Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Confession

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Brendan Dassey

Case No.: 16-3397

Officials: ROVNER, WILLIAMS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Confession

After many hours of questioning and interrogation spread over several days, Dassey confessed that he, along with Avery, had raped and brutally murdered Halbach and then burned her body in an on‐site fire pit. By the time of the trial, Dassey had recanted his confession, and the State had failed to find any physical evidence linking him to the crime, but he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison nonetheless. After appeals and post‐conviction proceedings in the state court failed to bring him relief. The state court on post‐conviction review stated the generalized standard for evaluating the voluntariness of a confession– totality of the circumstances–but failed to note how that juvenile confession requires more care and failed to apply the standard at all. Dassey filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court, claiming that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel and that his confession was not voluntarily given. The district court, concluding as we do that the state court did not apply the proper standard, granted the writ. Despite the limited role of a federal court on habeas review we must affirm. If a state court can evade all federal review by merely parroting the correct Supreme Court law, then the writ of habeas corpus is meaningless.

All agree that the governing constitutional standard for the voluntariness of a confession depends on the totality of the circumstances. The state courts recognized that standard and applied it reasonably to the facts before them. As in most cases on voluntariness of confessions, relevant factors point in conflicting directions. A few factors and passages from Dassey’s confession support the majority’s view that the confession was not voluntary. Many other factors and passages support the state courts’ view that, overall, the confession was voluntary. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals could have been much more thorough in its discussion, but its conclusion was within the bounds of reason. It was not contrary to or an un‐ reasonable application of controlling Supreme Court precedent. We should reverse the district court’s grant of the writ of habeas corpus.

Affirmed

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.