Steven Avery: Wisconsin: (Making a Murderer): Significant Development: Rebufed by the Wisconsin appeals court, he has asked the state's Supreme Court to review his case, the Appleton Post Crescent (Reporter Chris Mueller) reports. Issues sought to be reviewed include ineffective assistance of counsel, failure to disclose evidence and the destruction of bone fragments..."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. Zellner, in the petition for review, continues to argue that Avery should be allowed an evidentiary hearing "on the merits of his allegations of constitutional violations."

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "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. The latest move by Avery's legal team follows the late July rejection by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals of several arguments Avery has made over the years, including the effectiveness of his attorneys at trial and the way some of the evidence was handled by prosecutors."

--------------------------------------------------------

STORY: "Steven Avery asks Wisconsin Supreme Court to review his case after the appeals court rules against him," by Reporter Chris Mueller, published by the Appleton Post Crescent on August 26, 2021.

GIST: "Steven Avery has asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review his case as he continues to fight his conviction for the murder of Teresa Halbach.

Avery, 59, has been serving a life sentence since he was convicted of killing Halbach, a 25-year-old photographer who disappeared in 2005.

Kathleen Zellner, Avery's attorney, filed a 41-page petition this week 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 petition for review begins with commentary on the widespread attention the case has received: "(Avery's) case has produced an avalanche of coverage on a worldwide stage. It has generated legal commentary that has not been matched in the last 50 years. Law review articles, law school classes, case law, petitions to the White House, and millions of documentary viewers have grappled with one fundamental question: Did (Avery) receive a fair trial free of constitutional violations?"

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.

Zellner, in the petition for review, continues to argue that Avery should be allowed an evidentiary hearing "on the merits of his allegations of constitutional violations."

"If his conviction truly has integrity," the petition says, "it will withstand the scrutiny of an evidentiary hearing. Without such scrutiny, the question of the integrity and fairness of (Avery's) trial hangs like a dark cloud over the Wisconsin judicial system.”

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.

The latest move by Avery's legal team follows the late July rejection by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals of several arguments Avery has made over the years, including the effectiveness of his attorneys at trial and the way some of the evidence was handled by prosecutors."

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2021/08/26/steven-avery-asks-wisconsin-supreme-court-review-his-case-making-a-murderer/5601319001/

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;