Dassey: 7th Circuit AFFIRMS Judge Duffin in 2-1 decision.

New Posts

http://www.startribune.com/prosecutors-seek-to-uphold-making-a-murderer-confession/430280533/

Lawyers for Brendan Dassey filed papers Friday with the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals asking that he be released on his own recognizance, saying Thursday's decision by a three-judge appeals panel left no reason for further delays.

The state is unlikely to prevail in any further appeals or if it retries the case without his confession, they wrote, but said those appeals could prolong Dassey's time in prison "by months, if not years."

The court gave prosecutors until 5 p.m. Monday to file a response.

ETA.....Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel said earlier Friday that the state would take whatever steps are necessary to keep Dassey behind bars. He said it would be dangerous to release him, given the seriousness of the crime. Speaking on WTMJ-AM, Schimel said his initial move would be asking the full 7th Circuit to review the panel's decision.

What planet does Schimel live on?
 
:( :(

Dassey's attorneys file motion asking he be released from custody

http://fox11online.com/news/local/l...ile-motion-asking-to-be-released-from-custody


The state issued the following statement in response:

"While Dassey’s legal team is free to file any motion they desire, Wisconsin DOJ intends to seek review of yesterday’s 2-1 decision by the entire 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and by the United States Supreme Court, if necessary. Because this case is far from being concluded in the appellate courts and we are confident that Dassey’s convictions for rape and murder will be upheld, there is no avenue for him to be released at this time."
 
Tippy Lynn said:
http://www.startribune.com/prosecutors-seek-to-uphold-making-a-murderer-confession/430280533/

Lawyers for Brendan Dassey filed papers Friday with the Chicago-based 7th Circuit Court of Appeals asking that he be released on his own recognizance, saying Thursday's decision by a three-judge appeals panel left no reason for further delays.

The state is unlikely to prevail in any further appeals or if it retries the case without his confession, they wrote, but said those appeals could prolong Dassey's time in prison "by months, if not years."

The court gave prosecutors until 5 p.m. Monday to file a response.

ETA.....Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel said earlier Friday that the state would take whatever steps are necessary to keep Dassey behind bars. He said it would be dangerous to release him, given the seriousness of the crime. Speaking on WTMJ-AM, Schimel said his initial move would be asking the full 7th Circuit to review the panel's decision.

What planet does Schimel live on?
Click to expand...

Why would Schimel ask for a review of a decision that took the Judges months to get to? They had their vote and it was decided.
 
krkrjx said:
I am expecting the state to say they will retry Dassey, then drag the process out as long as they possibly can just to keep him incarcerated.

They have 90 days to file their intent but I am not sure what the court will accept as grounds for retrial. They can't use his coerced confession and if they have no evidence of his involvement the court should deny their request for retrial. But what should be isn't always what is.

What evidence could they claim to have?
Click to expand...

BBM, They have nothing other than a forced confession. There is no evidence of BD's anywhere at any supposed crime scene.
 
Karinna said:
Why would Schimel ask for a review of a decision that took the Judges months to get to? They had their vote and it was decided.
Click to expand...

I know, I don't get it. When does this ride stop????
 
Dassey was ordered released last year and that ruling has now been upheld by a higher court. If the state has further appeal rights, let them take advantage of those appeals but for crying out loud, let Dassey out of prison while this plays out. His conviction is overturned so he is on all levels that matter not guilty of the crimes he was charged with. It's time to stop this insanity and let this young man out!
 
krkrjx said:
Dassey was ordered released last year and that ruling has now been upheld by a higher court. If the state has further appeal rights, let them take advantage of those appeals but for crying out loud, let Dassey out of prison while this plays out. His conviction is overturned so he is on all levels that matter not guilty of the crimes he was charged with. It's time to stop this insanity and let this young man out!
Click to expand...

I agree it is time to stop all the nonsense. I doubt if the State tries to have another crack at this they will even be successful to take it any higher, because the decision has already been upheld twice and any higher court will probably quash the state's requests. IMO I think it's time to stick a fork in them, they are done.
 
I was wondering what an En Banc determination was all about and this is what constitutes En Banc
(quote)
Rule 35. En Banc Determination

(a) When Hearing or Rehearing En Banc May Be Ordered. A majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service and who are not disqualified may order that an appeal or other proceeding be heard or reheard by the court of appeals en banc. An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless:

(1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or

(2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_35

So would the State even qualify for this determination? I don't think they do.
 
This is from the request to list the stay and release on bond that was filed today:


On November 15, 2016, the Respondent-Appellant requested that the district court stay its

ruling releasing Mr. Dassey, DCR.39, but on November 16, that request was denied because the

Respondent-Appellant had presented no new facts or argument. DCR.41.1. The Respondent-

Appellant then filed an emergency motion before this Court seeking to stay the district court’s

order releasing Mr. Dassey, again arguing that it was likely to succeed upon appeal to this Court.

CAR.19. This Court granted its request on November 17, staying the order to release Mr. Dassey

only “pending resolution of this appeal.” CAR.22.

I have gone back to read the Nov 17th order. Yep, that's what it says.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Order-Granting-Motion-to-Stay-Release.pdf

IT IS ORDERED that the appellantʹs motion to stay is GRANTED. The district courtʹs
order releasing appellee Brendan Dassey is STAYED pending resolution of this appeal.

A few things I have read the last day or so... The 7th Circuit rarely grants an en banc hearing (where all sitting judges hear the case), I think as little as 3 or 4 a year. I understand that the sitting judges would vote to see if they will review it en banc, and majority rules. The Supreme Court seems even more unlikely to hear the case, but I don't really know how it works, or how long the process can take, I know it's not quick.

As for the state... I can't say what I think of their comments in the last few days (including others that are/were connected to the State), I would get in trouble.

:banghead::notgood:
 
Karinna said:
I was wondering what an En Banc determination was all about and this is what constitutes En Banc
(quote)
Rule 35. En Banc Determination

(a) When Hearing or Rehearing En Banc May Be Ordered. A majority of the circuit judges who are in regular active service and who are not disqualified may order that an appeal or other proceeding be heard or reheard by the court of appeals en banc. An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless:

(1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or

(2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_35

So would the State even qualify for this determination? I don't think they do.
Click to expand...

BBM

I think it depends on who you ask Karinna lol If you asked the 2 judges that sided with BD, probably not, but ask the 1 that didn't... he would probably say it does!
 
missy1974 said:
BBM

I think it depends on who you ask Karinna lol If you asked the 2 judges that sided with BD, probably not, but ask the 1 that didn't... he would probably say it does!
Click to expand...

Yes of course the judge that voted to uphold BD's conviction would say it does. But there is a standard to be met for such a hearing and i guess it remains to be seen.
 
(quote)
Writs of Certiorari

Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court must petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case. The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. This is a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review. The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear these cases, and it usually only does so if the case could have national significance, might harmonize conflicting decisions in the federal Circuit courts, and/or could have precedential value. In fact, the Court accepts 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year. Typically, the Court hears cases that have been decided in either an appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals or the highest Court in a given state (if the state court decided a Constitutional issue).

The Supreme Court has its own set of rules. According to these rules, four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. Five of the nine Justices must vote in order to grant a stay, e.g., a stay of execution in a death penalty case. Under certain instances, one Justice may grant a stay pending review by the entire Court.
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-feder...ational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1
 
IMO the benchmark for the Supreme Court to accept this case would be very high after a Federal court has made a decision.
 
krkrjx said:
I am expecting the state to say they will retry Dassey, then drag the process out as long as they possibly can just to keep him incarcerated.

They have 90 days to file their intent but I am not sure what the court will accept as grounds for retrial. They can't use his coerced confession and if they have no evidence of his involvement the court should deny their request for retrial. But what should be isn't always what is.

What evidence could they claim to have?
Click to expand...

Given the way the team investigating Steven appeared to keep pulling evidence out of their hats as needed, I'm wary of what might happen in this regard.

On the other hand - unlike the first go-round - this time they must be aware the whole world is watching.
 
Kachinsky's douchey-ness just never ends.

http://www.wearegreenbay.com/news/l...nsky-talks-about-new-ruling-in-case/748777276

"I can't be a full advocate for Dassey at this point, but I would expect the full panel of the 7th Circuit is going to want to take a look at the case," Kachinsky said.

Drizin tweeted the above link with the comment... Really? Were you ever a "full advocate" for BD?

Drizin also points out the comments from people on the street.
 
For those waiting on hearing about whether BD is getting out today, here is the State's response to the request to release BD.

This Court should deny the motion to lift the stay. If, however, this Court chooses to dissolve the stay, the State respectfully requests that any such order not take effect until the en banc court has the full opportunity to rule on a motion by the State to reinstate the stay pending resolution of this appeal.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-APlJawt-6RN0JUdllUMHg1YlU/view

Awaiting the court ruling....:waiting::waiting::waiting:
 
“Indeed, the only changed circumstance that Dassey can point to is the Merits Panel’s decision itself. But, of course, that sharply divided decision does not “resol[ve] this appeal,” Dkt. 22:2, as the State still has the right to petition for en banc review, and if it cannot obtain relief en banc, to seek Supreme Court review. The State intends to begin this process promptly, and will petition for en banc review within the 14-day window provided by this Court’s rules. Respect for the en banc (and possible Supreme Court) process, the Motions Panel’s well-considered stay decision, the powerful dissenting opinion from the Merits Panel’s holding, and the conclusion by a Wisconsin jury that Dassey committed heinous crimes all strongly militate against lifting the stay,” the state wrote.

More from the State's motion...

http://fox6now.com/2017/06/26/state-keep-brendan-dassey-in-prison-while-entire-court-reviews-case/
 
How can the state continue harping on "the conclusion by a Wisconsin jury that Dassey committed heinous crimes..." in each motion they file and every statement they make?

Higher courts have overturned said conclusion; one would think it would be a major insult to those courts for the state to insinuate that an overturned jury's decision speaks louder than the ruling of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
 
BigCityAccountant said:
“Indeed, the only changed circumstance that Dassey can point to is the Merits Panel’s decision itself. But, of course, that sharply divided decision does not “resol[ve] this appeal,” Dkt. 22:2, as the State still has the right to petition for en banc review, and if it cannot obtain relief en banc, to seek Supreme Court review. The State intends to begin this process promptly, and will petition for en banc review within the 14-day window provided by this Court’s rules. Respect for the en banc (and possible Supreme Court) process, the Motions Panel’s well-considered stay decision, the powerful dissenting opinion from the Merits Panel’s holding, and the conclusion by a Wisconsin jury that Dassey committed heinous crimes all strongly militate against lifting the stay,” the state wrote.

More from the State's motion...

http://fox6now.com/2017/06/26/state-keep-brendan-dassey-in-prison-while-entire-court-reviews-case/
Click to expand...

BBM and enlarged

let's look at that well-considered stay decision, it must have been really riveting. :crazy:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Order-Granting-Motion-to-Stay-Release.pdf

1. RESPONDENT‐APPELLANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY THE
DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER RELEASING PRISONER, filed on November 16, 2016,
by counsel for the appellant.

2. RESPONSE OF PETITIONER‐APPELLEE IN OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT‐
APPELLANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY THE DISTRICT COURT’S
ORDER RELEASING PRISONER, filed on November 16, 2016, by counsel for the
appellee.

IT IS ORDERED that the appellantʹs motion to stay is GRANTED. The district courtʹs
order releasing appellee Brendan Dassey is STAYED pending resolution of this appeal


No need to click the link. That is the whole decision above. uh huh... well considered. :facepalm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 193 more.
Total: 4,496 (members: 194, guests: 4,302)

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
4,302
Total visitors
4,496
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,472
Messages
17,969,410
Members
228,777
Latest member
Jojo53
Back
Top