Avery Case Defense Lawyer Dean Strang Speaks Out



Comments (22)

Comment Feed

All things considered,

All things considered, absolutely Mr. Strang's part in this matter is excellent however I think his ruminating on his customer's conceivable blame is ill-advised, a great deal more so than the "awful frame" of vouching for his guilelessness. That is on account of a Best Lawyers has a guardian obligation to his customer or previous customer to at all times demonstration in support of his interests for the situation, not against them.For details visit http://www.gaylordpopp.com/

Gaylord Popp 152 days ago

Thanks for so many important

Thanks for so many important and informative points. A lawyer can help us out and so many ways and hiring their services would benefit us greatly. These points would be helpful for the lawyers like facebook.com/public/Bechara-Tarabay and many others too.

Hannah Gaja 157 days ago

Do you defend in car accident

Do you defend in car accident cases and law suits against other lawyers. That has wrongfully handled a case. Please respond

Lawanda 275 days ago

Was DNA taken from the bones

Was DNA taken from the bones to verify they were actually the bones of Teresa Halbach? How did the prosecution positively identify the bones?

Laura more than 1 year ago

Only police after watching

Only solice after watching the whole documentary, is that in our justice system, there still exist people like Dean Strang.
I have been thinking about the Avery's since I watched and wish no one has to go through such agony, wondering how many murderers are out there free, how many innocent are jailed and nobody knows. But what I take from this interview is when dean ask us to do the responsibility , if we are called as juror. "presumption of innocence unless proven guilty".

Imran. more than 1 year ago

I tried teaching about our

I tried teaching about our system of justice in my high school government classes via mock trials and by showing various cases that Frontline covered several years ago. Many of the outcomes were similar to the Avery and Dassey case. Those prosecuted were usually victims of a poor education and lacking of finances for proper representation. What I tried to emphasize that when our system fails and we send an innocent person to jail we also allow the guilty to continue committing crimes. Prosecutors sometimes allow themselves to be swayed by an effort to please the public that wants to be quickly assured that the criminal has been caught and removed from society. We have far too many innocent people in our jails and prisons. We need to insist that the burden be on society to prove the accused is guilty; not that the innocent have the burden to prove their innocence. The Avery and Dassey cases were corrupted by the procedures used by the prosecution.

Don Myers more than 1 year ago

I am so proud of you for

I am so proud of you for being strong enough to stand up for right. Besides the Innocent Project I know of no one else who will. My son was trash talked to the media for over 20 years by fabricating prosecution and convicted of the murder he did not commit as well. His case is before review of Judge Butler in Meade county Ky as we speak for a new trial request of the Innocent Project which has taken many years to secure even release of the hairs for DNA testing. The co-defendants curiosity with satanism sparked the media explosion that has just recently stopped. Despite evidence proving they were not there (time frame, foot prints, tire tracks, hairs, etc) the prosecution hammered away at it just like there was real evidence, paid a jail house snitch time off from his sentence to lie. Which was proven "after" the conviction. Despite the fact that the parents of witness said they gave proof to the Sheriff Joe Greer, prior to the trial. The original judge Sam Monarch still did not right the wrong despite his comment after the conviction that he could not believe they convicted Jeff Clark, my son (which was seen on trial tapes) Prosecutor Kenton Smith was overheard declaring he could convict a "bologna sandwich" in Meade county. A ex girlfriend that my son was to testify against for child abuse was used to en-flame the jury against him as well as prosecution lying to jury about a hair found on the pants of the victim actually calling it a match to the co-defendant when there was no way to do that sort of DNA testing back then. Since it has been proven that it was not. A match. Since then the ex girlfriend has been convicted of child molestation. It has been proven that the prosecutor did give time off the jail house liars sentence. That the detective who made up bizarre statements from the co-defendant is under review for falsifying evidence and coercing false confessions in other cases was a lead investigator in this case. That not one piece of satanic stuff belonged to my son - which was lied to by prosecution to the media and spread across the United States as factual. Now the media is just remaining quiet. Rather than apologizing. Or correcting their bizarre erroneous writings of over a 20 yr time span. There needs to be accountability for corrupt prosecution. Scrutiny of practices. God bless you for standing up for what is right.

Jody Cochran more than 1 year ago

Well done, Mr. Strang. I

Well done, Mr. Strang. I commend you for your determination and your strong sense of justice - or, in this case, your outrage at such an obvious case of intentional injustice.

I watched "Making A Murderer" all the way through, twice, and found myself having to hold back from screaming at the TV. The unrelenting interrogation of Mr. Avery during his first trial, the faked evidence, and the deliberate failure to check out any other leads - particularly the one that ultimately lead to the arrest of the real attacker and the exoneration of Mr. Avery - I found to be a series of extraordinary failures of what should be competent police work, and further, the utter disinterest on the court's part to take such egregious failures into account, gave the impression that no entity within the entire Wisconsin law enforcement/Justice system, including the higher courts, gave a damn about whether Mr. Avery was actually guilty, or not. The courts' actions - or failure to act - came across as just one more incident of law enforcement doing everything within its vast power to cover it's own ass, and reinforce in the minds of citizens that all aspects of America's criminal justice system are essentially, infallible.

The media's role in this case - as in most cases of criminal prosecution - was despicable, dishonest, and in light of the consequences in most cases, criminal.

The circumstances of Mr. Avery's second arrest and conviction, and that of his nephew, Mr. Dassy, is so far beyond the pale it's almost unbelievable that anyone within the criminal justice system could have viewed the total lack of evidence surrounding the supposed killing of the young woman - no blood evidence at the supposed two scenes of the murder (the bed in Mr. Avery's trailer and the garage floor), the total lack of any sign of Ms. Holbach's DNA inside either "murder scene," the fact that after months of intensive searches of the Avery property the only time any "evidence" was found was immediately following the presence of two local cops who had been intimately involved in the first wrongful conviction of Mr. Avery, and later in court, the DAs inconsistent and mutually exclusive theories of how and where the crime took place, the blatantly obvious lying by a number of prosecution witnesses (virtually all members of the same law enforcement community
involved in the first wrongful conviction), after all that, could still find Mr. Avery was "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

As you so eloquently put it in one of the last interviews in the film, "it scares the hell out of me." Yes, indeed, it scared the hell out of me , as well. And it should scare the hell out of any American citizen watching.

A little self-bio: I'm a 69 yr. old army veteran (65-69) and the son of a career U.S. Army Military Policeman. Growing up listening to my father's descriptions of his work gave me a deep and abiding skepticism of the words of any authority. My own army experience strengthened this skepticism and the few run-ins I've had with police and courts over that last 45 years has done nothing to lessen my attitude. IN 1972 I was "busted" for manufacture and possession of marijuana (I was growing a few plants in my back yard). My "trial" lasted 12 minutes, during which the arresting officers lied, the prosecutor lied, my coat appointed lawyer didn't say more than 5 words, the judge read a newspaper during the proceedings and looked up at the end, asked the prosecutor, "You done? Guilty on all counts." Guilty of two felonies and a misdemeanor, facing 11 years in jail.

I got a new lawyer, filed for an appeal, insisted to my new lawyer that I get on the stand and speak directly to the judge, something my first lawyer talked me out of. In the hearing the judge dismissed our appeal and turned the proceeding into a sentencing hearing. The prosecutor repeated his original lies and then I got on the stand (against my new layer's advice).

Between the first and second court appearances, in the state of Maryland, a "pre-sentence investigation report" was required. This gave the judge a chance to look at a defendant's record, history of employment, military records, etc. I had no prior arrest record, a good employment history, and my military records were stamped Top Secret and sealed from view (I worked for the National Security Agency during my military time). Between my secret military service and my 1 and 1/2 hours of testimony on the stand, during which I spoke directly to the judge, I was "let-off" with a $200 fine and two years unsupervised probation (the prosecutor wanted at least 5 yrs.).

I was lucky, most are not. I was well educated and skeptical to begin with and I knew how to talk to authority. Most don't. Having a Top Secret set of records impressed the probation investigators, the judge, and nearly everyone else in the system. Most defendants don't have such backgrounds.

The Avery, Dassy cases represent two of the most outrageous miscarriages of justice I've seen, read, or heard about in more than 40 years of studying the nature of power and it's effects on human beings.

Norman Harman more than 1 year ago

I just captured this whole

I just captured this whole interview in my personal record to appreciate from time to time since this is one of the most impressive interviews convinced me that still there is a hope in human beings

KC from ROK more than 1 year ago

Hello KC: We'd like to

Hello KC: We'd like to include your comment in an upcoming magazine issue, if you're willing to provide your current location. Do you mind including your current city and state in a reply to this comment or contacting us at the following link? Thank you! http://www.progressive.org/contact

Editorial team more than 1 year ago

I am in awe of your attitude

I am in awe of your attitude and restraint. You express exactly how I feel about this subject. Over the past 10 years, the public and the press have become more receptive to the idea of police and prosecutor misconduct. The Innocence Project, DNA exonerations, and dashcam video have everything to do with it. There have been some huge brutality cases like Rodney King and Kelly Thomas. But the rash of highly publicized officer involved shootings of unarmed people over the past 2 years is unprecedented. The killings have always happened, it's the news coverage and public interest that's unprecedented.

I've been following wrongful convictions and police and prosecutor misconduct for many years. The Jeanine Nicarico murder case sparked my interest. It was a hideous circus that hurt everyone involved except the actual murderer. Police lied, hid exculpatory evidence, fabricated evidence, and conspired with prosecutors to make it work. They were finally charged and tried, but acquitted. At that time, people could not believe police would do that. The falsely accused men were exonerated and released from death row. It was the case that ended the death penalty in Illinois, ironically saving the life of the real killer. Just one case, but it illustrated almost everything that's wrong with the system.

Thank you, you are an inspiration.

Mark Wells more than 1 year ago

I applaud you Mr. Strang for

I applaud you Mr. Strang for not writing a book about your case. I have a family member who was wrongly accused of 1st degree premeditated murder. Both her attorney and the prosecutor in her case are releasing books that are indeed their own opinions and prejudices. This undoubtedly have an effect on her appeals.

Annie more than 1 year ago

Another great interview from

Another great interview from Dean Strang.
Given his call to improve the system, I'd like to raise this issue: pre-trial publicity.

I think most viewers would agree that the Kratz March press conference was totally over the top, prejudicial and poisoned any possible jury pool in the state. Jerry Buting has said as much when people ask him why they didn't use a non-Manitowoc jury -- it wouldn't have mattered.

So here's my suggestion for system change. Disallow pre-jury selection, possibly just post-charges, media 'coverage' by anyone involved in the case from either side, state or defence. That would protect the rights of the defendant from such outrageous behaviour by the state ("evidence" presented out of court that wasn't used at all IN the trial).

In Australia, where I now live, this is called sub judice. The media has tight restrictions on what can be reported about the accused and the crime outside of court without being held in violation of some law as long as the court is active (not sure what the exact law is, but it must be pretty strict because the media here does NOT violate it). We still have free speech and all that, so it's not an absolute restriction or control, but it is a reasonable balance of interests of fairness and justice, something that the 'innocent until proven guilty' value would benefit from. If the state of Wisconsin and others can limit the third party liability defence strategy, then they should also be gagged from public exposure of unproven/untested aspects of the case. (Strang and Buting couldn't introduce evidence that someone else could have done it unless they included proven motive, while the state didn't have to prove a motive for Avery).

If anyone reading this is interested in pursuing Dean's request, consider sharing this idea. I'm sure the extravaganza press would hate it, but that's just money. With this change we're talking about people's life and liberty, for themselves and their families. These cases have multiple victims. Don't forget that.

JLWhitaker more than 1 year ago

Hello JL: We'd like to

Hello JL: We'd like to publish your comment in an upcoming issue of our magazine if you can provide your current city. Do you mind telling us either by replying to this comment or emailing it to us at the following link? Thank you!


Editorial team more than 1 year ago

Well, certainly Mr. Strang's

Well, certainly Mr. Strang's role in this matter is laudable but I think his ruminating on his client's possible guilt is improper, much more so than the "bad form" of vouching for his innocence. That is because a lawyer has a fiduciary duty to his client-or former client- to at all times act in support of his interests in the case, not against them.

Joe Hansem more than 1 year ago

Great read. I'd like to know

Great read. I'd like to know why they didn't put Avery on the stand?

Joe more than 1 year ago

Mr. Strang, If I am ever

Mr. Strang, If I am ever wrongfully accused of a crime (perish the thought!), I hope I am fortunate to have counsel that is even half as talented and dedicated to justice as you are.

Billy more than 1 year ago

Well done, Bill. Mr. Strang

Well done, Bill. Mr. Strang comes off as a thoughtful, compassionate, and insightful man. I haven't watched the documentary, nor do I know much more about the case than what's been available in local media, but it's quite plain from this interview that Mr. Strang gave 100% to his client. That's what a good attorney does. The fact that he refuses to profit from his client's conviction increases my admiration of his integrity.

Jan Tessier more than 1 year ago

I started watching this

I started watching this documentary last week and today my day off I had to finish it, wow I'm hooked on it, I couldn't stop watching. If this man is innocent and I think he is I don't know how he gets the strength to carry on. Maybe his excellent lawyers which if I was a juror would have voted not guilty, the prosecution was so corrupt never in my life have I seen such injustice. They were so embarrassed by his first wrongful conviction they couldn't stand it, three of them will get what they deserve because God doesn't like ugly. Unbelievable story. I've already seen how Katzs name is mud he's the first more to come. Pray for Justice and his nephew and Parents

Lori Hockenberry more than 1 year ago

Ugh. This is such a

Ugh. This is such a wounderful interview. This guy is just so consistently smart, poignant, lucid and to the point. Without ever being polemic. I love reading or listening to him. Thanks for this!

Een Student more than 1 year ago

Excellent article, I like

Excellent article, I like Strang's approach to the whole publicity of the trial, it is refreshing to say the least, especially compared to most of the other participants.

As someone who is a fixer, i.e. sees a problem and tries to fix it, even if it isn't my own problem. I definitely, saw the documentary, and immediately tried to "help", perhaps my intentions are good but need to be directed to something more local to me.

If ever called to be a Juror, I will certainly try and remain unbiased and presume the defendant(s) is innocent, and hold the state(prosecution) responsible to convince me otherwise. Especially now that I have an idea of what the aftermath of the alternative is.

Jason P. more than 1 year ago

Cheers to that takeaway.

Cheers to that takeaway.

Heather M more than 1 year ago

Built with Metro Publisher™