Court Notes – 12 March, 2007

Motions from the defense were decided in the morning. Some of the motions were procedural. If they are not made here, they may be rejected later simply because they were not requested at trial.

I received an education on how the system is stacked against the accused. The one area I was concerned about was the DNA test found on the gift bullet (aka magic bullet).

The lab technician contaminated the control sample through inattention and then consumed all the DNA through a destructive test. Her supervisor allowed a departure from protocol for the results. Apparently, this is allowed under Wisconsin Statute. This was a belated gift for Special Agent Tom Fassbender, who in November, 2005 stated he wanted Halbach’s DNA found in Avery’s home and garage. This bullet was found under dubious circumstances in March, 2006.

The results were allowed. I’m not sure the evidence could not have been challenged based on the circumstance of the warrant. The warrant was based on the discredited Dassey Confession, authored by the two lead investigators. Given the timing and the fact that it was a result of fanciful suggestion, I would hope that the warrant would be considered baseless.

Judge Willis gave the defense team credit for showing the State’s DNA expert was less than credible.

The search of the burn pit area was allowed. Judge Willis ruled that the search started within the statutory time. He commented that the presence of Avery’s dog would not be an excuse to prevent the search as Special Prosecutor Tom Fallon argued (plus Fallon suggested that to search earlier, a deputy would have had to shoot the dog. Pure BS.)

The judge removed the false imprisonment charge. The State had produced nothing that could support false imprisonment. Thus, the last of the three charges made because of the Dassey confession are gone. The case is back to the original charges only.

WFRV Television stated that the charge was dropped because the judge believed the jury didn’t have enough evidence to find Avery guilty of false imprisonment. Not exactly true. The State had not presented any credible evidence for a jury to use. The information that the jury may have had would be from the Ken Kratz televised tirade on the Dassey confession.

The jury was polled to ensure that no undue knowledge would sully deliberations. Dean Strang made a request that Judge Willis review the trial records of a prior trial that involved a juror (as a juror) and one of the State’s witnesses.

The Defense rested its case.

Steven Avery relinquished his right to testify on his own behalf. He stated, “Everybody knows I’m innocent.” Unfortunately that are far too many who were sure he was guilty before he was even charged. We live in a society that believes guilty until proven innocent and maybe not even then.

The jury was not allowed to witness his statement of innocence. This is one of those dilemmas. People want to profess their innocence. Unfortunately, as shown in the wrongful conviction case, police and prosecutors can take very innocent statements and interpret them in an entirely different way.

I saw a juror, in a televised statement, say that he voted for guilt simply because the defendant did not testify. This was contrary to jury instructions. Some jurors, like other people, have trouble following the rules.