Much discussion has resulted from the ten-segment Netflix documentary Making a Murderer, which focused on the convictions of Wisconsinite Steven Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey. While this riveting documentary didn’t address all the evidence involved in this real-live case, it did spark troubling questions about the criminal justice process itself: How precise is our system of determining if one is guilty or innocent? How safe is our criminal justice system from possible corruption and bias at the local level? How much of our system is fueled by a human need to believe that the dangerous people are safely locked up and cannot harm us? And are remedies like the appeals process or habeas corpus adequate for such justice errors?These are not mere abstract questions, for doubts and mistakes regarding guilt and innocence have existed for as long as criminal justice has. The trial and evidence leading to Minnesota’s first individual execution left major doubts as to the convicted’s guilt. As DNA technology emerged, many criminal convictions were found to be erroneous, including Avery’s earlier conviction. Most wrongful convictions, however, involve non-DNA factors.
Avery’s situation is not cause for Minnesotans to feel smug and safe in their own state from justice failures like wrongful convictions. The case of Richard Dzubiak was one of a St. Paul man convicted of killing his mother by pushing her down the stairs. It later came to light that the original forensic report had been misread, and that the victim had in fact died from a fatal self-inflicted dose of antidepressants. Dzubiak then filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and receive a new trial, which was granted and resulted in his acquittal. Another St. Paul man, Sherman Townsend, was charged with burglary of a Minneapolis residence on the word of the real burglar. While Townsend was in prison serving the resulting sentence he received as part of a plea bargain, he met the actual burglar who was serving time on a different offense. Fortunately this actual burglar stepped forward this time and testified that he had in fact committed the burglary, which led to an agreement between Townsend and prosecutors to have Townsend’s sentence commuted. (It should be noted here that Townsend was an ex-con when the burglary occurred, which likely weakened his bargaining position with prosecutors.)
If you want to read more on the history and theory of wrongful convictions, consider these titles available at the Minnesota State Law Library: Examining Wrongful Convictions: Stepping Back, Moving Morward (2014) by A. Redlich, et al., and False Justice: Eight Myths that Convict the Innocent (2011) by Jim and Nancy Petro. Also check out the National Registry of Exonerations at the University of Michigan Law School. If you or a relative has experienced what they believe is a wrongful conviction, know that challenging it is not a small legal task. You are strongly encouraged to work with a lawyer when exploring what possible post-conviction remedies you may have. You can find a criminal lawyer through the Ramsey County Bar Association, or through the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Also consider contacting the Minnesota Innocence Project.
