7.Jury-Out Arguments on Investigative Bias and Prior Conviction
25 lines(Jurors out at 3:56 p.m.)
THE COURT: Mr. Kratz.
MR. KRATZ: Thank you, Judge. The record should reflect that this witness has been asked and has, in fact, left the -- the courtroom. Mr. Strang, now, for, uh, at least the second time, uh, and the, uh, first time with this witness, has been allowed to introduce the subject of investigative bias. That is, uh, been allowed with this witness to suggest that there was better reason for the law enforcement officials to be looking at Mr. Zipperer rather than that of Mr. Avery.
Apparently, Mr. Strang's suggestion to this witness was because Mr. Avery was seemingly more polite, uh, that the officers, uh, still focused on Mr. Avery. As this Court knows, uh, the State had, uh, asked the Court to, um, reject the notion of, uh, institutional bias, uh, and I think, uh, with specific witnesses, that has been addressed.
But this investigative bias, or the distinction that Mr. Strang now makes, is something that the State feels, uh, unable to meet. Feels unable to address. Uh, I suspect that this witness, if asked and if allowed to testify truthfully, would give good reasons why Mr. Avery was a suspect.
As between Mr. Zipperer and Mr. Avery, only one of those two people was sent to prison for a violent felony offense, pointing a firearm at a woman. That seems relevant, Judge.
And with Mr. Strang and his suggestion now that there was, uh, seemingly no reason to look at Mr. Avery compared to Mr. Zipperer, I want to ask this witness that question. I want to be able, with Mr. Strang having opened that door, uh, to be able to allow Mr., uh, Remiker, on behalf of his Department, to suggest why they might be asking is Mr. Avery in custody, or why Mr. Avery was being, uh, uh, interviewed or investigated. Uh, I think that's going to be the answer.
If we ask the Court if I'm allowed, uh, to ask that question, we certainly wouldn't have done it, and I've abided by the Court's pretrial ruling regarding the other acts evidence, but on that specific count, that is, that specific felony offense for which we know, uh, included, uh, imprisonment for Mr. Avery, that now becomes relevant, and the State should be allowed at this time, uh, to inquire, in a limited fashion, as to what these detectives knew of Mr. Avery's violent history.
THE COURT: Mr. Strang?
MR. STRANG: Thank you, Your Honor. Uh, and I -- I appreciate Mr. Kratz raising this, uh, out of the jury's presence. Um, I still don't think there's any linkage at all here in this trial, uh, between the 1985 felony conviction involving different people and different conduct, or a different victim, if you will, and different conduct all together, and this investigation, particularly where the visit to the Zipperers, and the evidence about the Zipperers, is limited to November 3.
And we have both Detective Remiker and Lieutenant Lenk going out of their way on direct examination to testify that, boy, on November 4, you know, we either thought Calumet County was barking up the wrong tree, or we thought Mr. Avery had nothing to do with -- with it, so I don't think I've opened any back door to bringing in, um, a 22-year-old felony conviction.
I -- I just -- I just don't think any door to that has been opened at all. Um, I don't anticipate there'll be further in evidence about the Zipperers, but I don't know that it -- it even matters.
THE COURT: Mr. Kratz?
MR. KRATZ: Well, Judge, uh, I -- I can't -- and -- and with -- with apol -- apologies to the Court in oversimplifying this term, uh, I can't see how else to address the concept of poor Steven Avery. Why would you be looking at poor Steven Avery, uh, to have committed this offense?
There's very, very good reasons why law enforcement, because of what they knew about his prior violent felony history -- there my be other reasons, Judge, and, perhaps, we'll need an offer of proof for me to do that outside of the presence of the jury, but we should at least be allowed to inquire.
THE COURT: Well, maybe I'm missing something here, but, um, seems to me, as I understood the testimony of this witness, it may be that, uh, Mr. Jacobs thought for some reason that the State should be focusing on Mr. Avery. But as I understood Detective Remiker's testimony, at least at the time, he was not. He attempted to distance himself from any, uh, suggestion that at the -- at the time of the -- of the, um, conversation that was from which we heard the audio today, that, um -- that, uh, Mr. Remiker had, uh, focused on Steven Avery.
MR. KRATZ: I'm -- I'm heartened that the Court may not have bought into Mr. Strang's cross-examination. I'm not sure that the jury's in the same position, though. They -- they certainly may have, Judge, when Mr. Strang was allowed on cross-examination to continue to talk about, um, how uncooperative Mr. Zipperer was, and why would you then be going back to talk to Mr. Avery?
THE COURT: Well, you know, on redirect you can heighten that if you wish. But that was my understanding. Uh, uh, I don't remember the exact quotes that Mr. Remiker gave, but I just -- at this point this witness didn't support the premise that, uh, at least he, as a member of the Manitowoc Sheriff's Department, was locked in on Steven Avery.
Um, if there's nothing else, we'll bring the jurors back in and bring, uh, the witness back in for redirect.
MR. KRATZ: I -- I assume the Court's denying my request, then, to go into those other matters --
THE COURT: Yes, I am.
MR. KRATZ: -- what -- what they knew about his history?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KRATZ: All right.
MR. STRANG: Um, maybe we could get a sense of the timing of the rest of the day?
THE COURT: Mr. Kratz, how much time do you think you'll be, uh, doing your redirect?
MR. KRATZ: Can't be any more than ten minutes, Judge.
THE COURT: And, uh, who's the next witness?
MR. KRATZ: Uh, Deputy Kucharski, who has, um, lots of photos and evidence that's going to be introduced. I don't know if the Court wants to break at -- I don't know if there's going to be any -- any recross, but...
THE COURT: Well, we'll see what time we have left after, Mr., um, Remiker, but I don't know that it will pay to start another witness by that time.
MR. KRATZ: That's fine. Thank you, Judge.
(Jurors in at 4:04 p.m.)
THE COURT: You may be seated. Uh, Mr. Kratz, does the State have any redirect?
MR. KRATZ: Yes, Judge.