removed Forum

[threatlevelmidnight]

removed

[jrass]

I didn't know where else to post this. I watched Making a Murderer and haven't been able to stop thinking about Steven Avery, who has likely now be convicted twice wrongfully. He's currently serving a life sentence for murder.

I worked with wrongful convictions for three years in undergrad and I'm going to be starting law school in the fall, but I'm wondering if there are any current students who work at a wrongful convictions clinic or an affiliated center that would be interested in speaking about what can reasonably be done for Steven since he has exhausted his appeals?

If Steven is to have a real chance of an exoneration, this case needs a team of investigators and attorneys to see whether in 8 years new evidence can be found or if any testifying witnesses have since recanted their testimonies/changed their minds. If I was in law school, I would reach out to professors that would be interested in something like this, so please think of any faculty or employers that might have some knowledge about what direction could need to be taken (i.e. should we first hound a wrongful convictions center to consider Steve's case or can we conceivably crowdsource a team of attorney and investigators together to look into it. It would either have to be pro bono or money would have to be fundraised).

Might be completely going out on a limb. I've worked with wrongfully convicted inmates before, but something about Steve's case has really compelled me to see what can be done. If there is any interest at all to talk, please PM me.

Steven Avery burnt his own cat alive for fun at the age of 20 before either of his convictions. Even if he didn't hurt any people he deserves life in prison. (1) Who kills a cat? (2) Who kills their own cat? (3) Who burns their own cat alive to death for fun? Screw him.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I moved this to Ask a Law Student/Grad. Not sure that's the best place for it, since it's kind of off-topic, but 0Ls aren't allowed to post in the Forum for Law Students.

[threatlevelmidnight]

I didn't know where else to post this. I watched Making a Murderer and haven't been able to stop thinking about Steven Avery, who has likely now be convicted twice wrongfully. He's currently serving a life sentence for murder.

I worked with wrongful convictions for three years in undergrad and I'm going to be starting law school in the fall, but I'm wondering if there are any current students who work at a wrongful convictions clinic or an affiliated center that would be interested in speaking about what can reasonably be done for Steven since he has exhausted his appeals?

If Steven is to have a real chance of an exoneration, this case needs a team of investigators and attorneys to see whether in 8 years new evidence can be found or if any testifying witnesses have since recanted their testimonies/changed their minds. If I was in law school, I would reach out to professors that would be interested in something like this, so please think of any faculty or employers that might have some knowledge about what direction could need to be taken (i.e. should we first hound a wrongful convictions center to consider Steve's case or can we conceivably crowdsource a team of attorney and investigators together to look into it. It would either have to be pro bono or money would have to be fundraised).

Might be completely going out on a limb. I've worked with wrongfully convicted inmates before, but something about Steve's case has really compelled me to see what can be done. If there is any interest at all to talk, please PM me.

Steven Avery burnt his own cat alive for fun at the age of 20 before either of his convictions. Even if he didn't hurt any people he deserves life in prison. (1) Who kills a cat? (2) Who kills their own cat? (3) Who burns their own cat alive to death for fun? Screw him.

I hope you're not a practicing attorney, as it seems like you're saying he was on trial for his past crimes, for which he already served time. It seems like you're saying he deserves to have his liberty taken away for the rest of his life despite there being reasonable doubt in this case.

For anyone else, please PM rather than post on this thread. I don't want to clog up this post with this nonsense.

[OfThriceandTen]

I didn't know where else to post this. I watched Making a Murderer and haven't been able to stop thinking about Steven Avery, who has likely now be convicted twice wrongfully. He's currently serving a life sentence for murder.

I worked with wrongful convictions for three years in undergrad and I'm going to be starting law school in the fall, but I'm wondering if there are any current students who work at a wrongful convictions clinic or an affiliated center that would be interested in speaking about what can reasonably be done for Steven since he has exhausted his appeals?

If Steven is to have a real chance of an exoneration, this case needs a team of investigators and attorneys to see whether in 8 years new evidence can be found or if any testifying witnesses have since recanted their testimonies/changed their minds. If I was in law school, I would reach out to professors that would be interested in something like this, so please think of any faculty or employers that might have some knowledge about what direction could need to be taken (i.e. should we first hound a wrongful convictions center to consider Steve's case or can we conceivably crowdsource a team of attorney and investigators together to look into it. It would either have to be pro bono or money would have to be fundraised).

Might be completely going out on a limb. I've worked with wrongfully convicted inmates before, but something about Steve's case has really compelled me to see what can be done. If there is any interest at all to talk, please PM me.

Steven Avery burnt his own cat alive for fun at the age of 20 before either of his convictions. Even if he didn't hurt any people he deserves life in prison. (1) Who kills a cat? (2) Who kills their own cat? (3) Who burns their own cat alive to death for fun? Screw him.

And this is why the rules of evidence are important... because dummies like you are allowed on juries and make dangerous logical leaps and vote for convictions based on completely unrelated crimes to the charge at trial. Also, the idea that people convicted of crimes can never change is not only super damaging to convicts but extremely detrimental to our entire society, especially considering our outrageously high percentage of population in prison.

OP, I did some of this work in law school. These high profile cases tend to get a lot of interest, e.g. Adnan Syed being represented by the UVA Innocence Project despite serious doubts in many people's minds (including, tbph, my own) of his innocence. High profile cases are great for the Innocence Network to get exposure to the public for a lot of issues the wrongfully convicted face, e.g. getting exonerated through the court system, getting compensation for years spent in prison, corrupt DA/police departments, etc. I guarantee there have been conversations about this case amongst people working in the field already. You should get involved if your law school has a clinic and this is something that interests you, but you probably shouldn't start trying to coordinate the relief efforts yourself for the most high-profile wrongfully convicted prisoner du jour. It's NAGL. Anyways, there's thousands if not tens of thousands of equally tragic stories that clinics are representing across the country that haven't been made into a netflix miniseries yet, and those people can use efforts being directed towards them as well.

[jrass]

I didn't know where else to post this. I watched Making a Murderer and haven't been able to stop thinking about Steven Avery, who has likely now be convicted twice wrongfully. He's currently serving a life sentence for murder.

I worked with wrongful convictions for three years in undergrad and I'm going to be starting law school in the fall, but I'm wondering if there are any current students who work at a wrongful convictions clinic or an affiliated center that would be interested in speaking about what can reasonably be done for Steven since he has exhausted his appeals?

If Steven is to have a real chance of an exoneration, this case needs a team of investigators and attorneys to see whether in 8 years new evidence can be found or if any testifying witnesses have since recanted their testimonies/changed their minds. If I was in law school, I would reach out to professors that would be interested in something like this, so please think of any faculty or employers that might have some knowledge about what direction could need to be taken (i.e. should we first hound a wrongful convictions center to consider Steve's case or can we conceivably crowdsource a team of attorney and investigators together to look into it. It would either have to be pro bono or money would have to be fundraised).

Might be completely going out on a limb. I've worked with wrongfully convicted inmates before, but something about Steve's case has really compelled me to see what can be done. If there is any interest at all to talk, please PM me.

Steven Avery burnt his own cat alive for fun at the age of 20 before either of his convictions. Even if he didn't hurt any people he deserves life in prison. (1) Who kills a cat? (2) Who kills their own cat? (3) Who burns their own cat alive to death for fun? Screw him.

I hope you're not a practicing attorney, as it seems like you're saying he was on trial for his past crimes, for which he already served time. It seems like you're saying he deserves to have his liberty taken away for the rest of his life despite there being reasonable doubt in this case.

For anyone else, please PM rather than post on this thread. I don't want to clog up this post with this nonsense.

Oh believe me, I do more than just practice. Now I ain't sayin that he should legally be in jail for torturing a cat, but in this country people have a right to pick and choose what to use their talents on. You only get to choose so many pro bono cases each year, and there are thousands of people in need of legal services. You have children with IEP's in school districts who refuse to follow them, domestic violent victims worried about being deported if they report their abuser and 20% of Americans living below the poverty line. I'm sorry if I'm not playing the violin for some asshole who tortured and killed his cat. And fyi you young romantic soul, you are allowed to bring in past bad acts if they're indicative of a character trait at issue. In this case, the character trait at issue is "psychokiller piece of shit," and burning your own cat is indicative of having a propensity to be a "psychokiller piece of shit."

[threatlevelmidnight]

I didn't know where else to post this. I watched Making a Murderer and haven't been able to stop thinking about Steven Avery, who has likely now be convicted twice wrongfully. He's currently serving a life sentence for murder.

I worked with wrongful convictions for three years in undergrad and I'm going to be starting law school in the fall, but I'm wondering if there are any current students who work at a wrongful convictions clinic or an affiliated center that would be interested in speaking about what can reasonably be done for Steven since he has exhausted his appeals?

If Steven is to have a real chance of an exoneration, this case needs a team of investigators and attorneys to see whether in 8 years new evidence can be found or if any testifying witnesses have since recanted their testimonies/changed their minds. If I was in law school, I would reach out to professors that would be interested in something like this, so please think of any faculty or employers that might have some knowledge about what direction could need to be taken (i.e. should we first hound a wrongful convictions center to consider Steve's case or can we conceivably crowdsource a team of attorney and investigators together to look into it. It would either have to be pro bono or money would have to be fundraised).

Might be completely going out on a limb. I've worked with wrongfully convicted inmates before, but something about Steve's case has really compelled me to see what can be done. If there is any interest at all to talk, please PM me.

Steven Avery burnt his own cat alive for fun at the age of 20 before either of his convictions. Even if he didn't hurt any people he deserves life in prison. (1) Who kills a cat? (2) Who kills their own cat? (3) Who burns their own cat alive to death for fun? Screw him.

And this is why the rules of evidence are important... because dummies like you are allowed on juries and make dangerous logical leaps and vote for convictions based on completely unrelated crimes to the charge at trial. Also, the idea that people convicted of crimes can never change is not only super damaging to convicts but extremely detrimental to our entire society, especially considering our outrageously high percentage of population in prison.

OP, I did some of this work in law school. These high profile cases tend to get a lot of interest, e.g. Adnan Syed being represented by the UVA Innocence Project despite serious doubts in many people's minds (including, tbph, my own) of his innocence. High profile cases are great for the Innocence Network to get exposure to the public for a lot of issues the wrongfully convicted face, e.g. getting exonerated through the court system, getting compensation for years spent in prison, corrupt DA/police departments, etc. I guarantee there have been conversations about this case amongst people working in the field already. You should get involved if your law school has a clinic and this is something that interests you, but you probably shouldn't start trying to coordinate the relief efforts yourself for the most high-profile wrongfully convicted prisoner du jour. It's NAGL. Anyways, there's thousands if not tens of thousands of equally tragic stories that clinics are representing across the country that haven't been made into a netflix miniseries yet, and those people can use efforts being directed towards them as well.

Thanks for your response. I'm definitely not saying I would be the person to coordinate any such effort. I don't have the experience or skill to do that. Working on a case like this is a monumental effort. I know the Wisconsin Innocence Project is taking another look at the case NOW since the documentary came out, but they have repeatedly declined to look at his case for the past 8 years. I think the Project has just been trying to distance themselves as much as possible from him because they helped exonerate him only to have him convicted of murder. It's possible some other network is considering his case. I'm not sure anything is actually going to come from those conversations when his conviction was very high profile when it happened. Where have they been the last 8 years?

I'm not in law school yet/haven't chosen a school for the fall otherwise I would definitely be on top of the public interest directors/clinic professors if they had any thoughts. Regardless, it's a case that is worth taking another look at because it's concerning that he doesn't have an attorney right now.

I know there are many other cases, one of the reasons this documentary is good for people that have not been exposed to wrongful convictions and seen the many ways the justice system can traumatize someone. I truly hope a wrongful convictions center/Innocence project is talking about his case because they would be the most equipped to help him.

If anyone else has any other opinions about the case/next steps they can see happening, please send them along.

[Cogburn87]

Oh believe me, I do more than just practice. Now I ain't sayin that he should legally be in jail for torturing a cat, but in this country people have a right to pick and choose what to use their talents on. You only get to choose so many pro bono cases each year, and there are thousands of people in need of legal services. You have children with IEP's in school districts who refuse to follow them, domestic violent victims worried about being deported if they report their abuser and 20% of Americans living below the poverty line. I'm sorry if I'm not playing the violin for some asshole who tortured and killed his cat. And fyi you young romantic soul, you are allowed to bring in past bad acts if they're indicative of a character trait at issue. In this case, the character trait at issue is "psychokiller piece of shit," and burning your own cat is indicative of having a propensity to be a "psychokiller piece of shit."

Interesting. And what are your thoughts on American foreign policy?

[jrass]

Oh believe me, I do more than just practice. Now I ain't sayin that he should legally be in jail for torturing a cat, but in this country people have a right to pick and choose what to use their talents on. You only get to choose so many pro bono cases each year, and there are thousands of people in need of legal services. You have children with IEP's in school districts who refuse to follow them, domestic violent victims worried about being deported if they report their abuser and 20% of Americans living below the poverty line. I'm sorry if I'm not playing the violin for some asshole who tortured and killed his cat. And fyi you young romantic soul, you are allowed to bring in past bad acts if they're indicative of a character trait at issue. In this case, the character trait at issue is "psychokiller piece of shit," and burning your own cat is indicative of having a propensity to be a "psychokiller piece of shit."

Interesting. And what are your thoughts on American foreign policy?

The legal issue that boned this guy the first time is he plead guilty, which makes it harder to use the new evidence exonerating him because he had waived any standard of review or right to use any new evidence. Short of government intervention, the only option then is to get a new trial by wining an ineffective assistance of counsel motion, but it's impossible to win one of those. Even showing your lawyer did no work and fell asleep while high as a kite isn't adequate. You really have to show s/he was actively working against you. Presumably he was railroaded and had no option but to plead guilty, but there have been greater injustices.

This guy has the complete psychological profile of a rapist and murderer down to a tee, and mistakes happen. I'm sure he'd have been accused of murder in any country he lived in. You got a guy torturing animals and a sexual deviant who by his own admission gets sexual gratification by causing pain to others following all of the developmental milestones of serial killers nearly verbatim who happens to be seen out and about with women who are then raped and left for dead. It's not that crazy he'd be accused.

[Cogburn87]

Fascinating. But I'm pretty sure OP was attempting to solicit information regarding postconviction work rather than debate the merits of the Avery prosecution. It would have been polite to wait a bit before shitting the thread up with your hot takes.

[jrass]

Fascinating. But I'm pretty sure OP was attempting to solicit information regarding postconviction work rather than debate the merits of the Avery prosecution. It would have been polite to wait a bit before shitting the thread up with your hot takes.

Probably. I'd work on the innocence project if I were OP. If you were able to get a legal aid fellowship then you could probably start your own practice pretty much by going to the various prisons, and meeting with inmates who wish to discuss their case. A lot of inmates got railroaded, because they just happened to have a gun or drugs on them or had their co-defendants testify against them resulting in huge sentences for relatively minor crimes. While it's hard to overturn convictions, the court has a ton of discretion when it comes to juvenile crimes, and these sentences get revisited at the convict's 18th or 21st birthdays depending on the state. From a sheer saving somebody life's standpoint, doing serious offender review hearings is, if not the easiest, one of the easiest ways to do good. It's pretty common for one lawyer to get someone to get released 19 years early on a 20 year sentence and someone else to be transferred to general prison to for 19 years on the same fact pattern because a lot of it comes down to risk of reoffending which is always a subjective guess so you have a ton of power if your client likes and listens to you.

[threatlevelmidnight]

Fascinating. But I'm pretty sure OP was attempting to solicit information regarding postconviction work rather than debate the merits of the Avery prosecution. It would have been polite to wait a bit before shitting the thread up with your hot takes.

Probably. I'd work on the innocence project if I were OP. If you were able to get a legal aid fellowship then you could probably start your own practice pretty much by going to the various prisons, and meeting with inmates who wish to discuss their case. A lot of inmates got railroaded, because they just happened to have a gun or drugs on them or had their co-defendants testify against them resulting in huge sentences for relatively minor crimes. While it's hard to overturn convictions, the court has a ton of discretion when it comes to juvenile crimes, and these sentences get revisited at the convict's 18th or 21st birthdays depending on the state. From a sheer saving somebody life's standpoint, doing serious offender review hearings is, if not the easiest, one of the easiest ways to do good. It's pretty common for one lawyer to get someone to get released 19 years early on a 20 year sentence and someone else to be transferred to general prison to for 19 years on the same fact pattern because a lot of it comes down to risk of reoffending which is always a subjective guess so you have a ton of power if your client likes and listens to you.

Some good advice, thanks.