Motions Hearing ‑ 05 April,2007

Motions for the upcoming Brendan Dassey trial were heard by Judge Jerome Fox. He decided on two.

First, the defense can present an expert witness, Dr. Robert H. Gordon of Forensic Psych Associates, Ltd., on false confessions. This witness will be limited however. He will not testify on police interrogation methods. Nor can he testify that the confession was coerced. He will be allowed to testify that Dassey was susceptible to giving a false confession.

The second motion rejected a defense request to allow the closing arguments given by Special Prosecutor Ken Kratz in the Avery trial. It would have been great to hear Kratz admit that Halbach was not in the Avery trailer and that Avery, in Kratz’s opinion, was the sole killer. But, technically, closing arguments are not considered to be factual or evidence. Nonetheless, many members of the public are aware of the inconsistencies presented by Kratz.

Still open are recordings made of Dassey conversing with his mother, Barb (Janda) Taydich; taped conversations with police; and statements made by Steven Avery about Dassey. The Avery statements are supposed to show intimidation.

The judge is deferring his ruling on these. The Avery comments that I am aware of are straightforward. The effect is the police took advantage of Brendan. If he advised that Brendan Dassey should recant, that is exactly what I would want a defense attorney would tell a relative in the same circumstances.

Kratz has requested that certain items of evidence be withheld from this trial. In an earlier statement, he he stated he plans on walking into the courtroom and pushing the play button on a recording of the confession. Facts will mess with his case.

I hope the defense will call many of the same witnesses from the Avery trial: notably, persons who testified about a fire in the burn barrel, but did not testify about a fire in the burn pit at the same time. Plus one of the witnesses conversed with Avery about the time that Avery and Dassey were supposedly killing Halbach in the Avery home.

These pretrial issues point out the thrust of this trial. It is not about facts. It is about the need to convict this now seventeen‑year‑old because of public statements made by Ken Kratz.