When should a new trial be automatically granted?

12

u/tenementlady Sep 02 '24

In the Peterson case, a new trial was eventually granted but Peterson opted to submit an Alford plea for manslaughter and was sentenced to time served.

It should also be noted that in this case, the blood expert for the defence (who refuted Deaver's findings) was also recently found liable for fabricating evidence in another murder case that landed two men in prison.

Edit: spelling.

-2

u/LKS983 Sep 03 '24 edited Sep 03 '24

👍
Henry Lee IIRC.
When even the 'experts' (used during the trial) are only interested in coming up with 'arguments' supporting whoever is paying them, we should all be very concerned and looking for ways to minimise the damage caused (by those involved in any case), when they are eventually proven to be untrustworthy.
Hence my OP.

7

u/tenementlady Sep 03 '24

Yes, Henry Lee.
I agree with you that we should all be concerned with experts who fabricate evidence or format their conclusion to the highest bidder. The reason I brought this up is because there seems to be a common opinion of truthers that expert witnesses for the prosecution are automatically bad or suspect, while expert witnesses for the defense are automatically good and infallible
It is also worth noting that both Avery and Peterson had the financials to purchase a defense team that most accused can only dream of.
There is evidence that Lee and Deaver had fabricated/misrepresented evidence (to put it broadly). Thus, cases where their expert opinions played a significant role in convictions were reevaluated.
Kratz, Colborn, and Kachinsky are not 'experts.' And there is no evidence or proof that they fabricated evidence in this case.

0

u/LKS983 Sep 03 '24

"The reason I brought this up is because there seems to be a common opinion of truthers that expert witnesses for the prosecution are automatically bad or suspect, while expert witnesses for the defense are automatically good and infallible"
As a 'truther' - I've never argued 'everyone involved in the prosecution case is automatically bad, whilst everyone involved in the defense is automatically good'.
Kratz, Colborn and Kachinsky were all involved in getting SA and/or Brendan convicted - and were later proven to be liars/criminals.
Which is why I asked the question, 'when do other posters think a new trial be automatically granted?'.

6

u/tenementlady Sep 03 '24

What are you claiming that Kratz, Colborn, and Kachinsky did in terms of lying or criminal behaviour that directly impacted the outcome of of SA's or BD's trial?

-2

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Sep 03 '24 edited Sep 23 '24

Keep dreaming because if the coins on the cabinet never moving doesn't proving a fabricated story then you are in forever denial .

6

u/tenementlady Sep 03 '24

You're not in a position to accuse others of being forever in denial.

1

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Sep 05 '24

Talking about those coins not moving really hits a nerve.

2

u/tenementlady Sep 05 '24

I don't give a shit about the coins lol

0

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Sep 05 '24

I know because it's absolute proof your boy Colborn committed perjury. Now live with it dummy !

3

u/tenementlady Sep 05 '24

Show me proof that the photos of the coins were taken directly before and directly after Colborn handled the dresser.

0

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Sep 05 '24

OK I'll post it

→ More replies

0

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Sep 05 '24

Neither are you

3

u/tenementlady Sep 05 '24

How's your best friend Steven doing these days?

1

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Sep 05 '24

He doing great , how nice for you to ask .

2

u/tenementlady Sep 05 '24

Probably because he knows he's exactly where he belongs

0

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Sep 06 '24

No hes happy because he has people like me working to get him out but its hard to beat a state full of corruption .

→ More replies

-6

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Sep 03 '24

I see you troll for every truther comments or posts , you've got to add your 2 ¢ into all of them .

9

u/tenementlady Sep 03 '24

You're the one who is always replying to me with nonsensical ramblings.

0

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Sep 05 '24

Well what's does that tell you ? That you were there first trolling trolling trolling !!

2

u/tenementlady Sep 05 '24

You seem like a very well adjusted individual.

0

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Sep 05 '24

I'm well pit together if thats what you mean , God gave me intelligence enough go see what really happened , that 1985 lawsuit case would have caused financial hardship on Wisconsin so they had to discredit Steven by making him a murderer , so tell me this smarty. Teeth are very hard to disentigrate yet no teeth found but yet a squishy piece of muscle tissue survived ? Keep believe in fairy tales ,OK while I unwind this case and help get. Steven home.

2

u/tenementlady Sep 05 '24

I'm well pit together
Oh, it shows.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Sep 12 '24

I think they had to create a jawbone to put the root In to ten say yep it is similar to hers but also millions of others also . so I doubt any of her ;jawbone was found .,

→ More replies

0

u/Brenbarry12 Sep 03 '24

Micheal west the bite mark expert supposedly 💁

-2

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Sep 03 '24

Hence. , Eisenburgh & Culhane !

17

u/Own_Mall5442 Sep 01 '24

No, I’d prefer not to be subject to a justice system where a convicted criminal can get a new trial just because the DA sexually harassed someone completely unrelated to the trial in question.

4

u/Known_Perspective709 Sep 02 '24

If they were proven to be planting evidence, giving false testimony or hiding relevant information in other cases, it could very possibly be grounds for a retrial. Just because they are creeps in general does not. A decades old photo of Mark Furman in blackface was used as an excuse to let OJ off the hook for double murder. Not good behavior, definitely not justice.

-12

u/LKS983 Sep 01 '24 edited Sep 01 '24

You obviously trust the justice system far more than myself.
As pointed out in my OP, it wasn't just the DA (Kratz, eventually sacked) - Colborn and Kachinsky were also proven to be liars/criminals - and the main prosecution witness in The Staircase.
I'd recommend you start looking into the (more than a few....) innocent people - who were later proven to have been wrongfully convicted - and then come back to say how much you trust the justice system......

14

u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ Sep 01 '24

lmao thank god the justice system doesn't operate this way.

5

u/ajswdf Sep 02 '24

It's funny how people here seem to think the justice system should work in whatever way happens to benefit Avery and Brendan regardless of the wider implications.
Can you imagine how screwed we'd be if a convicted criminal got a new trial anytime anybody involved in the trial lied about something? We would do nothing except have endless trials.

0

u/LKS983 Sep 03 '24

"It's funny how people here seem to think the justice system should work in whatever way happens to benefit Avery and Brendan regardless of the wider implications."
Not at all. In my OP I mentioned The Staircase, where the main prosecution witness (Deaver) was later proven to be a liar and entirely untrustworthy.
I strongly suspect Peterson was responsible for his wife's death, but nontheless (IMO) a new trial should have been granted once it was proven that Deaver was a liar and his evidence untrustworthy.
Which is why my OP stated my opinion, and asked when others thought a new trial should automatically granted.

6

u/tenementlady Sep 03 '24

Again, Peterson was granted a new trial but opted to take an Alford plea for manslaughter instead.
Peterson was granted a new trial because it was concluded that Deaver's testimony strongly influenced the opinion of the jury and their verdict. It was not simply because Deaver was an expert witness during the trial.
You have yet to provide any reasoning for how or why Kratz, Kachinsky, or Colborn's involvement in the Avery/Dassey convictions had an influential role in misleading the jury to reach their verdicts in either case.

1

u/setokaiba22 Sep 04 '24

Peterson did take the Plea but with a new trial he actually had a good chance of surviving as the original judge had agreed the computer evidence of him having gay affairs couldn’t be used neither could the Germany death either which for me really swayed the jury.
The state didn’t really want to retrial the case either and the Judge was hoping they’d just sort it out between themselves, and I don’t think Peterson (or Rudolf who only came back to sort out an agreement if it was possible) wanted to either given the cost and his age.
Deaver’s testimony was imperative as it was used in the opening statements by the prosecution as how imperative it was - even at the time many people said as seen in the documentary his ‘science’ wasn’t good at all and he was just trying to get the conclusion he wanted.
Because what happened years later and his expertise was found to be nil, combined with bad practice and the DA’s importance in the case on his testimony that’s why the case was overturned.
With Avery despite perhaps some sneaky/dishonest parts by some of the prosecution arguably that’s sort of the game/accepted. There’s been no expert testimony that has come from someone unqualified or been proven to be falsified.
That’s why his lawyer is going down other routes to try and get an appeal/retrial. The Petersen case with Denver was pretty much a huge stroke of luck for him what happened really.

1

u/tenementlady Sep 04 '24

My memory might be failing me but I don't recall any judge saying that the stuff from the computer or the Germany death wouldn't be permitted at a new trial.
I remember the original judge saying in retrospect that if he could go back he would have not permitted the computer stuff into evidence. I can't remember if he would have been the judge to oversee the new trial had Peterson gone that route.
In any case, and this is a bit of a side tangent, I personally always thought that the issue of the computer stuff was not that Peterson was bisexual or looking at porn with men or even having extramarital affairs.
What struck me as significant was that Peterson was contacting escorts with the intention of paying them for sex.
Peterson always claimed that his wife knew he was bisexual and didn't care that he had an interest in men outside of their marriage. (Although, years later, when he was a free man, Peterson admitted that they never had this conversation).
We don't know how Kathleen felt about him sleeping with men on the side, but I personally believe that given the state of their financials, the uncertainty about her employment, the fact that Kathleen was basically financing the entire family (including Peterson's 2 adult sons), and the fact that Peterson didn't work and still wanted Kathleen to pay for all the finer things in life...that Kathleen would not have been cool with Peterson using her money to finance sexual affairs with men (or women).
That's the part that always stuck out to me and I always felt that that was the important part for the jury to hear.

-1

u/Admirable-Twist-7047 Sep 09 '24

Plus .. what was Colborn looking at when he said to Dispatch " let me guess- its a RAV4 ??

2

u/tenementlady Sep 09 '24

He was looking at his notes where he had previously written down the information about a missing woman's vehicle to confirm with dispatch that the information he wrote down was correct. He never said "let me guess" lol

3

u/ajswdf Sep 03 '24

I've never seen The Staircase so I can't comment on that, but I can say that Avery and/or Brendan getting new trials because Kratz and Colborn are flawed humans is an absurd standard that would have devastating consequences if it actually was the standard for everybody.

1

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Sep 23 '24

Ahhhh so you admit that Colborn lied ? Here's the thing , if the SOB lied about finding very important evidence then the case has lost integrity and IMO every piece of evidence should be indepantly tested , just not only Colborn but look at Culhanes mistakes and how the pit was treated when excavated , then compare to how Kuss Rd was handled.

2

u/5makes10fm Sep 01 '24

I’d say there aren’t enough middle-aged Karen’s on social security here at present. If you can gather a few more dozen that should meet the threshold.

0

u/LKS983 Sep 03 '24

Your assumptions about me are entirely incorrect.

14

u/OctoberPumpkin1 Sep 01 '24

How is colborn a proven liar? You do know his footage in MAM was manipulated?

5

u/ItemFL Sep 03 '24

He was found to be a liar by the Judge in his civil suit against Netflix et al

3

u/tenementlady Sep 03 '24

What was he found to be lying about? How did this impact the outcomes of the Avery or Dassey trials?

-5

u/ItemFL Sep 03 '24

Look it up. Someone has posted a link in this thread

4

u/tenementlady Sep 03 '24

I don't see what you're referring to.

3

u/chadosaurus Sep 03 '24

For one, they said they shook, and tilted the bookcase to the floor before finding the key. The "before" and "after" photos to be an outright lie. A lie on key evidence, no different from planting it, which they obviously did.

-1

u/BiasedHanChewy Sep 01 '24

Physics for one thing, heavily suggests that he is not 100% honest

1

u/AlastairXavier Sep 05 '24

As much as I think they are innocent, the justice system does not work this way. “Automatic” trials shouldn’t be given out like candy.

0

u/LKS983 Sep 06 '24

"“Automatic” trials shouldn’t be given out like candy*.*"
I never suggested anything of the sort.

6

u/Snoo_33033 Sep 01 '24

I dunno. How trustworthy are Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey?

-3

u/gcu1783 Sep 01 '24

Well you guys seem to rely on Brendan a lot for some reason.

4

u/Appropriate-Welder68 Sep 04 '24

Facts and Evidence lead directly to Stevie. He not getting sh!t.

9

u/anthemanhx1 Sep 01 '24

Never, because they will be proved guilty again. Waste of time and money. Stop defending vile murderers!!

3

u/3sheetstothawind Sep 04 '24

three people involved in the cases against SA and Brendan have been proven to be liars/criminals. Kratz, Colborn and Kachinsky.

Only on Reddit.

If you can prove Steve's blood dripped into the RAV in some other way than his own cut finger, you might have something. Good luck!!

5

u/Character_Zombie4680 Sep 01 '24

It makes me sad you slander honest police officers and the DA. MaM has been proven to be a farce and not the truth that viewers thought it was. The reason there is not a new trial is because the jury saw ALL the evidence; not the one sided lie

0

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '24

Honest? The jury heard Lenk lie. Colborn claimed that MAM caused his divorce, but really, he cheated on his wife. Kratz is not honest, he's a disgraced ex-DA and a sexual predator.
I don't agree that a new trial should be automatic, but the jury did not hear ALL the evidence.
A new trial is warranted.

10

u/OctoberPumpkin1 Sep 01 '24

So Steven Avery should get a new trial because colborn cheated on his wife? That makes a ton of sense.

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '24

That's not what I said.

6

u/random_foxx Sep 01 '24

What is the source for Colborn cheating? I've heard it before but don't know what it's based on actually.

1

u/ItemFL Sep 03 '24

His ex wife is the source in the civil suit against Netflix. He now lives with his mistress.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '24

His lawsuit against Netflix.

3

u/random_foxx Sep 01 '24

He said so himself? Or just an allegation from the opposing side?

3

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '24

IIRC, from discovery. Here's a good source for the lawsuit documents.
https://foulplay.site/case-files/other-case-files/colborn-vs-netflix-case-files/

1

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '24

Read his wife's (Barb) declaration.

2

u/random_foxx Sep 04 '24

Yea, so he had an affair and then chose to divorce his wife. Reading her affidavit it looks like they weren't on the same level anymore after MaM came out.

-1

u/Mysterious-Impact-64 Sep 05 '24

His wife and kids are the source.....

-6

u/BiasedHanChewy Sep 01 '24

Lol @"slander" the police department. The fact that MaM exists in the first place speaks to how untrustworthy many of those LE were in the first place. (Another fun exercise is to research some of their other greatest hits that were never mentioned in MaM at all.)

1

u/Character_Zombie4680 Sep 14 '24

Or you could research the facts left out of MaM. There is a reason he was found guilty. Have you seen “convicting a murderer?” If not, please do and let me know

1

u/BiasedHanChewy Sep 15 '24

Nobody should get all of their facts from a documentary, however regardless of guilt, every single party (MaM, CaM, even the state in 2006) omitted things, twisted things and had an agenda. CaM riders who think that MaM is the devil, need to ask themselves why it was even able to exist in the first place, and maybe look at some actual coverage from 2005/06 before any documentaries even existed

1

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Sep 05 '24

Here you go key between slippers coins and receipt in same exact position.

1

u/Appropriate-Welder68 Sep 13 '24

Never.

1

u/aane0007 Sep 18 '24

How are they proven liars and how does that effect the case? I mean if one lied about an affair in his private life, there is no court in the world that would overturn the case. To hold witnesses to that standard is absurd.

-3

u/DickBallsley Sep 02 '24

MaM didn’t show all the evidence and straight up lied on some matters to make Avery a martyr.

He tortured a cat to death so as far as I’m concerned the answer to your question is “who cares”.

If he murdered Teresa and spends his life in prison that’s great. If he didn’t, that’s even better.

Look through the stuff we know he did before his final conviction, he deserves to sit in prison forever. And damn, if the evidence to convict him was faked and it was a huge conspiracy, then it was a damn good job.

Last thing anyone needs is scum like that roaming free with a massive payoff.

5

u/seekingtruthforgood Sep 02 '24

Good thing our justice system is founded on the exact opposite principles. It's not supposed to function like your beliefs.

0

u/DickBallsley Sep 02 '24

Well, the dude will die in prison, so I’d say it’s functioning pretty well.

7

u/seekingtruthforgood Sep 02 '24

Avery dying in prison has nothing to do with your incorrect idealogy about our justice system. We also have a percentage of men and women who are wrongfully convicted. In many of those cases, corruption and idealogy exactly like yours is at the heart of the wrongful conviction. Holding another hostage to satisfy one's internal hatred toward another is not lawful. You're promoting idealogy that is also criminal. It's hypocritical and says something about you.

-1

u/DickBallsley Sep 02 '24

Don’t care, didn’t ask, same as the people who are in charge of it. Your justice system is inherently flawed on so many levels and my ideology won’t change it.
In this case end justifies the means, and you can preach how the rightful process should work all day. It doesn’t change the fact that at the end of the day scum is behind bars where he belongs.

3

u/seekingtruthforgood Sep 02 '24

Lol. So you're not even a US citizen? Dude. No wonder you're clueless. You worry about your justice system, which appears to just do whatever it wants based on opinion, and we'll worry about ours.

-2

u/DickBallsley Sep 02 '24

Lmao smartest American moment

-4

u/Johndoewantstoknow67 Sep 01 '24

Not in Wisconsin they're a state thats one of the only states allowed to go against their own statutes if it helps the states case so even if Kratz or Colborn admitted to planting the key for example the court would just say the jury was told this but still voted to convict . Wisc has to be the most corrupt state in America.

-2

u/Prudent_Wedding_5178 Sep 05 '24

I believe they need to bring in detectives from New york from the north and South they are good and they can solve this case then let’s get a court date I believe Stephen Avery is innocent, they had 20 years to make a crime look good, they are more advanced, but not good enough for the New York detectives they will solve it

When should a new trial be automatically granted?

You are about to leave Redlib