Steven Avery's June 2022 mug shot. PC: Fox 11 Online
MANITOWOC, WI (WTAQ-WLUK) — Steven Avery’s latest motions for a new trial or to overturn his conviction for the murder of Teresa Halbach were denied Tuesday.
Avery is serving a life sentence the 2005 murder of Halbach, a freelance photographer. Avery’s nephew, Brendan Dassey, was also convicted. Their cases received worldwide attention with the 2015 release of the Netflix series “Making A Murderer.”
Avery’s most recent motion focused on claims there is an alternate suspect actually responsible for Halbach’s murder. Avery’s attorney, Kathleen Zellner, requested a hearing on the evidence, while prosecutors have opposed the motions.
In the 31-page decision, Sheboygan County Judge Angela Sutkiewicz recounts the various rulings in the case prior to this motion about possible other suspects in the case. She then reviews the statutory requirements for placing blame on alternate suspects, but says Avery does not meet those thresholds.
First, Avery fails the test to show the alternate suspect had a motive, she ruled.
“The defendant has not met the burden under Denny to establish that (the alternate suspect) had motive to commit the crime alleged and, as such, failed to meet the burden to admit the evidence offered to prove the existence of a third-party suspect for the commission of this crime. Without such a finding, the defendant cannot meet the third element of the Edmunds test establishing that the evidence is material in his case. As previously noted, evidence that simply affords a possible ground of suspicion against a third party is not admissible,” the judge wrote.
Furthermore, there’s no evidence backing the claim.
“The Wilson test requires that the defendant must provide evidence that (the alternate suspect) had the realistic ability to carry out the complicated plan that it alleges was used to frame the defendant. The defendant speculates on many points as to how (the alternate suspect) could have carried out the plan to frame his (Avery), but the Wilson test requires more. The defendant has failed to offer any evidence that (the alternate suspect) had the scientific knowledge to recognize the significance of each piece of the forensic evidence supposedly planted by him, let alone establish that he had the skill to plant that evidence in a way that would stand up to scientific scrutiny by professional crime scene analysts. The defendant offers no evidence supporting his claim that (the alternate suspect) had the requisite knowledge to create and execute an elaborate plan to commit a murder and frame (Avery),” the decision states.
The judge also notes Dassey’s confession, and rejects the notion Avery was framed.
“The defendant further failed to offer any facts of record that establish a consistent plan to frame the defendant, or any theory including or excluding law enforcement involvement which implicates the defendant in this crime. The defendant’s theory that (the alternate suspect) framed him for this murder also fails to acknowledge a significant fact in relation to this crime — to which Brendan Dassey confessed and was convicted of participating in the murder of Ms. Halbach. Brendan specifically implicated the defendant in this crime and his conviction has been affirmed by the appellate courts and remains of record. All of the allegations implicating (the alternate suspect) in the murder and the framing of the defendant are pure speculation and not supported by any evidence submitted by the defendant,” the decision states.
The judge also rejected a broad request for a new trial “in the interests of justice,” saying, “Given the above conclusions reached with respect to the evidence offered by the defendant, there are no legal grounds to grant such a request.”
Avery recently wrote a letter to the appeals court, complaining about a lack of a decision in the case. The appeals court declined to take action on his motion.
Judge Sutkiewicz’s decision could still be appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
Dassey has no appeals pending. His latest appeal was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018.
Comments