The Making a Murderer Effect
Interrogation methods used improperly can cause a multitude of issues including involuntary or false confessions and make it increasingly difficult to identify the truth or obtain reliable information in an investigation. This topic has been widely discussed in the recent months due to the popular Netflix documentary “Making a Murderer” in regard to the interrogations of Brendan Dassey.
Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, the Juvenile Law Center and University of Virginia Professor of Law, Brandon L. Garrett filed an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on behalf of Dassey in December, 2016. The WZ team is proud to have stood behind the integrity of ethical, moral and legally acceptable interview and interrogation methods.
The Amicus Brief was provided to the Seventh Circuit in response to the State of Wisconsin’s appeal of an August 12, 2016 decision by a Federal Magistrate Judge. The decision supported the claims by Dassey that his confession was involuntary for a variety of reasons as noted within the amicus brief.
The brief highlights critical risks that interrogators have made when dealing with a subject such as Dassey; making false promises or suggestions of leniency, threats of consequences, and lack of considerations of his age, intellectual capacity and social behaviors when dealing with authority.