Avery And Dassey's Trial

and he was seething with anger having to even provide this vindication to essentially clear two officer’s names.
The eighth principle is the right of the defendant to be brought before a court. This was proven throughout the documentary; Avery and Dassey’s rights to a public trial by jury were upheld. This is corresponded with our seventh amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is the right of the accused to a trial by jury, these are due process rights. Avery’s trial was very lengthy and both he and Dassey were present during their trials. There were not any unusual reactions to this aside from Avery and Dassey’s confusion to being arrested and tried in court. Avery’s family members such as his parents, acted with misperception in every …show more content…
The prosecutors and law enforcement officials want to see a conviction, the defense attorneys and the defendant’s family want to see a not guilty verdict. The judge and the jury are supposed to be neutral figures that listen to the allegations and resistance to them, and then make a decision based on their own opinion of what they saw and heard. According to the Law Library - American Law and Legal Information, in an article titled “Criminal Trial - The Atmosphere Surrounding The Trial” it is stated that “It is obvious that even if a trial is technically correct in terms of evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and other rulings during the trial itself, a trial can still be unfair because it takes place in an atmosphere that is prejudicial to the defendant.” This means we can have trials that are precise within the rules of our legal system, and yet they still can be prejudicial to the defendant which is a fundamental flaw in our …show more content…
I believe this can be argued both ways in terms of whether it was ignored or proven in the documentary, with the keyword being “proper” in Ashworth’s principle. Avery was able to use his settlement from his lawsuit against Manitowoc County for wrongful conviction to hire his attorneys, Strang and Buting. He was represented in court by two highly experienced lawyers that believed he was innocent, so in this case there was no error in justice because he had money for his own attorneys. Regarding Dassey, it is a little more difficult because there is conflicting information throughout the documentary. Dassey was questioned numerous times by the police without counsel present, and this led to him incriminating himself. It was even said that Dassey’s appointed counsel knew he was being questioned and chose not to be present. Dassey filed a motion for a new attorney but it was denied because the only reason provided was that Dassey felt his lawyer believed he was guilty. This was an injustice to Dassey, defendants should be able to be represented by an attorney they trust and are confident in. Often times, court appointed attorneys have an overwhelming caseload, making it difficult to have time to spend on each case. This really shows that money can sometimes be the key in an innocent verdict, obviously not with Avery’s case but if Dassey was able to receive counsel he trusted, he may have been able to receive a lesser