PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "The fact that Avery's case was the subject of a television show does not absolve him from following the well-established rules of Wisconsin procedure," the state's response says. "It does not entitle him to a hearing on insufficiently pled claims based only on raw speculation and misrepresentations of the facts and it does not entitle him to this court's review of a perfectly sound decision by the court of appeals.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Making a Murderer: DOJ urges state Supreme Court not to review Avery's case," by Reporter Chris Mueller, published by The Appleton Post-Crescent on September 7, 2021.
GIST: The Wisconsin Department of Justice has asked the state Supreme Court not to review Steven Avery's case.
Avery, 59, has been serving a life sentence since he was convicted of killing Teresa Halbach, a 25-year-old photographer who disappeared in 2005.
Kathleen Zellner, Avery's attorney, filed a petition in late August with the state Supreme Court, seeking review on three issues: ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to disclose evidence and the destruction of bone fragments.
The 12-page response filed Wednesday with the Wisconsin Supreme Court by state prosecutors claims Avery, in his petition for review, "egregiously misrepresented the record ... the law, the lower courts’ opinions and even his own arguments."
"There is no compelling legal issue here that meets any of this court’s criteria for review," the state's response says.
Zellner responded to the state's latest arguments on Twitter.
"If we had wanted to reread the same error filled (appeals court) decision again we could have," she said. "The state's regurgitation response addresses none of the errors — it just repeats them. Justice delayed again for Steven Avery."
Avery asked the state Supreme Court to review his case after the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, in a 49-page opinion, rejected several arguments he has made over the years, including the effectiveness of his attorneys and the way some evidence has been handled by prosecutors.
Avery's story was featured in the Netflix docuseries "Making a Murderer," which cast doubt on the motives of police investigating Halbach's death and left many viewers with the impression that Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, were wrongfully convicted.
"The fact that Avery's case was the subject of a television show does not absolve him from following the well-established rules of Wisconsin procedure," the state's response says. "It does not entitle him to a hearing on insufficiently pled claims based only on raw speculation and misrepresentations of the facts and it does not entitle him to this court's review of a perfectly sound decision by the court of appeals.”
The state Supreme Court does not have to review Avery's case. The court receives about 1,000 petitions for review each term but agrees to hear only about 100 cases. It takes the support of at least three of the seven justices for the court to accept a case.
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog; -----------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they’ve exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
