Brendan Dassey Case

On Jan 30, 2013, the Wisconsin court of Appeals declined Brendan Dassey’s plea for a Judgement convicting him of first degree intentional homicide and second degree assault, and mutilation of a corpse, all as party to a crime. Dassey wanted the court to reverse his conviction, grant him a new trial or hearing all of which were declined by the court.
Dassey, during the trial, had argued that the confession he made on Mar 1, 2006 was involuntary and should have been suppressed. He claimed that his interviewers had used tactics such as fact feeding and suggestions of leniency to lead him into making those inculpatory statements upon which his conviction was based.
The court’s view was of the contrary, stating that Dassey did not appear to be intimidated nor were any promises of leniency made to him, the acts of telling Brendan that “his cooperation would be to his benefit”, that they were “in his corner”, and that they would “go to bat” for him, were all adjudged not to be coercive by the court. Rightly, the assessment of Dassey’s voluntariness by the

He was not able to show by clear convincing evidence that his pre-trial counsel in the person of Robert Kachinsky had an actual “conflict of interest” nor that the advocacy rendered to him was adversely affected, such that it was detrimental to his case. Dassey was also required to show that he was prejudiced by deficiencies in the performances offered by trial counsel, Attorneys Mark Fremgen and Ray Edelstein. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,687 (1984). The court “strongly presumed” that counsel rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable judgement. Id. At 637 because Dassey failed to sufficiently show otherwise. Based on these circumstances the court concluded that the defendant was not entitled to a new trial or