scipio_usmc
Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2017
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 100
First some background. People keep saying the police had it out for Steven Avery and hated him. The reason Steven Avery was known to police at all was because of a kidnapping he committed. Steven Avery was already a convicted felon and thus not allowed to possess a firearm when a woman accused Steven Avery of exposing himself to her and masturbating. Steven Avery followed this woman, ran her off the road and ordered her at gunpoint into his vehicle. She told him her baby was in the car and would freeze without her so he let her drive her vehicle telling her to follow him. Instead she drove to the police, he saw this and ran home and his the rifle in his children's bedroom. He ended up confessing but claimed the gun was not loaded and that he was just trying to scare her so she would drop the charges. He never explained where he intended to take her or what to do with her beyond the nonspecific claim he just wanted to scare her. Prosecutors believe he intended to rape her. Police found the gun in his kid's bedroom and it was loaded.
While he was awaiting trial for this crime a woman was jogging at Point Beach State Forest and after she passed a man he grabbed her from behind severely beat her and raped her. The criminal complaint details the very general description she provided as well as the location being near the campground of Point Beach State Forest.
Because of the aforementioned kidnapping attempt, police were familiar with Avery's looks. Because Avery attempted to kidnap the woman to presumably rape her plus the fact this was a short, unkempt bearded man made her wonder if it was Avery.
When the woman was in better shape at the hospital she was interviewed again providing more details. A sketch artist also sat with her and did a sketch based on what she told him. After that a photo array was shown to her and it included Steven Avery's photo. She picked out his photo. She also picked him out from a live lineup that was held subsequently. On the basis of these identifications Steven Avery was arrested and he curiously asked if it was the girl who said he almost killed him. They took that as an admission he had beat PB almost to death. To this day he never explained that comment. He failed miserably at trial at explaining it away so we still have no idea why he said that. In any event at trial the main evidence against him was the victim insisting he was her attacker. Supporting evidence was hair on the victim that was consistent with Avery's and his statement to police asking about being arrested for almost killing that woman.
Subsequent to these identifications while Steven Avery was awaiting trial a police officer from the City of Manitowoc (the jurisdiction of this rape was the County of Manitowoc Sheriff's Office since the crime did not take place in the City of Manitowoc) talked to the sheriff and allegedly asked him if he looked at Gregory Allen as a suspect for the rape. He didn't provide any evidence that suggested Allen was behind it or any actionable intelligence he simply asked generally if they looked at Allen .
That summer, after the attack, the victim received around 5 prank calls some of them sexual in nature. No one knows if these calls were all by the same person or who made any of them. While the victim never suspected the calls were made by her attacker since she did not recognize any of the voices as his and the callers never referenced her rape, Steven Avery's civil attorneys assume these calls were all made by her true attacker and that police should have figured out that because of them it was Allen.
Steven Avery ultimately pled guilty to the attack on Morris and was convicted of the rape of Beernsten because the jury believed her. He was sentenced to 6 years for the assault and 32 years for the rape to run concurrently. Thus the first 6 years was for both crimes and the remaining 26 was for the rape alone.
In 2003 DNA testing established the rapist was Allen not Avery and he was released. Under Wisconsin law those wrongfully convicted could only receive $5000 a year capped at $25,000. Unhappy with this amount of payout he found a civil lawyer willing to file a federal suit alleging he was deprived of his civil rights. He never handled any lawsuits alleging civil right violations for wrongfully convicted before this and it showed.
Steven Avery's suit had 4 different counts. I will break each down in its most simple form for laymen to understand.
First of all who was sued?
The former sheriff who investigated the rape, the former DA who prosecuted the case and the county. Why were they sued? Because under Supreme Court precedent in order to sue the county they had to establish official county policy was the cause of the violation of Avery's rights. In order to hold the county liable for their conduct Avery's lawyer argued that they were officials of the county with decision making authority and anything they did was official county policy. This is actually a weak argument and ripe for disputing county liability. In any event that was the basis. Under Supreme Court precedent governments can't be sued for punitive damages thus the demand for punitive damages was only against the individual defendants. The 3 defendants were sued for a sum between $1 million and $18 million for compensatory damages and individual defendants were additionally sued for $1 million to 18 million in punitive damages.
Lawyers always demand more than a case is actually worth in hopes of a better settlement amount. At the time the lawsuit was filed the general payout for compensatory damages was around $55,000 a year. Avery spent 18 years in prison, recall that the first 6 years though was for both crimes. Avery's lawyer ignored that Avery would have been in jail the first 6 years anyway and only served 12 years extra for the rape and multiplied 18 X $55,000 and rounded it off to a million. He then took the random figure of a million and multiplied that by 18 to arrive at the high amount. So that is where the big spread came from.
Now an explanation of the counts.
Count One alleged that failing to investigate and figure out the actual rapist was Allen deprived Avery of his Civil Rights.
This count is frankly stupid from a legal perspective. There is no federal right for police to figure out who the actual criminal is. If they knew someone else did it and that Avery was innocent and prosecuted him anyway then there would have been a case but those were not the facts so this count goes no where legally. The count admits they failed to investigate Allen and figure out he did it. Framing it as them targeting Avery fails to change a thing legally.
Count two is related and alleges an equal protection for not including Allen in the line up and photo array. It says they were not treated equally since Allen was not included in both.
There is no federal requirement for police to figure out the actual criminal and include him in any lineup or photo array. No court has ever held that such amounts to an equal protection violation thus this was another foolish argument from a legal standpoint.
The Third and Fourth Count were basically identical. The Third alleged that the former Sheriff and former DA withheld material exculpatory evidence that Allen was the actual attacker prior to trial and the fourth that they continued to withhold the same evidence after the trial.
It won't let me include any other images. But the 4th can be found here:
averycount4 — Postimages
First of all disclosure is made by the DA's office not the police so this claim has no validity against the sheriff at all. In any event what is the alleged exculpatory evidence that was withheld?
1) That a cop from the City of Manitowoc police department asked if they looked at Allen.
2) That they failed to produce records from Manitowoc City that showed Manitowoc City suspect Allen of various crimes peeping crimes and breaking into a house to commit a rape but could not prove that he actually committed them.
3) Failing to produce records that Allen was convicted of a very similar crime on the same beach two years earlier and that he had called the victim of this attack to ask her to please drop the charges.
Let's analyze the claims of this supposedly exculpatory evidence.
1) The simple fact a police officer from Manitowoc City asked if they looked at Allen is not exculpatory. They had no jurisdiction over the crime and had no access to any of the evidence related to the crime and simply made the request because they suspected Allen of every crime that occurred. They had no evidence to offer to the sheriff thus there was no evidence from them to disclose to the defense.
2) The Sheriff and DA were unaware of what Manitowoc City was doing because Manitowoc City never shared their files with either. In any event, suspicion is not evidence that he actually committed any of the crimes they suspected him of and worse still the MO of such crimes was nothing like the MO of the rape. There is a world of difference between peeping and breaking into homes and beating a woman severely on a beach then raping her. In any event this evidence would not be admissible anyway. Things police suspect is not evidence convictions are evidence. There has to be a lot of evidence in order to accuse someone else of a crime in court and this sort of stuff in no way would have allowed the defense to suggest Allen was the attacker even if they had been aware of it.
3) This claim is false in several respects. A) This crime occurred at a different beach in Two Rivers thus the police department that had investigated it was the Two Rivers police department not the Sheriff's office. B) The crime was not very similar to the rape. He was convicted of exposing himself on the beach. He pulled down his pants and asked the victim of she would touch him and she ran away. C) The prosecution file was in the DA's file that Avery's public defender had access to. The public defender was given carte blanche to the prosecution files and actually looked through those files and selected several people to be investigated. The above conviction did not stand out to her either as something that would warrant investigating him. D) Last the claim that Allen calling the woman to ask her to drop the charges is in no way evidence that someone calling to breathe heavy in the phone, to make prank remarks or talk dirty was Allen and thus is exculpatory evidence. While at least some of the calls likely were by Allen the victim never appreciated that based on what he said and did so why would police have to figure it out?
I say likely because subsequent to Avery's conviction Allen went on to commit other crimes and in one crime he was convicted of, he called the victim to talk dirty to her and threatened her. Based on that he probably did make dirty calls to PB but he had not done that to the woman he exposed himself to.
The bottom line is that very had no real case and that is why it was settled for nuisance value. It was always simply a nuisance action. The only exculpatory evidence in this case was the DNA evidence that caused Avery to be released.
While he was awaiting trial for this crime a woman was jogging at Point Beach State Forest and after she passed a man he grabbed her from behind severely beat her and raped her. The criminal complaint details the very general description she provided as well as the location being near the campground of Point Beach State Forest.
Because of the aforementioned kidnapping attempt, police were familiar with Avery's looks. Because Avery attempted to kidnap the woman to presumably rape her plus the fact this was a short, unkempt bearded man made her wonder if it was Avery.
When the woman was in better shape at the hospital she was interviewed again providing more details. A sketch artist also sat with her and did a sketch based on what she told him. After that a photo array was shown to her and it included Steven Avery's photo. She picked out his photo. She also picked him out from a live lineup that was held subsequently. On the basis of these identifications Steven Avery was arrested and he curiously asked if it was the girl who said he almost killed him. They took that as an admission he had beat PB almost to death. To this day he never explained that comment. He failed miserably at trial at explaining it away so we still have no idea why he said that. In any event at trial the main evidence against him was the victim insisting he was her attacker. Supporting evidence was hair on the victim that was consistent with Avery's and his statement to police asking about being arrested for almost killing that woman.
Subsequent to these identifications while Steven Avery was awaiting trial a police officer from the City of Manitowoc (the jurisdiction of this rape was the County of Manitowoc Sheriff's Office since the crime did not take place in the City of Manitowoc) talked to the sheriff and allegedly asked him if he looked at Gregory Allen as a suspect for the rape. He didn't provide any evidence that suggested Allen was behind it or any actionable intelligence he simply asked generally if they looked at Allen .
That summer, after the attack, the victim received around 5 prank calls some of them sexual in nature. No one knows if these calls were all by the same person or who made any of them. While the victim never suspected the calls were made by her attacker since she did not recognize any of the voices as his and the callers never referenced her rape, Steven Avery's civil attorneys assume these calls were all made by her true attacker and that police should have figured out that because of them it was Allen.
Steven Avery ultimately pled guilty to the attack on Morris and was convicted of the rape of Beernsten because the jury believed her. He was sentenced to 6 years for the assault and 32 years for the rape to run concurrently. Thus the first 6 years was for both crimes and the remaining 26 was for the rape alone.
In 2003 DNA testing established the rapist was Allen not Avery and he was released. Under Wisconsin law those wrongfully convicted could only receive $5000 a year capped at $25,000. Unhappy with this amount of payout he found a civil lawyer willing to file a federal suit alleging he was deprived of his civil rights. He never handled any lawsuits alleging civil right violations for wrongfully convicted before this and it showed.
Steven Avery's suit had 4 different counts. I will break each down in its most simple form for laymen to understand.
First of all who was sued?
The former sheriff who investigated the rape, the former DA who prosecuted the case and the county. Why were they sued? Because under Supreme Court precedent in order to sue the county they had to establish official county policy was the cause of the violation of Avery's rights. In order to hold the county liable for their conduct Avery's lawyer argued that they were officials of the county with decision making authority and anything they did was official county policy. This is actually a weak argument and ripe for disputing county liability. In any event that was the basis. Under Supreme Court precedent governments can't be sued for punitive damages thus the demand for punitive damages was only against the individual defendants. The 3 defendants were sued for a sum between $1 million and $18 million for compensatory damages and individual defendants were additionally sued for $1 million to 18 million in punitive damages.
Lawyers always demand more than a case is actually worth in hopes of a better settlement amount. At the time the lawsuit was filed the general payout for compensatory damages was around $55,000 a year. Avery spent 18 years in prison, recall that the first 6 years though was for both crimes. Avery's lawyer ignored that Avery would have been in jail the first 6 years anyway and only served 12 years extra for the rape and multiplied 18 X $55,000 and rounded it off to a million. He then took the random figure of a million and multiplied that by 18 to arrive at the high amount. So that is where the big spread came from.
Now an explanation of the counts.
Count One alleged that failing to investigate and figure out the actual rapist was Allen deprived Avery of his Civil Rights.
This count is frankly stupid from a legal perspective. There is no federal right for police to figure out who the actual criminal is. If they knew someone else did it and that Avery was innocent and prosecuted him anyway then there would have been a case but those were not the facts so this count goes no where legally. The count admits they failed to investigate Allen and figure out he did it. Framing it as them targeting Avery fails to change a thing legally.
Count two is related and alleges an equal protection for not including Allen in the line up and photo array. It says they were not treated equally since Allen was not included in both.
There is no federal requirement for police to figure out the actual criminal and include him in any lineup or photo array. No court has ever held that such amounts to an equal protection violation thus this was another foolish argument from a legal standpoint.
The Third and Fourth Count were basically identical. The Third alleged that the former Sheriff and former DA withheld material exculpatory evidence that Allen was the actual attacker prior to trial and the fourth that they continued to withhold the same evidence after the trial.
It won't let me include any other images. But the 4th can be found here:
averycount4 — Postimages
First of all disclosure is made by the DA's office not the police so this claim has no validity against the sheriff at all. In any event what is the alleged exculpatory evidence that was withheld?
1) That a cop from the City of Manitowoc police department asked if they looked at Allen.
2) That they failed to produce records from Manitowoc City that showed Manitowoc City suspect Allen of various crimes peeping crimes and breaking into a house to commit a rape but could not prove that he actually committed them.
3) Failing to produce records that Allen was convicted of a very similar crime on the same beach two years earlier and that he had called the victim of this attack to ask her to please drop the charges.
Let's analyze the claims of this supposedly exculpatory evidence.
1) The simple fact a police officer from Manitowoc City asked if they looked at Allen is not exculpatory. They had no jurisdiction over the crime and had no access to any of the evidence related to the crime and simply made the request because they suspected Allen of every crime that occurred. They had no evidence to offer to the sheriff thus there was no evidence from them to disclose to the defense.
2) The Sheriff and DA were unaware of what Manitowoc City was doing because Manitowoc City never shared their files with either. In any event, suspicion is not evidence that he actually committed any of the crimes they suspected him of and worse still the MO of such crimes was nothing like the MO of the rape. There is a world of difference between peeping and breaking into homes and beating a woman severely on a beach then raping her. In any event this evidence would not be admissible anyway. Things police suspect is not evidence convictions are evidence. There has to be a lot of evidence in order to accuse someone else of a crime in court and this sort of stuff in no way would have allowed the defense to suggest Allen was the attacker even if they had been aware of it.
3) This claim is false in several respects. A) This crime occurred at a different beach in Two Rivers thus the police department that had investigated it was the Two Rivers police department not the Sheriff's office. B) The crime was not very similar to the rape. He was convicted of exposing himself on the beach. He pulled down his pants and asked the victim of she would touch him and she ran away. C) The prosecution file was in the DA's file that Avery's public defender had access to. The public defender was given carte blanche to the prosecution files and actually looked through those files and selected several people to be investigated. The above conviction did not stand out to her either as something that would warrant investigating him. D) Last the claim that Allen calling the woman to ask her to drop the charges is in no way evidence that someone calling to breathe heavy in the phone, to make prank remarks or talk dirty was Allen and thus is exculpatory evidence. While at least some of the calls likely were by Allen the victim never appreciated that based on what he said and did so why would police have to figure it out?
I say likely because subsequent to Avery's conviction Allen went on to commit other crimes and in one crime he was convicted of, he called the victim to talk dirty to her and threatened her. Based on that he probably did make dirty calls to PB but he had not done that to the woman he exposed himself to.
The bottom line is that very had no real case and that is why it was settled for nuisance value. It was always simply a nuisance action. The only exculpatory evidence in this case was the DNA evidence that caused Avery to be released.
