Netflix’s Making a Murderer Brings Justice Issues to the Spotlight
My fellow peers were right in recommending Making a Murderer as an engaging and compelling docu-drama narrowing in on our perceptions of administration of justice. Netflix introduced the documentary in late 2015, just in time for law students to binge on the entire collection, post exam-stress and right before the new term. It seemed to be the consensus, at least among my peers, that Steven Avery is the harrowing example of how deeply a targeted abuse of power can harm in our society, compromising the administration of justice.
Episode 1 of Making a Murderer chronicles the wrongful conviction of Steven Avery in the 1985 brutal attack and attempted rape of Penny Beernsteen. The series sets off by detailing the Avery family history: The family was not well received within the community of Minitowoc County, Wisconsin, viewed as non-conformist, troubled, dealing in “junk”, poor, and formally uneducated. The first episode makes explicit mention that Steven Avery’s IQ was restricted to about 70. By 23 years old, he fathered 5 children, the youngest of which were twins, born only days before Penny’s attack. Having seen her assailant’s face, Penny was able to provide police with identifying details, including eye-color, and build of her attacker, and some investigating officers supposed that the assailant was known to them, based on the description and the nature of the crime, as Gregory Allen, who was suspected for recent and similar crimes in the vicinity of Penny’s attack. Despite these suspicions and an abundance of evidence to the contrary, Steven, whose physical appearance was inconsistent with Penny’s initial descriptions of her attacker, was detained, and tried for the crime. Despite questionable evidence, and the evidence supporting Steven’s alibi, including multiple witnesses and receipts, Steven was convicted and sentenced to 36 years in prison.
In the years that followed sentencing, the Avery family exhausted their resources appealing Steven’s conviction, each time without success. Steven’s mother sought to garner attention to the issue of the questionable conviction by appealing to media programs, again without success. The matter eventually became known to the Wisconsin Innocence Project which undertook various efforts in examining evidence such as fingernail scrapings and body-hair. Initial efforts with the fingernail scrapings were unsuccessful in firmly eliminating Steven as the assailant, however, the subsequent investigation of the body hair revealed that Steven was not the attacker, and it was, as suspected by some officers 18 years back, Gregory Allen. Even more disturbing could be that within the archived box, containing the evidence was a file containing information about Gregory Allen, and a similar crime he committed in the area of Penny’s attack. Netflix offers, based on the discovery of the Allen file, that, Gregory Allen was suspected of the crime at the time of the initial investigation, or at least investigators ought to have known that Gregory Allen served as a potential suspect, and that this information was rejected in favor of targeting Steven. It’s not really clear from the first episode whether any steps were taken in investigation of Gregory Allen as a suspect. We are rather left with the impression that there is an obstruction and misadministration of justice respecting Steven Avery, as being targeted and framed for the crime by the Minotowoc County police department.
The revelation of the body hair findings and investigation ultimately led to the exoneration of Steven Avery in 2003 for the crimes committed against Penny Beernsteen in 1985. Steven’s family commences a civil suit associated with the 18-year imprisonment, seeking $thirty six million in damages. The Minotowoc County police department’s 1985 investigation of Steven is formally probed, and it initially appears as though there will be some redress for Steven for his sufferings. But that is not necessarily the case. The inquiry into the Avery/Beernsteen investigation yields results that there was no misconduct on the part of the police department. Avery continues to reside in Minotowoc County and is warned by his lawyers as to the publicity his civil claim might generate against him. Only two years after his exoneration and release, Steven is detained by Minotowoc County enforcement, tried and convicted for the sexual assault and murder of Teresa Holbach. Some of the evidence surrounding this conviction is again, questionable and possibly inconclusive in establishing Steven’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, some of the methods used by police, including the coercion of Steven’s young cousin, a 16-year-old boy with a learning disability, into a confession as an accomplice are outright inappropriate.
Some have argued that evidence presented by Netflix is done so in a biased fashion, geared to eliciting sympathy and in suggesting that Avery is not guilty of Teresa Holbach’s murder. Websites including Reddit, and articles placed in the National Post offer alternative evidence pointing in the direction of Steven’s guilt. Perhaps we all need a reminder that we don’t need to be convinced of Steven’s guilt or innocence, but what is required is the raising of a reasonable doubt that he committed these crimes. It appears from the docu-drama, that the evidence preserves that doubt.
Show producer Ricciardi has discussed a juror’s recent disclosure to her that there was pressure, even outright duress, to convict Steven of the Holbach murder. As a law student, that’s a disheartening revelation about the justice system, one that I hope is truly ill-founded. What’s also frustrating and disheartening, is that Steven’s challenge is one amongst many. Only days post-holiday return, and at the start of my ELGC semester 2 course, I was introduced to the matter of R v. Hanemaayer, 2008 ONCA 580. In this matter, Hanemaayer seeks pardon for conviction of a crime committed in 1987, relating to a home intrusion intentioned to assault a young female in her room. Fortunately for the complainant, her mother was home, and attended her daughter’s room on hearing the intrusion, where she was met with the assailant and studied his face. Hanemaayer was detained as bearing resemblance to the mother’s description. Initially, Hanemaayer denied involvement in the criminal activity but later changed his position on influence from his lawyer. The reasoning behind the change was that the complainant’s mother was a credible witness, and that Hanemaayer was led to believe, by his lawyer, that he would receive some mercy from the court on a concession of guilt, rather than fighting the system resulting in a harsher sentence. Hanemaayer served a sentence of two years less a day, and it is later discovered that he was in fact, not guilty, and that the crime was actually perpetuated by Paul Bernardo, who was at the time the Scarborough rapist. This Canadian example, though not as severe as Steven Avery’s, also darkens my perception of the justice system. As a future lawyer, I want to trust that what is being articulated in our courts, and by my peers and fellow lawyers, is in pursuit of justice. I would hate to think that a lawyer would convince an innocent man to falsely concede himself as guilty in order to service a reduced sentence. But, if this is the reality of our judicial system, then I at least feel a responsibility to react and respond to such misadministration. Where can I start? www.innocenceproject.org