions regarding the dismissal of criminal charges.
In fact, US supreme court justices enjoy a special privilege: they are the only judges exempt from the federal Code of Conduct, which demands judicial impartiality and prohibits a jurist from presiding when he or she has “a personal bias concerning a party to the case”.
But court critics say that one reason judicial violations are common is because they frequently go unpunished. When litigants ask a judge to back away because of a conflict, they risk being told no, then face possible retaliation, so many don’t bother. If a litigant or an attorney files a complaint with an oversight body, there’s only about a 10% chance that state court authorities will properly investigate the allegation, according to a Contently.org analysis of data from 12 states.
Hundreds of judicial transgressions have been uncovered during the last decade, with results that cost the defeated litigants their home, business, custody, health or freedom.
Attorney Lori Laird asked that Dupuy bow out in 2013 because she’d represented Dupuy’s ex-wife in the couple’s custody battle in Galveston. The judge responded by slapping her with 37 counts of contempt, demanding that she “explain, defend or apologize” for her motion.
The US Supreme Court ruled that Benjamin’s bias was so extreme that his failure to step aside violated Caperton’s right to due process under the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. The case, which spawned Grisham’s 2008 best-seller, “The Appeal,” underscored the kind of underhanded dealing that has stained the judiciary.
The analysis shows that a dozen of these commissions collectively dismissed out of hand 90% of the complaints filed during the last five years, tossing 33,613 of 37,216 grievances without conducting any substantive inquiry. When they did take a look – 3,693 times between 2010 and 2014 – investigators found wrongdoing almost half the time, issuing disciplinary actions in 1,751 cases, about 47%.
When conduct boards do act, the sanctions usually amount to an admonishment that may be embarrassing but costs the judge little.