Making a Murderer: Brendan Dassey's conviction overturned.

[FillJackson]

State has 90 days to decide if they want to retry him. Confessions thrown out.

Judge Overturns Conviction for 'Making a Murderer' Subject Brendan Dassey

A federal judge in Milwaukee has overturned the conviction of Brendan Dassey, the young man whose case was one of two documented in the Netflix series

[FillJackson]

Brendan Dassey, who was convicted along with his uncle, Steven Avery, in the murder of Teresa Halbach, has won a court order that could result in his getting a new trial or being freed from prison.

The decision by federal U.S. Magistrate Judge William Duffin in Milwaukee gives prosecutors 90 days to decide whether to retry Dassey.

Concluding the 91-page decision, Duffin found that investigators made false promises to Dassey during multiple interrogations.

"These repeated false promises, when considered in conjunction with all relevant factors, most especially Dassey’s age, intellectual deficits, and the absence of a supportive adult, rendered Dassey’s confession involuntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ decision to the contrary was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law," Duffin wrote.

Dassey, who was 16 at the time of the 2005 murder, had argued that his constitutional rights were violated in the way that the case against him was investigated.

The cases of Dassey and Avery, who were convicted in separate trials, gained worldwide attention after the December 2015 release of the Netflix series "Making A Murderer." Both are serving life sentences.

Legal observers have said they expected that Duffin's ruling, if it was in Dassey's favor, would be appealed.

[UK2K]

The judge agrees that the police claiming to already know what happened before a confession is a false promise.

Based on that premise, every criminal that ever lived is going to be claiming the same thing.

[FillJackson]

The judge agrees that the police claiming to already know what happened before a confession is a false promise.

Based on that premise, every criminal that ever lived is going to be claiming the same thing.

Have you seen the kid's confession?

Have you read the judge's ruling.

I'm not even sure what you mean by this

The judge agrees that the police claiming to already know what happened before a confession is a false promise.

[FillJackson]

I think you might be referring to the fact that the info that matched the actual crime came from the cops first, not Dassey. Dassey's first answers were often wrong or didn't match the evidence.

The judge wrote that investigators interrogating Dassey “repeatedly fed him facts that were publicly not known.”
For those details that were not publicly known, but were known by the investigators at the time of his interrogation — like that Halbach had been shot in the head — the judge wrote that investigators prompted Dassey, telling him “something else was done…Something with the head.”
This prompting caused Dassey to guess answers, the judge wrote, until he told investigators that Halbach had been shot.
Duffin added that he has “significant doubts” about the reliability of Dassey’s confession because critical details emerged only after “repeated leading and suggestive questioning” that only stopped after investigators got the answer they were looking for.

[FillJackson]

There was an interesting commentary on the documentary by an ex FBI guy who didn't know anything about the case and was just watching each episode and commenting on what was shown.

This is what he said about the story that came out of Brendan Dassey's confession

[QUOTE]It is a horrible, violent, disturbing story. But the story, as told, is impossible.
....
The lack of visible blood is concerning. But even more concerning is that the sheriff

[UK2K]

Have you seen the kid's confession?

Have you read the judge's ruling.

I'm not even sure what you mean by this

Yes

[QUOTE]In the documentary, Dassey appeared as a sympathetic character who seemed to be bullied by investigators during his followup interviews. According to court documents, a federal judge has agreed

[Nanners]

Yes

"These repeated false promises, when considered in conjunction with all relevant factors, most especially Dassey’s age, intellectual deficits, and the absence of a supportive adult, rendered Dassey’s confession involuntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

instead of taking a few words out of context try reading the entire statement. false promise is only part of the reason.

[Nanners]

"Based on its review of the record, the court acknowledges significant doubts as to the reliability of Dassey's confession. Crucial details evolved through repeated leading and suggestive questioning and generally stopped changing only after the investigators, in some manner, indicated to Dassey that he finally gave the answer they were looking for. Purportedly corroborative details could have been the product of contamination from other sources, including the investigators' own statements and questioning, or simply logical guesses, rather than actual knowledge of the crime,. It is true that neither federal law nor the United States Constitution requires that the police even inform a juvenile's parents that the juvenile is being questioned or honor a juvenile's request that a parent or other adult (other than a lawyer) be present during questioning... Not only did Dassey not have the benefit of an adult present to look out for his interests, the investigators exploited the absence of such an adult by repeatedly suggesting that they were looking out for his interests," Duffin wrote. "Moreover, Dassey's borderline to below average intellectual ability likely made him more susceptible to coercive pressures than a peer of higher intellect."

[UK2K]

"These repeated false promises, when considered in conjunction with all relevant factors, most especially Dassey’s age, intellectual deficits, and the absence of a supportive adult, rendered Dassey’s confession involuntary under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

instead of taking a few words out of context try reading the entire statement. false promise is only part of the reason.

I don't really have opinion on the case. I've seen the documentary and I think she made the right call. That being said, what you bolded has nothing to do with what I originally posted.

It's not related to her believing police stating they know what happened without knowing is a false promise.