This is so awesome. Thank you for doing all this research. Very interesting.
Dassey: 7th Circuit AFFIRMS Judge Duffin in 2-1 decision.
- Thread starter missy1974
- Start date
New Posts
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #181- Latest: Caylee Advocate
-
CA CA - Charles Alex Benfield, 26, San Diego, Apr 14 2024- Latest: ohemgee.kay925
This is so awesome. Thank you for doing all this research. Very interesting.
Here is a recent decision and how the 7th circuit voted en banc. Posner was actually the concurring view on Hively v Ivy Tech.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...-04/C:15-1720:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:1942256:S:0
http://www.employmentlawblog.info/2...e-no-15-1720-7th-cir-apr-4-2017-en-banc.shtml
Further to the make up of the 7th circuit. The Hively v Ivy Tech decision is a landmark one, and the en banc panel that reviewed this case in April of 2017, was made up of the following judges:
Justices Wood, Bauer, Posner, Flaum, Easterbrook, Ripple, Kanne, Rovner, Willams, Sykes and Hamilton.
Judges, Wood, Hamilton, Ripple, Flaum, Easterbrook, Williams and Skyes held the majority opinion.
Judge Posner concurred with the majority view (which means he agreed and disagreed with the majority opinion).
Judges Sykes, Bauer and Kanne dissented.
In Dasey's appeal before a panel of three:
Judges Rovner and Williams held the majority opinion
And Hamilton dissented.
This might be important--the decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech made it clear that a lesbian could sue Ivy Tech community college for bias. Landmark decision. And not exactly a conservative position. And Hamilton was with the majority. Who knows how 11 judges will look on the Dasey case. Maybe it will render Dasey's position even stronger.
Justices Wood, Bauer, Posner, Flaum, Easterbrook, Ripple, Kanne, Rovner, Willams, Sykes and Hamilton.
Judges, Wood, Hamilton, Ripple, Flaum, Easterbrook, Williams and Skyes held the majority opinion.
Judge Posner concurred with the majority view (which means he agreed and disagreed with the majority opinion).
Judges Sykes, Bauer and Kanne dissented.
In Dasey's appeal before a panel of three:
Judges Rovner and Williams held the majority opinion
And Hamilton dissented.
This might be important--the decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech made it clear that a lesbian could sue Ivy Tech community college for bias. Landmark decision. And not exactly a conservative position. And Hamilton was with the majority. Who knows how 11 judges will look on the Dasey case. Maybe it will render Dasey's position even stronger.
BBM, So do you think if Hamilton had of voted in agreement with the other two judges that they would not have granted an en banc hearing? Or the state would not have requested such a hearing?
BBM, It might or it might not and at this stage it's difficult to say IMO. It could all go either way when trying to get a majority vote on the issue with a full panel of judges.
It's a shame that the 7th. CC didn't give a reason as to exactly why they granted an en banc hearing in this case.
But i suppose we can deduce from these two reasons that it is either one or the other or both
(quote)
(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
[/B]
I don't know. But I wondered that too.
I think the answer to this question lies in the DOJ's petition to the court. When you request an en banc hearing, I believe you have to make your claim to one of those two requirements. Since the Wisconsin DOJ prevailed on this motion, their reasoning as to why the hearing was necessary must have been accepted.
http://fox11digital.com/news/PDFs/Petition-for-Dassey-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf
Edited Excerpt:
"The State respectfully requests rehearing, as well as rehearing en banc,...for two reasons.The panel majority has rewritten the rules for juvenile interrogations, in multiple,“significant” ways, ... The panel majority also “depart[ed]from a string of [this Court’s] habeas decisions involving confessions by juvenileswho were denied relief despite being subjected to far greater pressures than[Brendan] Dassey was.” Dis.121–22 (collecting cases). These inter- and intra-circuitconflicts “involve[ ] question
This may already have been posted, but here are the oral arguments for Dassey v. Dittman when this case was heard before the panel of 3:
https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/28420/brendan-dassey-v-michael-dittmann/
https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/28420/brendan-dassey-v-michael-dittmann/
Just listened to the oral arguments made in the first 7th Circuit hearing (https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/28420/brendan-dassey-v-michael-dittmann/). I think a lot of the questions we are asking, are answered in this recording.
Case and Statute that seem especially relevant to that hearing, and probably the en banc hearing are---
Cuyler v. Sullivan https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/446/335/case.html
And AEDPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1996
Case and Statute that seem especially relevant to that hearing, and probably the en banc hearing are---
Cuyler v. Sullivan https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/446/335/case.html
And AEDPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1996
Big City Accountant, this is all your fault. (kidding) but now you have me researching the judges of the 7th circuit, and I wonder if the judge to be concerned about regarding Dassey v. Dittman, isn't Justice Posner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner
His opinion on Backpage.com, LLC, v. Dart, 2015, is pretty appalling.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...0/C:15-3047:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1663542:S:0
And in 2004 he also took a very strange position on Doe v. White.
I haven't looked at all his decisions, so these may be flukes, but he doesn't seem all that victim friendly.
His opinion on Backpage.com, LLC, v. Dart, 2015, is pretty appalling.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...0/C:15-3047:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1663542:S:0
And in 2004 he also took a very strange position on Doe v. White.
I haven't looked at all his decisions, so these may be flukes, but he doesn't seem all that victim friendly.
And aside from all that it is a well known fact that juvenile interrogations by LE are more likely to produce false confessions
(quote)
A variety of factors can contribute to a false confession during a police interrogation. Many cases have included a combination of several of these causes. They include: duress, coercion, intoxication, diminished capacity, mental impairment, ignorance of the law, fear of violence, the actual infliction of harm, the threat of a harsh sentence and misunderstanding the situation. (Innocence, 1992)
http://historyforensicpsych.umwblogs.org/test-page/
And in Dassey's case there are some of those factors that led to his coerced confession, and just because the state says that there was nothing wrong with the way Dassey was interrogated doesn't make it okay. Wrongful convictions are overturned on new DNA evidence. In Brendan Dassey's case there is no evidence whatsoever that ties him to involvement in a crime. So there is nothing at all that convicts him, because the confession doesn't match any evidence and on that fact alone he should be released from prison IMO.
Exactly. I do feel that it is the investigator's responsibility, along with those prosecuting, to make certain a confession has real merit. The goal shouldn't be to simply get someone to confess. The goal should be to get at the truth.
The truth, not simply a confession, is what every investigator of a criminal case should be in pursuit of. Nothing less.
If the confession doesn't match the known facts of a case, then why rely on it?
Yes that's my point. Brendan Dassey's confession should of been inadmissable. I don't even know how they could have a trial based on nothing? Most trials i have followed had forensic/DNA evidence to support what was being purported about the crime. I really think the point of ineffective assistance of counsel should have been a factor in his case too, it was as if the defense was supporting the prosecution and didn't really fight for BD's right to a fair trial, IMO. The whole thing was just such a sham.
Majority wins. And I think it could be as close as 6 to 5, if it ends up being an 11 justice panel. So, I believe that even if 5 justices decide against Dassey, if 6 decide for him, he prevails. Of course this could go the other way as well.
We know which way Hamilton is likely go. I wouldn't be surprised if Posner decides against Dassey. But I don't know anything about the other justices, so we'll see....
BigCityAccountant
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2015
- Messages
- 3,436
- Reaction score
- 245
I think the state would have requested it either way. They are not going down without a fight. I said that from the very start and I also said that people from up that way call Illinois people "FIB's". You can guess the first word (which I can't repeat here :blushing
;Illinois is the second and the third word you can guess too, and I can't repeat that one either...LOL This was going to be a knock out drag out fight from the get go. Thing is, KZ isn't your ordinary Illinois lawyer. I'm thinking the state's ship is taking on water and it's only a matter of time before it sinks. But the whole lot and crew are going down with it~~that is~~unless someone sings like a canary to save their :behind:. I wonder who will end up in the :jail: before it's all over with. I'm guessing someone will sing after too long to save their :behind: , but it unfortunately won't save their soul.
BigCityAccountant
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2015
- Messages
- 3,436
- Reaction score
- 245
:laugh:
Maybe it's just me, but he seems to have a well grounded knowledge of special education, so I'm not thinking he will be an issue, if he hears the case with an open mind. He wouldn't have this view on education:
his view that groups of students differ in intellectual ability, and therefore, that it is faulty to impose uniform educational standards on all schools. His view in this regard is undergirded by his view that different races differ in intelligence. (However, Posner says that he thinks it is "highly unlikely" that these differences are rooted in genetics, rather than environment.)
If he didn't understand special education and Dassey's limitation.
I'm not too worried about him~~I am about some of the other judges.
Let's just hope they get this right!! Millions of kids with special needs (millions of kids in general) are counting on them to get this right. I'm counting on them to get it right!!!
BigCityAccountant
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2015
- Messages
- 3,436
- Reaction score
- 245
I believe the last oral arguments were broadcast live. There is a lot of interest in this case for a number of reasons. The media was swarming the court house last time. I suspect it will be the same this time around as well.
BBM, Yes exactly. I have wondered as well for exactly what reason did they haul Brendan in for questioning in the first place? He was a 16 yr. old kid going to high school. Usually there is a reason they question someone in that they consider them a POI, some evidence that ties someone to the crime, or the person was the last to see the victim etc.I think the state would have requested it either way. They are not going down without a fight. I said that from the very start and I also said that people from up that way call Illinois people "FIB's". You can guess the first word (which I can't repeat here :blushing
This was going to be a knock out drag out fight from the get go. Thing is, KZ isn't your ordinary Illinois lawyer. I'm thinking the state's ship is taking on water and it's only a matter of time before it sinks. But the whole lot and crew are going down with it~~that is~~unless someone sings like a canary to save their :behind:. I wonder who will end up in the :jail: before it's all over with. I'm guessing someone will sing after too long to save their :behind: , but it unfortunately won't save their soul.
There were in fact other candidates that should of been investigated more thoroughly because of their suspicious behaviour, and not so much BD IMO.
And all i can think is if they were dead set on nailing Avery for a crime then BD was the collateral damage because he had a target on his back to easily coerce a confession from him because of his age and intellectual disabilities.
I also agree they have no soul, and couldn't care less about BD only might makes right. They will just because they can, but what goes around comes around too.