The video is on YouTube, and the title is defense attorney dean strang answers your making a murderer questions. After I watched it, I felt that what Dean talked about in it complemented the omitted parts of the documentary. There are some problems that I haven't understood while watching the documentary. After Dean explained it, he felt that he had a clearer understanding of the defense strategy. So I dictated the main question and Dean's answer, translated it briefly, and posted it below for everyone to see.
Why was no one held accountable for the obvious fraud, tampering with evidence and misconduct of office?
Dean: A criminal trial is all about whether to hold the one person accused accountable or not, whether he's proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt or not. The conduct of other people may have a bearing on the verdict as to the guy on trial. But a criminal trial doesn't address other people's responsibility or misconduct.
You'd have to go other steps, a civil trial, administrative proceedings.
Why are the police officers who falsified evidence and acted inappropriately not held accountable?
Criminal cases only try to determine whether the defendant is guilty or not. As for the faults of other related parties, they must be investigated in other ways. For example, the defendant can file a civil lawsuit by himself or go through administrative procedures.
Why didn't Dean put his client on the stand. The jury would have better understood Avery and realized he wasn't capable of thinking through a murder and cover-up. The guy is simply not intelligent enough to convincingly lie.
Dean: Can 't talk about that directly because it bumps into attorney-client privilege to which steven is entitled.
It's not the lawyer who decides whether the accused will or will not testify. It has to be the assused's decision whether to testify or not. There are all kinds of reasons innocent people don't testify. They may be very poor public speakers, they may be afraid of speaking publicly, they may not be in aid of English speakers(not particularly in Steven's case), they might have done other things that would come out and make them look bad if they testify, maybe they've got prior convictions (those are miserable if you testify).
There are also reasons guilty people do testify.
It's a much more complicated decision for the accused with advice from lawyers than just “boy if I didn't do anything wrong I'd get up and tell twelve strangers I didn't do anything wrong"
Why didn't the defense summon Steven to testify in court? In that case, the jury would understand that Steven did not have the level to commit murder and cover the crime.
Whether the defendant should testify in court is up to the defendant himself, and all the lawyer can do is to give him advice. Due to the confidentiality privileges of the lawyer and the client, Dean cannot directly explain why Steven did not testify. But what needs to be understood is that for various reasons, innocent people will choose not to testify in court. They may be afraid of speaking publicly, they may not speak English well, or they may have other criminal records that will be used by the prosecutor in cross-examination. People who know they are guilty also choose to testify for various reasons.
In short, the whole decision involves many complicated factors, not just "If you have done nothing wrong, there is nothing to be afraid of, why dare you not go to the witness stand to testify"
Why did they allow the evidence from Manitowoc county sheriff's department to be used in court when they are sPECIFICALLY Told They could not Search at the Property?
Dean:. It wAS at the Decision at the Department Made not to the Participate We hAD NO Legal right to insist at the Evidence wAS NO Good Simply Because of the WHO May have have found IT.
obviously Manitowoc police have explicitly It is requested that Steven’s property cannot be searched. Why can the evidence collected after their unauthorized search be accepted by the court?
In order to avoid the request of the police department not to participate in the search, this is the result of the police taking the initiative to avoid suspicion rather than the order of the court or other agencies. Therefore, the defense has no right to present such evidence not to be accepted.
Mr Strang, I think you and Mr Buting did an excellent job presenting reasonable doubt in the face of clear prejudice. How did you overcome the obvious disappointment you must have felt?
Dean: I've lost before [laugh]. It's hard to lose , but for me I'd rather make the effort and be in the fight than not join the fight at all.
Dean and Jerry pointed out that it is reasonable to suspect that the work is beautiful. The verdict of the case obviously brought disappointment and helplessness. How did you digest it?
I have also lost before. It is hard to lose the lawsuit, but in my case, I would rather work hard to fight, rather than make no effort because I am afraid of losing.
Is it true that Steven Avery's jury contained a father of Manitowoc county sheriffs deputy and the wife of a Manitowoc county clerk of courts employee? Why did the defense allow this? Why was it not mentioned in the Netflix series?
Dean: It has the father of a sheriff's deputy on it and there was a relative who's connected to the clerk's office(I've lost the detail). One of the reasons is that you don't pick a jury, what you do remove the potential jurors that you most want to remove, but you only get six strikes for no cause at all, once people have passed muster as possibly unbiased and able to serve. So you only can remove the six people who you are most concerned about. We exercised our peremptory strikes and State exercised all of its. But you are left with some people that you wouldn't necessarily pick or you making that choice at the outset. You are not selecting the jury, you are sort of de-selecting who are least fit to serve on the jury. In the jury of
Steven’s case, one of the jurors was the father of Deputy Sheriff Manitowoc, and the other was the wife of the Manitowoc court staff. Is this rumor true? Why did the defense not veto these two jurors?
One of the members of the jury is indeed the father of the sheriff, and the other is a relative of the court clerk. The reason why they were not rejected is because the defense and the prosecution each had only 6 chances when the jury was screened, so they could only reject those jurors that they felt most inappropriate. The remaining jurors may not be the most suitable for our side, or if we can choose actively, our side will not actively choose. It can only be said that they are slightly more suitable for those who have been rejected (may also be biased but It's not that serious in comparison).
Why wasn't it moved to a different city, town or county?
Dean: After the March 2, 2006 press conference that the lead prosecutor held, there wasn't a county in the 72 counties of Wisconsin we could've gone to that wasn't massively affected by that lurid press conference which only later proved to be largely unsupportable by the facts. But it was there, almost a year before the trial. So we opted to stay with the jury in the county that at least was familiar with the sheriff's department and probably most familiar with the history of Mr Avery's involvement with the sheriff's department. There really was nowhere we could've gone or we would have had a jury that was a blank slate.
Why didn't Steven's trial change to another city or town?
The appalling details of Steven’s case released by the prosecution at a media conference on March 2, 2006 affected the entire state of Wisconsin on a large scale, even though these details were later proved to be unfounded. After this media conference, none of the 72 counties in Weizhou was unaffected. Even if the content of the press conference proved to be unfounded, its impact was still obvious, and everyone had heard about it a year before the trial.
So we chose to stay in manitowoc. In this case, the jurors drawn from the manitowoc residents are relatively familiar with the grievances between Steven and the local police. We really can't find a place where the jury is a blank sheet of paper, ignorant of the information released by the prosecution.
How can they charge Avery for it happened in the garage and Dassey in the bedroom and so forth because the two don't even match. So how can they be charged for crimes that don't even match up?
Dean: The formal question there from a lawyer's perspective would be “Does due process allow prosecution to present inconsistent theories of guilt in two separate trials”.
(Have you seen it happened before?)
I have seen it happened before. The case's law, the courts, on this, have been disappointingly unclear about what the limits are of prosecution's ability to do that. Regardless of what the courts say, if ultimately my profession is dedicated to a search for The truth, presenting irreconcilable theories to two different groups of citizen jurors can't possibly serve a search for truth. When
prosecuting Steven, the prosecutor said Teresa was killed in the garage, and when prosecuting Brendan, it said Teresa was killed in the bedroom. This is not right at all. Why in the same case, different defendants can be prosecuted in completely different terms?
From a lawyer's point of view, the formal formulation of this question would be "under the requirements of due process, can the prosecutor give different opinions on the same crime in different courts?"
I have seen this happen. What is disappointing is that the law and the courts do not clearly give the prosecutor’s authority to “sue different defendants with different theories in the same case (to ensure a higher conviction rate)” in this regard. Regardless of what the court may say, if my career is ultimately to pursue the truth, then selling different theories to two different juries (to make them separate guilty verdicts) cannot serve the purpose of pursuing the truth.
View more about Making a Murderer reviews
