Wis. man seeking new trial in photographer's death
MANITOWOC, Wis. (AP) — A Manitowoc County man convicted of killing a young photographer four years ago hoped to convince a judge Monday he deserves a new trial.
Steven A. Avery believes it was unfair for a judge to deny him the right to identify others who may have had the motive and opportunity to kill Teresa Halbach.
Avery's attorneys contend he was denied a fair trial in 2007 because Judge Patrick Willis refused to allow evidence that several other people were possible suspects in Halbach's murder. The same judge is presiding over the motion hearing.
A jury convicted Avery of first-degree intentional homicide and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Mishicot man was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole. He had spent 18 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit before DNA tests exonerated him.
His nephew, Brendan Dassey, was later convicted of sexually assaulting Halbach and helping to kill her. Dassey, now 19, is also serving a life term and will be eligible for parole in 39 years.
Halbach vanished around Halloween 2005 after going to photograph a van Avery was selling for his sister at the family's auto salvage yard in Manitowoc County. Halbach's charred remains were later found in a burn pit on the property.
DNA evidence played a major role in Avery's conviction. A DNA analyst at the state crime lab who had helped clear Avery of the sexual assault charges in 2003 testified that she found Halbach's DNA on a bullet discovered in Avery's garage that was linked to a rifle Avery had hanging on his wall. Also, Halbach's vehicle key was found in Avery's bedroom with trace amounts of his DNA on it.
The defense argued that someone else killed Halbach and police then framed Avery by planting his blood in her vehicle and putting her key in his house. The jury was not convinced.
Defense attorneys could have put forth a stronger case but were hamstrung by a pretrial ruling that limited the evidence they could produce, according to court documents they filed in June in support of a new trial.
"He was prevented from advancing a key claim in defending himself against the state's charges: that another individual or individuals were responsible for Ms. Halbach's death," the filing said.
At least four people had the motive and opportunity to kill Halbach and frame Avery: the then-boyfriend of Avery's sister, Avery's two brothers and his nephew, the documents said.
The then-boyfriend and nephew may have accused Avery to cover up their own guilt, the documents said. Avery's brothers may have been angry that he was joining their family salvage business, knocking their shares down from one-half to one-third, the filing said.
The judge's pretrial ruling had been based on precedent set in a 1984 case. In those proceedings, a homicide suspect wanted to call witnesses he said had the motive and opportunity to commit the crime. A judge denied the request, in part to prevent an irrelevant parade of witnesses that could distract from the evidence at hand.
But that ruling shouldn't have applied to Avery because he had only a handful of suspects to challenge, each with a realistic motive, his attorneys argued.
"The trial court's ruling deprived Mr. Avery of his constitutional right to present a defense," the filing said.

Sep 28, 2009 at 3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
curtaincall, Avery received $25000 in compensation for his earlier wrongful conviction. A state bill to award him $428000 was shelved when Halbach was killed and Avery was arrested.
http://badgerherald.com/news/2004/12/03/...
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/11/16/...
.
If we are confident the evidence has proven him guilty, we should not fear a new trial. I don't think there will be one as reversal of a conviction such as this is not done frivolously. A system that has checks and balances inspires confidence in outcomes.
Sep 28, 2009 at 1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
I am curious as well as to what happened to all that money that he got from the state? Did he keep it or did the victim's family get it? I would guess he got it, and the state took it back for legal fees.
Sep 28, 2009 at 1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
ringsforus- the state already heard him out and found him guilty.
Sep 28, 2009 at 1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Evidence exclusion at trial is a very common basis for a motion to dismiss a conviction. That does not mean it works, but his attorney would be a fool not to exploit it in his defense.
.
A motion for a new trial is not a ruling for a new trial. The judge has to agree with the argument first. This will very certainly progress to the state appeals court, and they will have to have access to the same information that the original judge did in deciding that these other alleged suspects were or were not tangible enough to be brought into a criminal trial.
Sep 28, 2009 at 11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
rexkramer - I would have totally agreed with you had this guy not served 13 years for a crime he ultimately did NOT commit. Whether I believe he's innocent or guilty of anything, I can clearly understand why he would challenge the competency and fairness of the legal system at every possible opportunity.
Sep 28, 2009 at 10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Doesn't matter about the past case. You have Avery's DNA in her vehicle, and all over this heinous, inhuman crime. He's blaming his own family of framing him by enacting an absolutely sick, disgusting rape, torture and murder that only he could have planned that well? It would have been easier by far to make him disappear in his own salvage yard.
Sep 28, 2009 at 10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
THATS JUST IT...THE "EVIDENCE" 20 YEARS AGO SAID HE DIDNT AND HE DID NOT....THE WHAT IF POSSIBILITY IS THERE....AND I AGREE, IF HE DID IT, FINE LET HIM ROT, BUT IF HE DIDNT AND CAN PROOVE SO, THE STATE HAS TO HEAR HIM OUT....IT IS GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT......
Sep 28, 2009 at 10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Given the evidence presented ta his trial, this scum is guilty. May he rot in jail. He can point his finger at anyone and it will not change what he did.
Sep 28, 2009 at 10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
i understand your feelings but just WHAT IF another error was made? I am not saying he is guilty or innocent, but the FACT is he sat 18 years for something he did not do...DNA prooved him to be INNOCENT...what about the tax dollars spent for 18 YEARS HOUSING AN INNOCENT MAN!!!
Sep 28, 2009 at 9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
make that 2...
Sep 28, 2009 at 9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
I for one think the Wisconsin taxpayers have wasted enough tax dollars on trials for this piece of trash.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.