DefendantDefense

Brendan Dassey

Steven Avery's nephew, convicted of Teresa Halbach's murder in a case centered on his disputed confessions.

618 lines·69 proceedings·65 mentions·2 trials

About

Brendan Dassey was tried for Teresa Halbach's murder in 2007. Prosecutors alleged that he participated with Steven Avery in the assault, killing and concealment of the crimes. Dassey denied participating and testified that he had made up details in his recorded interviews with investigators. He said he had helped Avery tend a bonfire and clean a garage-floor spill, but did not know what the spill was.

The reliability and corroboration of his statements became central disputes. Jurors viewed portions of an interview, while the defense challenged investigators' suggestions and changes in Dassey's answers. Defense witnesses described his language and learning difficulties, and psychologist Robert Gordon gave a qualified opinion about his susceptibility to suggestion. A DNA analyst found no tested profile consistent with Dassey, but cautioned that this did not establish whether he had been at a crime scene.

After allowing an amendment of the sexual-assault count, the court denied the defense's motion to dismiss it for lack of independent corroboration. The jury found Dassey guilty on all three counts. He did not testify in Avery's trial, where his recorded statements were unavailable to the State; testimony there addressed his movements on October 31 and his DNA reference sample.

Trial Record (69)

AverySteven AveryFeb 12, 2007 – Mar 18, 2007

Brendan Dassey's name figured in the party-to-a-crime instructions in Steven Avery's 2007 trial; the court used “another” instead for the opening instructions. Witnesses and counsel also referred to his movements, a DNA reference sample, and statements the State acknowledged were unavailable.

Day 1

Feb 12, 2007

Charge ConferencePreliminary-Instruction Conference on Party-to-the-Crime LanguageMentioned

Summary

The court replaced Brendan Dassey's name with “another” in the preliminary party-to-a-crime instructions but deferred disputed unanimity language.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

OpeningDefense Opening StatementDean A. StrangMentioned

Summary

Strang argued that Halbach left the Avery property and previewed the defense's challenges to the investigation and physical evidence.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 2

Feb 13, 2007

ProceduralArguments on objections to the defense opening statementMentioned

Summary

The State challenged three aspects of the defense opening; Strang responded, and the court made no new ruling in this exchange.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 3

Feb 14, 2007

DirectBobby Dassey — Direct Examination by Kenneth R. KratzBobby DasseyKenneth R. KratzMentioned

Summary

Bobby Dassey described the photographer's visit, the SUV's presence when he left to hunt, a later remark by Steven, and property features shown in photographs.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectTimothy Austin — Direct Examination by Kenneth R. KratzTimothy AustinKenneth R. KratzMentioned

Summary

Austin explained the property's survey measurements and scene models; image exhibits were admitted, but the marked animation could not be played.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 4

Feb 15, 2007

CrossBobby Dassey — CrossBobby DasseyDean A. StrangMentioned

Summary

Strang tested Bobby Dassey's account of the garage remark, what he observed before leaving to hunt, and when he woke on October 31.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 10

Feb 23, 2007

DirectSherry Culhane — DirectSherry CulhaneNorman A. GahnMentioned

Summary

Culhane presented DNA comparisons from the RAV4, charred remains, bullet fragment, hood latch, and key, and disclosed contamination in a bullet-test negative control.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

ProceduralEnd-of-day jury admonition after Culhane’s direct examinationMentioned

Summary

The court gave jurors weekend instructions, then admitted forensic exhibits and reviewed outstanding exhibit status. The defense reserved its position on whether five Crime Lab reports should go to the jury during deliberations.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 11

Feb 26, 2007

CrossSherry Culhane — CrossSherry CulhaneJerome F. ButingMentioned

Summary

Buting challenged the limits of Culhane's DNA conclusions and her bullet-fragment result, focusing on a contaminated control, a protocol deviation, and its omission from her final report.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 12

Feb 27, 2007

DirectBlaine Dassey — DirectBlaine DasseyKenneth R. KratzMentioned

Summary

Blaine Dassey described Steven Avery putting a bag into a burning barrel after school and a later bonfire behind the garage, but could not identify the person he saw near the nighttime fire.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossBlaine Dassey — CrossBlaine DasseyDean A. StrangMentioned

Summary

Strang tested Blaine Dassey's fire account against earlier police interviews and questioned him about a confrontational November 15 interview; the court limited how a police report could be used to refresh his recollection.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RecrossBlaine Dassey — RecrossBlaine DasseyDean A. StrangMentioned

Summary

Blaine confirmed seeing one person at the bonfire and speaking with Brendan inside the house after returning home.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 18

Mar 7, 2007

DirectMichael Riddle — DirectMichael RiddleThomas J. FallonMentioned

Summary

Riddle described RAV4 fingerprint processing, a qualified headboard identification, and the lack of identifiable prints from the vehicle and blood-vial evidence.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 19

Mar 8, 2007

ProceduralMotion for judgment of acquittalMentioned

Summary

The defense sought acquittal on four counts, concentrating on whether the evidence supported false imprisonment. The State opposed the motion; the court did not rule.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectLisa Buchner — DirectLisa BuchnerDean A. StrangMentioned

Summary

Bus driver Lisa Buchner recalled seeing a woman photograph a van near the Dassey boys' drop-off, but could not recall the exact day.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 20

Mar 9, 2007

CrossScott Fairgrieve — CrossScott FairgrieveThomas J. FallonMentioned

Summary

Fairgrieve acknowledged moved bones and limits on his review but could neither identify the original burn site nor rule out the burn pit.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 21

Mar 12, 2007

ProceduralRulings on fair testing, search suppression, and charge dismissalMentioned

Summary

The court denied renewed fair-testing and search-suppression motions, but dismissed the false-imprisonment charge for insufficient evidence.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 23

Mar 14, 2007

ClosingState’s Closing Argument by Kenneth KratzKenneth R. KratzMentioned

Summary

Kratz began the State's closing with the RAV4, blood and DNA evidence, and burned electronics; an objection led the court to remind jurors that argument is not fact.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

ProceduralObjection to Third-Party Liability ArgumentMentioned

Summary

The court distinguished its third-party-evidence order from closing argument and offered the defense a chance to clarify its investigative-bias point.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DasseyBrendan DasseyApr 16, 2007 – Apr 25, 2007Called by defense

Brendan Dassey testified in his 2007 Wisconsin trial that he helped Steven Avery with a fire and garage cleanup but denied participating in the charged assault and killing of Teresa Halbach. The reliability and corroboration of his recorded statements were central disputes; the jury returned guilty verdicts on all three counts.

Day 1

Apr 16, 2007

ProceduralMay 13 Interview Cross-Examination DisputeMentioned

Summary

The judge deferred a final ruling on whether the defense could ask an officer about Mr. Dassey's May 13 interview.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossKaren Halbach — CrossKaren HalbachMark R. FremgenMentioned

Summary

Karen Halbach said she did not think she had heard of Brendan Dassey before November 5, and that Teresa had not mentioned him.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectThomas Fassbender — DirectThomas FassbenderKenneth R. KratzMentioned

Summary

Fassbender described the Avery Yard search, RAV4 handling, recovered items, and Dassey's reported February 27 account of garage-floor cleanup; the court limited two exhibit admissions.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossThomas Fassbender — CrossThomas FassbenderRaymond L. EdelsteinMentioned

Summary

Edelstein challenged the physical links to Dassey and elicited Fassbender's acknowledgment that he first suggested blood in the garage-floor interview.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 2

Apr 17, 2007

DirectWilliam Tyson — DirectWilliam TysonKenneth R. KratzMentioned

Summary

William Tyson described searches of Steven Avery's trailer, identified recovered items, and explained how he swabbed the hood latch of Teresa Halbach's vehicle.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectKevin Heimerl — DirectKevin HeimerlKenneth R. KratzMentioned

Summary

Kevin Heimerl described a burn barrel, the sorting of burned debris, and a garage search that located two bullet items.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RedirectKevin Heimerl — RedirectKevin HeimerlKenneth R. KratzMentioned

Summary

Heimerl confirmed when officers were told about a shooting in the garage and who supplied the information.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RecrossDaniel Kucharski — RecrossDaniel KucharskiRaymond L. EdelsteinMentioned

Summary

Kucharski said supervisors instructed officers to collect the .22 rifle and ammunition from the trailer on different dates.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 3

Apr 18, 2007

DirectKayla Avery — DirectKayla AveryThomas J. Fallon1highlightMentioned

Summary

Kayla Avery disavowed earlier reports about what Brendan told her concerning a fire and Teresa Halbach, saying she had made up the account.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (1)

testimony highlightKayla described finding Brendan crying in her hallway during a birthday party. She said he shrugged when she asked what was wrong and denied having a conversation with him about Steven.Open in transcript →

CrossKayla Avery — CrossKayla AveryMark R. FremgenMentioned

Summary

Kayla Avery admitted lying to officers and said some details in her earlier account came from news coverage, while she could not recall the source of another claim.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossSherry Culhane — CrossSherry CulhaneMark R. FremgenMentioned

Summary

Culhane said none of the evidence samples from which she developed a DNA profile was consistent with Brendan Dassey, while explaining that some items received blood testing but no further DNA analysis.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RedirectSherry Culhane — RedirectSherry CulhaneNorman A. GahnMentioned

Summary

Culhane explained limits of DNA testing, confirmed she found no blood on Brendan Dassey's jeans, and said absent detectable DNA does not establish whether someone was at a crime scene.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 4

Apr 19, 2007

ProceduralThree trial stipulations read to the juryMentioned

Summary

The judge read three agreed stipulations to the jury covering Halbach's October 31 visits, Bobby Dassey's RAV4 observations, and Scott Tadych's account of an evening fire.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectAnthony O'Neill — DirectAnthony O'NeillThomas J. FallonMentioned

Summary

O'Neill described and played his recorded interview of Brendan Dassey; the judge allowed highlighted captions but instructed jurors to rely on the audio if the two differed.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossAnthony O'Neill — CrossAnthony O'NeillRaymond L. EdelsteinMentioned

Summary

Cross-examination tested O'Neill's recollection and interview tactics; he acknowledged an unsupported medicine statement, a statement about jail, and an officer's leading trailer question.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RedirectAnthony O'Neill — RedirectAnthony O'NeillThomas J. FallonMentioned

Summary

O'Neill clarified his interview tactics, said Dassey resisted the trailer suggestion, and identified a photograph that the judge admitted.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectMark Wiegert — DirectMark WiegertThomas J. FallonMentioned

Summary

Wiegert described how Kayla Avery's interviews prompted further questioning of Brendan Dassey and recounted what she later told investigators and wrote in Exhibit 163.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 5

Apr 20, 2007

DirectMark Wiegert — DirectMark WiegertThomas J. Fallon1highlightMentioned

Summary

Wiegert explained the February 27 and March 1 interviews, acknowledged deceptive questioning techniques, and discussed Dassey's drawings after the jury viewed the interview DVD.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (1)

evidence eventWiegert identified the warning-and-waiver form and described reading it to Dassey, obtaining initials, and observing no confusion or hesitation.Open in transcript →

CrossMark Wiegert — CrossMark WiegertRaymond L. EdelsteinMentioned

Summary

Edelstein tested differences between Kayla Avery's account, Brendan Dassey's interview, and two bedroom exhibits, then questioned Wiegert about when Brendan became a suspect.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

ProceduralHearing and ruling on February 27 interview statementsMentioned

Summary

The judge restricted defense use of Dassey's February 27 interview answers, with an exception for two cited matters, while leaving proposed questions about interview methods for later.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossMark Wiegert — Cross-examination resumesMark WiegertRaymond L. Edelstein1highlightMentioned

Summary

Edelstein tested Wiegert's interview tactics, gaps in the February 27 transcript, and the scientific link between listed physical items and Brendan Dassey.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (1)

Quote“We'd have told the defendant many untruths. Yes.”— Mark WiegertWiegert acknowledged false statements during the February 27 questioning.Open in transcript →

Day 6

Apr 21, 2007

CrossMark Wiegert — CrossMark WiegertRaymond L. Edelstein1highlightMentioned

Summary

Edelstein tested Wiegert's March 1 interview techniques and the physical corroboration for Brendan's account; Wiegert acknowledged false suggestions and explained why recovered hair was not compared.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (1)

confrontationEdelstein revisited the false tattoo question offered as a check on Brendan's answers. Wiegert agreed Brendan did not disagree with the tattoo claim but maintained that Brendan did not say he had seen a tattoo.Open in transcript →

RedirectMark Wiegert — RedirectMark WiegertThomas J. FallonMentioned

Summary

On redirect, Wiegert explained his views on missing blood spatter and cited physical findings he believed corroborated Brendan's interview account despite the absence of Brendan's DNA profile or fingerprints.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RecrossMark Wiegert — RecrossMark WiegertRaymond L. EdelsteinMentioned

Summary

Edelstein tested Wiegert's corroboration claims against possible prior knowledge, limits of the bleach-bottle evidence, and investigators' existing knowledge of one gunshot wound.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectKris Schoenenberger-Gross — DirectKris Schoenenberger-GrossMark R. FremgenMentioned

Summary

Schoenenberger-Gross described Brendan Dassey's school records and language assessments; the court allowed testimony about a 2004 IEP over a relevance objection.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossKris Schoenenberger-Gross — CrossKris Schoenenberger-GrossKenneth R. KratzMentioned

Summary

Kratz tested what Brendan's school records showed about his abilities and suggestibility; Schoenenberger-Gross described average-range scores but limited her conclusions about memory and influence.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RedirectKris Schoenenberger-Gross — RedirectKris Schoenenberger-GrossMark R. FremgenMentioned

Summary

Schoenenberger-Gross clarified Brendan's 2002 test results and 2005 IEP reading level; the court overruled a reading-level objection and received the school-record exhibits.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectBlaine Dassey — DirectBlaine DasseyMark R. FremgenMentioned

Summary

Blaine Dassey described Brendan's after-school activities at home, said he did not see him leave before 5:20 p.m., and discussed Brendan's weight loss and demeanor.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossBlaine Dassey — CrossBlaine DasseyKenneth R. KratzMentioned

Summary

Kratz challenged changes in Blaine Dassey's account of Brendan's whereabouts and a person by a bonfire; Blaine also described Steven Avery putting a plastic bag into a burning barrel.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RedirectBlaine Dassey — RedirectBlaine DasseyMark R. FremgenMentioned

Summary

Blaine clarified when he saw Steven at the burn barrel and when he left home, then addressed differences between his accounts of seeing Brendan that night.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectMichael Kornely — DirectMichael KornelyMark R. FremgenMentioned

Summary

Kornely said he spoke with Brendan during a call to the Dassey residence shortly before 6 p.m. on October 31 and was told Blaine had gone trick-or-treating.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossMichael Kornely — CrossMichael KornelyNorman A. GahnMentioned

Summary

Kornely could not verify his October 31 call time from his Sprint record and agreed the call might have been as early as 5:15 p.m.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RedirectMichael Kornely — RedirectMichael KornelyMark R. FremgenMentioned

Summary

Kornely favored a call time closer to 6 p.m. but acknowledged that he could not recall it precisely and may have given law enforcement an earlier estimate.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 7

Apr 23, 2007

colloquyCourt colloquy on Brendan Dassey’s decision to testify21lines spoken

Summary

The court examined Mr. Dassey's choice to testify, revisited it after counsel's qualifications, and received an answering-machine clip as Exhibit 225.

DirectBrendan Dassey — DirectBrendan DasseyMark R. Fremgen2highlights327lines spoken

Summary

Brendan Dassey described his October 31 activities, the bonfire and garage cleanup, and his response to statements he made to investigators.

Highlights (2)

Quote“I asked him what we were going to do, and he told me that he wanted to pick up the yard, and we drove around in the golf cart and picked up stuff.”— Brendan DasseyDassey's account of what he and Steven did after he reached the fire.Open in transcript →

Quote“We used gas, paint thinner and bleach with, uh, old clothes that me and my brothers don't fit in.”— Brendan DasseyHis description of the materials used to clean the garage-floor spill.Open in transcript →

CrossBrendan Dassey — CrossBrendan DasseyThomas J. Fallon245lines spoken

Summary

Fallon tested Dassey's trial denials against recorded statements, his bonfire and garage-cleanup account, and drawings he made for investigators.

RedirectBrendan Dassey — RedirectBrendan DasseyMark R. Fremgen25lines spoken

Summary

Dassey said he had made up parts of his interview account and described how officers' reassurances affected him.

DirectMichael Riddle — DirectMichael RiddleMark R. FremgenMentioned

Summary

Fingerprint examiner Michael Riddle found no match to Brendan Dassey among the RAV4 prints he compared, identified a headboard print as Steven Avery's, and described items he did not examine.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RedirectMichael Riddle — RedirectMichael RiddleMark R. FremgenMentioned

Summary

Riddle confirmed no match to Dassey's known print on three vehicle items and said he had not examined the handcuffs shown to him.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 8

Apr 24, 2007

DirectRobert H. Gordon — DirectRobert H. GordonMark R. Fremgen2highlightsMentioned

Summary

Robert H. Gordon testified that his testing and review of interview materials led him to conclude Brendan Dassey was highly suggestible when questioned with leading questions or mild pressure. The examination also addressed disputed IQ-chart labeling and records Gordon reviewed after writing his report.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (2)

testimony highlightGordon described MMPI-A findings of social avoidance, introversion, and alienation as relevant to his assessment of Dassey's suggestibility.Open in transcript →

Quote“So, he had a greater tendency to shift his answers due to pressure than he did, simply, answer them when there were leading questions without pressure.”— Robert H. GordonGordon distinguished the two components of Dassey's suggestibility test results.Open in transcript →

CrossRobert H. Gordon — CrossRobert H. GordonKenneth R. KratzMentioned

Summary

Kratz tested Gordon's suggestibility opinion against his reports, school records, interview review, and test methods. Gordon acknowledged omissions and a possible inventory error but maintained his opinion; the court also directed a review of requested notes.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RedirectRobert H. Gordon — RedirectRobert H. GordonMark R. FremgenMentioned

Summary

Gordon defended his report and test methods, acknowledged omitted examples of Brendan resisting suggestions, and clarified that suggestibility testing does not determine whether an answer is true.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

RecrossRobert H. Gordon — RecrossRobert H. GordonKenneth R. KratzMentioned

Summary

Gordon said a changed interview answer was consistent with getting a confession. Fremgen then moved five exhibits, and Kratz reserved a possible objection to their later use.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

DirectJames Armentrout — DirectJames ArmentroutKenneth R. KratzMentioned

Summary

On rebuttal, psychologist James Armentrout questioned the testing behind Dr. Gordon's suggestibility opinion and said he would not reach the same conclusion.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

CrossJames Armentrout — CrossJames ArmentroutMark R. FremgenMentioned

Summary

Fremgen tested Armentrout's qualifications and familiarity with suggestibility research. Armentrout acknowledged he had not examined Dassey or administered the Gudjonsson scale, but maintained his disagreement with the conclusion he would draw from Gordon's materials.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Day 9

Apr 25, 2007

ProceduralAmendment of Count 3 to second-degree sexual assaultMentioned

Summary

The court granted the State's unopposed motion to amend Count 3 to second-degree sexual assault as a party to the crime.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

ProceduralRenewed motion to dismiss Count 3 and corroboration rulingMentioned

Summary

The court denied the renewed motion to dismiss amended Count 3, finding sufficient corroboration of Brendan Dassey's confession.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

ClosingDefense closing argument by Mark R. FremgenMark R. Fremgen1highlightMentioned

Summary

Fremgen argued that forensic gaps and changing details in Dassey's statements left reasonable doubt.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (1)

otherHe argued that no DNA or fingerprints matched Brendan Dassey and challenged decisions not to test several items.Open in transcript →

ClosingDefense closing argument by Raymond L. EdelsteinRaymond L. EdelsteinMentioned

Summary

Edelstein challenged the reliability and corroboration of Dassey's statements and urged not-guilty verdicts on all counts.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

VerdictVerdict reception and jury pollingMentioned

Summary

The jury returned guilty verdicts on all three counts, and each juror confirmed the verdicts when polled.

Mentioned in this proceeding.