Friday, November 19, 2021

Steven Avery: Wisconsin: "Making a murderer."...Bulletin: (Yet another disappointment). Wisconsin’s high court has rejected Steven Avery’s petition to review his case without comment, WBAY news staff report. Link provided to the full petition filed by lawyer Kathleen Zellner..."We are not surprised since the Wisconsin Supreme Court only grants 1-2% of petitions for review. Mr. Avery has many options including proceeding to the U.S Supreme Court, and then federal district . Since the appellate court only ruled on 50% of the issues raised we will be filing a new petition with the circuit court at the appropriate time.” Kathleen Zellner....


PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Avery attorney Kathleen Zellner filed the petition for review back in August. She argued the case presents “special and important reasons” justifying a Supreme Court review and focused on three issues: ineffective assistance of counsel; Brady violations, alleging prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense; and destruction of bone fragments. Zellner wanted the court to order an evidentiary hearing."

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

PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Avery is serving life in prison for murdering Theresa Halbach on his family’s property on Halloween, 2005. The case gained worldwide attention from the 2015 Netflix documentary series “Making A Murderer.” In July, an appellate court denied Avery an evidentiary hearing. That ruling said lower courts did not err in denying motions raising claims about evidence or the effectiveness of Avery’s trial attorneys.”

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

STORY: Steven Avery petition  rejected by Wisconsin Supreme Court," published by WBAY News on  November 17, 2021.


SUB-HEADING: "The petition for review was denied by the court without  comment."


GIST: " The Supreme Court released a simple response late Wednesday afternoon without comment: “It is ordered that the petition for review is denied, without costs.”


Avery attorney Kathleen Zellner filed the petition for review back in August.


 She argued the case presents “special and important reasons” justifying a Supreme Court review and focused on three issues: ineffective assistance of counsel; Brady violations, alleging prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense; and destruction of bone fragments. Zellner wanted the court to order an evidentiary hearing.


“This Court should apply the standards it has so clearly articulated in past cases and allow Mr. Avery to have an evidentiary hearing on the merits of his allegations of constitutional violations. If his conviction truly has integrity, it will withstand the scrutiny of an evidentiary hearing,” Zellner wrote in the petition for review. “Without such scrutiny the question of the integrity and fairness of Mr. Avery’s trial hangs like a dark cloud over the Wisconsin judicial system.”


CLICK HERE to read the full petition filed by Zellner.


Zellner issued the following comment to Action 2 News early Wednesday evening regarding the court’s decision:


“We are not surprised since the Wisconsin Supreme Court only grants 1-2% of petitions for review. Mr. Avery has many options including proceeding to the U.S Supreme Court, and then federal district . Since the appellate court only ruled on 50% of the issues raised we will be filing a new petition with the circuit court at the appropriate time.”

Kathleen Zellner


Avery is serving life in prison for murdering Theresa Halbach on his family’s property on Halloween, 2005. The case gained worldwide attention from the 2015 Netflix documentary series “Making A Murderer.”


In July, an appellate court denied Avery an evidentiary hearing. That ruling said lower courts did not err in denying motions raising claims about evidence or the effectiveness of Avery’s trial attorneys.”

The entire story can be read at:

https://www.wbay.com/2021/11/17/wisconsin-supreme-court-wont-review-steven-averys-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;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL, FINAL, FINAL WORD: "It is incredibly easy to convict an innocent person, but it's exceedingly difficult to undo such a devastating injustice. 
Jennifer Givens: DirectorL UVA Innocence Project.