Making Of A Murderer (Netflix)

[Shaggy]

Me too. Man, that freaking sucks. That kid got totally railroaded.

It was obvious the kid had no idea why he was there at the police station. He just wanted to go home and told them what they wanted to hear to get out of there. Wasn't he there for hours?

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

I can't believe the case wasn't over once they played the audio of that one cop calling in license plate and make of the vehicle of the victim a day or two before it was "discovered" at Avery property.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Evil Genius was great also.

 

[Shaggy]

I can't believe the case wasn't over once they played the audio of that one cop calling in license plate and make of the vehicle of the victim a day or two before it was "discovered" at Avery property.

What do you mean?

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

What do you mean?

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[gmabel830]

Just binge watched this, extremely well done.

According to the Internets, Brendan's lawyers petitioned the US Supreme Court in February and they are going to do a second season focused on Brendan's post-verdict appeals.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Rivercard]

According to the Internets, Brendan's lawyers petitioned the US Supreme Court in February

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1172.html

Today there was some movement on Brendan's case. From what I've heard smarter people than myself explain about this docket, the SCOTUS Justices will first discuss the case June 14th. At this conference they will decide whether or not they are going to grant cert and hear the case. That means a decision could be announced any time after that. Usually, orders aren't released until the following Monday, but it could be announced earlier. If they still need to discuss the case further, it will be relisted for the next conference on June 21st. That's the last one scheduled for the term, so hopefully, they'll have a decision by then. They could schedule an additional conference because they do still have a lot of opinions to release yet this term, in addition to petition decisions.

If no justice had asked to add the case to the discuss list, it would have been put on the “dead list,” and certiorari would automatically have been denied without the justices having ever discussed the case or voted on it.

 

[Shaggy]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Yeah, I remember being shocked at the court interview to.

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

@LVG do you have any thoughts as to why this wasn't a VERY big deal in this case? I would've hammered away at this relentlessly.

 

[gmabel830]

Supreme Court is not taking the case.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...e-appeal-murder-case-featured-netflix-n885401

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

Supreme Court is not taking the case.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...e-appeal-murder-case-featured-netflix-n885401

This kid was railroaded and stepped on for being slow. I cannot believe nobody in our justice system gives a crap. He was clearly coerced. Our SCOTUS is full of idealogues and psychos.

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

@LVG do you have any thoughts as to why this wasn't a VERY big deal in this case? I would've hammered away at this relentlessly.

@LVG

 

[Rivercard]

This kid was railroaded and stepped on for being slow. I cannot believe nobody in our justice system gives a crap. He was clearly coerced. Our SCOTUS is full of idealogues and psychos.

I guess reviewing 40 year old case law about the process of confessions for at risk juveniles that result in life sentences just isn't an important enough issue for this SCOTUS. If only he'd denied baking someone a cake......

 

[LVG]

@LVG do you have any thoughts as to why this wasn't a VERY big deal in this case? I would've hammered away at this relentlessly.

It should have been. Did the Def. Atty hammer on this during closing?

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

It should have been. Did the Def. Atty hammer on this during closing?

It may have been part of the closing argument, but--from what I remember--it certainly wasn't hammered.\

Also--from my recollection--the jury was hostile to the defense because they didn't, "like big city lawyers telling us what to do..."

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

It should have been. Did the Def. Atty hammer on this during closing?

Have you had a chance to view the documentary? I would love to get your thoughts on the Branden Dassey "confession." I cannot fathom how anyone in any capacity can view those tapes and not come away disgusted by actions of the police, prosecutors, PIs, and Public Defenders. The system failed him in every way imaginable and almost every level of judiciary has decided to ignore the issue.

 

[LVG]

Have you had a chance to view the documentary? I would love to get your thoughts on the Branden Dassey "confession." I cannot fathom how anyone in any capacity can view those tapes and not come away disgusted by actions of the police, prosecutors, PIs, and Public Defenders. The system failed him in every way imaginable and almost every level of judiciary has decided to ignore the issue.

I watched the first season about two years ago. I thought Brandon's confession was clearly coerced and was a violation of his Constitutional rights. Most every lawyer I've talked to, including DAs, think the same.

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

I watched the first season about two years ago. I thought Brandon's confession was clearly coerced and was a violation of his Constitutional rights. Most every lawyer I've talked to, including DAs, think the same.

Help me understand why--almost--our entire judicial system is choosing to allow it.

 

[LVG]

Help me understand why--almost--our entire judicial system is choosing to allow it.

I'd have to read the orders. Very generally, from my criminal appellate experience (yes, believe it or not, I do have some), there's a presumption that cops are good and convictions are correct. You have to overcome that on appeal, and then you have to show that getting the confession thrown out would result in a different verdict.

 

[JerkFace]

I don't have a direct link but I remember hearing (after the show aired) that there was more evidence that the documentary didn't mention because the "innocent people getting railroaded" was a more appealing angle for the show. Anyone know anything about this angle?

 

[LVG]

I don't have a direct link but I remember hearing (after the show aired) that there was more evidence that the documentary didn't mention because the "innocent people getting railroaded" was a more appealing angle for the show. Anyone know anything about this angle?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/arts/television/ken-kratz-making-a-murderer.html

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/arts/television/ken-kratz-making-a-murderer.html

Ken Kratz is an evil, deviant phony who reveled in railroading Dassey.

https://abovethelaw.com/2010/09/the...prize-kratzdoes-he-see-dead-people-on-a-date/

 

[Shaggy]

Supreme Court is not taking the case.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...e-appeal-murder-case-featured-netflix-n885401

Pretty damn sad.

 

[LVG]

Help me understand why--almost--our entire judicial system is choosing to allow it.

What I found interesting is that the federal courts, except for the 7th Circuit en banc, thought the confession was coerced by a 4-3 decision.

Here's the 7th Circuit's en banc decision: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...C:16-3397:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2074184:S:0

The analysis starts on page 26.

I'm not versed on the AEDPA at all (which is what coerced confessions are reviewed under). In fact, I don't like it because it deprives the courts in fairly reviewing the confession under the normal appellate standards (de novo for issues of law, substantial evidence for issues of fact). It appears that the AEDPA requires that the federal court look to the last "reasoned" state court decision and then determine if that state court decision was unreasonable, rather than apply the law to the found facts.

In other words, the federal courts are forced to give the state courts deference in their decision. It reads like it's almost an arbitrary and capricious standard--if we were in administrative law. And while there's an argument for A&C in admin law, I don't think there's a compelling reason for deference in criminal law when federal constitutional questions are involved (state constitutional questions, yes, because state supreme courts decide their own state constitutional questions and the federal courts must bow to those decisions and interpretations).

While I am sympathetic to the federal courts having to address the issue of the abuse of the writ of habeas corpus in the post petition context, I think the AEDPA goes too far. Federal courts are the best courts for interpreting and applying the federal constitution.

 

[Shaggy]

What I found interesting is that the federal courts, except for the 7th Circuit en banc, thought the confession was coerced by a 4-3 decision.

Here's the 7th Circuit's en banc decision: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...C:16-3397:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:2074184:S:0

The analysis starts on page 26.

I'm not versed on the AEDPA at all (which is what coerced confessions are reviewed under). In fact, I don't like it because it deprives the courts in fairly reviewing the confession under the normal appellate standards (de novo for issues of law, substantial evidence for issues of fact). It appears that the AEDPA requires that the federal court look to the last "reasoned" state court decision and then determine if that state court decision was unreasonable, rather than apply the law to the found facts.

In other words, the federal courts are forced to give the state courts deference in their decision. It reads like it's almost an arbitrary and capricious standard--if we were in administrative law. And while there's an argument for A&C in admin law, I don't think there's a compelling reason for deference in criminal law when federal constitutional questions are involved (state constitutional questions, yes, because state supreme courts decide their own state constitutional questions and the federal courts must bow to those decisions and interpretations).

While I am sympathetic to the federal courts having to address the issue of the abuse of the writ of habeas corpus in the post petition context, I think the AEDPA goes too far. Federal courts are the best courts for interpreting and applying the federal constitution.

Either way, I still think its pretty bad how they did allow it in court and sentences him to life(or 20 years, can't remember) as you can tell he had no idea what he was doing. Even if the other side said the the show played more to the side of Brendon and Steve, that conversion video was not edited at all and clearing he was coerced.