1198 users online (213 members and 985 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 61
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Saul Vesalot View Post

    In the end, I got the sense that there were 3 for Brendan, and 3 against Brendan and the voices were so similar I couldn't fully recognize any other different voices. It wasn't nearly as one sided as I was hoping. It seems like there is one judge who will tip the balance either way.

    Sorry it is so long, just my thoughts from my listen through.
    RSBM

    I agree with a lot of what you said Saul...

    "The truth will set you free" ... Nirider used the words that the Judges used in their previous decisions.

    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...eyDecision.pdf
    Page 50 of the 7th Circuit court ruling


    If the totality of the circumstances standard means any‐
    thing, it means that a state court must, at a bare minimum,
    do what the rule requires and consider the totality of the cir‐
    cumstances. A state court need not say much, but the less it
    says, the less a federal court can ascertain that the state actu‐
    ally applied a totality of the circumstances evaluation.**

    And at the very least a court assessing the voluntariness
    of a juvenile’s confession must evaluate whether deceptive
    interrogation techniques overcame the free will of this par‐
    ticular defendant. Missing entirely from the state appellate
    court’s analysis is any recognition that deception that is
    permissible when interrogating the average adult person of
    ordinary intelligence, might not be permissible with some‐
    one of Dassey’s age and intellect. For example, the state ap‐
    pellate court never considered whether the statement “the
    truth will set you free”
    would be considered idiomatically or
    literally by someone of Dassey’s age and limitations. Indeed

    Page 88

    d. The combined effect of the promises.

    The false promises—that he will be “alright,” that “it is
    not his fault” that “the truth will set him free” clearly affect‐
    ed the voluntariness of Dassey’s confession. Villalpando, 588
    F.3d at 1128 (“a false promise [of leniency] has the unique
    potential to make a decision to speak irrational and the re‐
    sulting confession unreliable.”) The message Dassey heard
    loudly and clearly was that “the truth” was the key to his
    freedom, and “the truth” meant those things that the interrogators
    wanted him to say if taken literally, that statement is the exact
    kind of promise of leniency that courts generally find coercive.
    Hadley, 368 F.3d at 749 (police cannot extract a confession in
    exchange for a false promise to set the defendant free);
    Rutledge, 900F.2d at 1129 (same).**

    She was using the the statements that 2 of the 7 judges had already ruled that combined lead to it being an involuntary confession.

    Karinna... the first excerpt from the decision is a good example of 2254 (d)(2).... did the state court weight the totality of the circumstances when making their decision.

    It was also a big part of Duffin's decision:

    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-and-Order.pdf
    page 81

    Wiegert also told Dassey that “honesty is the only thing that will set you free.”
    (ECF No. 19-25 at 17). Granted, that statement is just an idiom, see John 8:32 (“… and
    you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free”), and routinely understood
    not to be taken literally, see, e.g., People v. Thompson, 2013 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4324
    (Cal. App. 2d Dist. June 20, 2013) (“With respect to possible coercion, the court found
    the detective’s comment, ‘the truth will set you free’ was a general statement about
    relieving one’s conscience rather than a promise of freedom.”); State v. Osborne, 2002
    Me. Super. LEXIS 266 (Me. Super. Ct. Sept. 25, 2002) (“The court interprets [the truth
    will set you free] to mean that telling the truth will ease the Defendant’s conscience.”);
    Edwards v. State, 793 So. 2d 1044, 1048 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2001) (“the ‘truth
    shall set you free’ statement, although questionable, amounts to nothing more than
    encouragement to tell the truth. Surely, Edwards did not think the truth would literally
    set him free. The investigators simply were appealing to Edwards’ religious background
    in encouraging him not to lie.”). However, some courts have criticized its use by
    interrogators. See, e.g., Morgan v. State, 681 So. 2d 82, 88, 96-97 (Miss. 1996). And,
    especially relevant here, testing revealed that idioms were an aspect of abstract
    language that Dassey had difficulty understanding. (ECF No. 19-20 at 79.)

    I think it was all about going with what worked before and what 3 of the judges already said that Brendan would have a hard time understanding the meaning and should have been considered.

    All JMO

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,943
    Quote Originally Posted by BigCityAccountant View Post
    Fate of 'Making a Murderer' teen hangs in balance
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chicagoinc/ct-brendan-dassey-0927-chicago-inc-20170926-story.html
    I read this article earlier today, this one says that it was Easterbrook that kept quiet, but I have read elsewhere that it was Kanne, so who knows. Not sure why they can't do video, it would be so much easier to understand if you can see who is talking.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    4,870
    Quote Originally Posted by BigCityAccountant View Post
    Karinna, read the article I just posted. There is a lot of information in there and may put some things into perspective.

    For example, "For a confession to be admissible in court, it must be made voluntarily, that is, it must be noncoerced. Confessions are deemed to be coerced if the police explicitly threaten harm or punishment or promise
    leniency.

    Confessions are also excluded from legal proceedings if it can be shown that suspects did not understand or appreciate their
    Miranda rights.


    This speaks to what Saul was saying above "Mentally ill defendants, particularly defendants with psychotic disorders, are significantly less likely to understand their interrogation rights than defendants who are not mentally ill."
    Thanks BCA will read it soon when i get some spare time & thanks for posting it up.
    *FREE LEONARD PELTIER*
    Justice for an innocent man.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    3,310
    Quote Originally Posted by missy1974 View Post
    He was like that the last time too, remember he kept reminding the judges that it was a habeas hearing, like they didn't know LOL
    Ok, correct me if I'm wrong,....but...I thought Brad Schimel spoke in front of the judges the last time and this was the new guy that they brought on from Sheboygan. The Deputy Solicitor General.

    Oh~~and by the way~~Luke Berg clerked for Judge Diane Sykes on the US Court of Appeals for the 7th District. She was the Judge that asked the hard questions to Laura Nirider.

    So, since Berg is her boy....you can't count her in on the against Dassey vote.

    https://www.doj.state.wi.us/exec-profile/luke-berg
    Pedant here, please share your sources. TIA

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    3,310
    So if Luke Berg clerked for Judge Diane Sykes, doesn't that pose a conflict of interest in this case? Shouldn't he have recused himself from the case?
    Pedant here, please share your sources. TIA

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    4,870
    Quote Originally Posted by BigCityAccountant View Post
    So if Luke Berg clerked for Judge Diane Sykes, doesn't that pose a conflict of interest in this case? Shouldn't he have recused himself from the case?
    Is it for certain a conflict of interest? How do we find out and know that?
    *FREE LEONARD PELTIER*
    Justice for an innocent man.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    3,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Karinna View Post
    Is it for certain a conflict of interest? How do we find out and know that?
    I'm not certain it would be a conflict or not, that is why I posed the question, hoping someone else that knew might clue us in.
    Pedant here, please share your sources. TIA

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    4,870
    Quote Originally Posted by BigCityAccountant View Post
    I'm not certain it would be a conflict or not, that is why I posed the question, hoping someone else that knew might clue us in.
    I agree it would be good to know. It would be interesting for sure if Berg should of recused himself. I wonder if the en banc hearing would be valid in that case?
    *FREE LEONARD PELTIER*
    Justice for an innocent man.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,943
    Quote Originally Posted by BigCityAccountant View Post
    Ok, correct me if I'm wrong,....but...I thought Brad Schimel spoke in front of the judges the last time and this was the new guy that they brought on from Sheboygan. The Deputy Solicitor General.

    Oh~~and by the way~~Luke Berg clerked for Judge Diane Sykes on the US Court of Appeals for the 7th District. She was the Judge that asked the hard questions to Laura Nirider.

    So, since Berg is her boy....you can't count her in on the against Dassey vote.

    https://www.doj.state.wi.us/exec-profile/luke-berg
    Nope, it was Berg the first time too. I think he's the Assistant Attorney General. Schimel was there though, he said after the hearing that if they had to. they will retry Brendan, that they have "other evidence". They didn't have any the first time around, but sure they do

    As for the conflict of interest... I'm not sure, there seems to be a lot of "ties" in the legal community, not all of them are a conflict of interest.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,943
    and to clear up the conflict of interest issue.... tweet by Drizin (Brendan's lawyer)

    Steven A Drizin‏ @SDrizin 45m45 minutes ago

    This is non-issue.Former clerks appear in front of judges all the time.Some judges will recuse for period of time.Most don't.Move on.Please.


  11. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NSW, Australia
    Posts
    1,234
    Steve Drizin used to clerk for Rovner.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    4,870
    (quote)
    Federal Judges Torch Wisconsin Prosecutor During Brendan Dassey Arguments
    Luke Berg appeared to be doomed from the start. He was there to argue the State of Wisconsin’s case against Brendan Dassey, whose conviction for the murder of Teresa Halbach had been overturned by a lower court. Before Berg’s argument in front of the Seventh Circuit even began, it was announced that due to a power outage, the podium lights in the courtroom were out and could not be fixed in time. Being mired in darkness seemed to be the theme for the day for Berg, who was hounded by the judges’ questions and accusations, without so much as a flicker of an answer that satisfied them.
    https://lawnewz.com/high-profile/fed...sey-arguments/
    *FREE LEONARD PELTIER*
    Justice for an innocent man.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    SK, Canada
    Posts
    3,943
    https://www.freedomforbrendandassey....mber-26th-2017

    Here is a transcription of the hearing, I'm not sure if she was there or not, but she seems to have figured out which judge is which.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by missy1974 View Post
    RSBM

    I agree with a lot of what you said Saul...

    "The truth will set you free" ... Nirider used the words that the Judges used in their previous decisions.

    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...eyDecision.pdf
    Page 50 of the 7th Circuit court ruling


    If the totality of the circumstances standard means any‐
    thing, it means that a state court must, at a bare minimum,
    do what the rule requires and consider the totality of the cir‐
    cumstances. A state court need not say much, but the less it
    says, the less a federal court can ascertain that the state actu‐
    ally applied a totality of the circumstances evaluation.**

    And at the very least a court assessing the voluntariness
    of a juvenile’s confession must evaluate whether deceptive
    interrogation techniques overcame the free will of this par‐
    ticular defendant. Missing entirely from the state appellate
    court’s analysis is any recognition that deception that is
    permissible when interrogating the average adult person of
    ordinary intelligence, might not be permissible with some‐
    one of Dassey’s age and intellect. For example, the state ap‐
    pellate court never considered whether the statement “the
    truth will set you free”
    would be considered idiomatically or
    literally by someone of Dassey’s age and limitations. Indeed
    ...
    I think it was all about going with what worked before and what 3 of the judges already said that Brendan would have a hard time understanding the meaning and should have been considered.

    All JMO
    That makes sense, tactically. But when you look at the situation overall, it is very frustrating that Brendan's life will be determined in large part whether or not a bunch of people think he knew what the phrase "the truth will set you free" means. If I spent 25 years listing problems with the case, I likely would never have come up with the "the truth will set you free" statement on my own.

    Hopefully the Kachinsky incompetency will sway minds. I wish his crapulence got more attention.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    3,310
    Just wanted to point out that BD was given a false promise by Marinette County SO, O'Neill. Quote "Okay, lets get beyond being scared, let's get beyond the idea of you getting' in trouble and goin' to jail cuz that's not gonna happen, Okay?

    BD interview by Det. O'Neill, 11/6/05.

    http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2005Nov06.pdf
    Pedant here, please share your sources. TIA

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast