Mark R. Fremgen

Mark R. Fremgen defended Brendan Dassey, opening with an alternative account of Dassey's October 31 activities and a challenge to the physical evidence and recorded statements. His cross-examinations tested how the trailer, garage, RAV4 and burn-pit evidence was collected and interpreted. He questioned search documentation, testing of the creeper and other items, and the limits of conclusions about lead on bone fragments, tire remains and possible gunshot wounds. DNA analyst Sherry Culhane said none of the evidence samples from which she developed a profile was consistent with Dassey; Fremgen also pressed her on items that received no further DNA analysis.

Fremgen challenged accounts bearing on Dassey's statements. Kayla Avery acknowledged lying to officers about an earlier account and said some details came from news coverage. In questioning school counselor Susan Brandt, Fremgen tested her familiarity with Kayla; the court struck his question about Kayla's truthfulness. He sought to use Dassey's February 27 interview answers after the State raised that interview, but the court restricted their use with an exception for two matters and left proposed questions about interview methods for later. Fremgen also objected to certain qualification materials and reports being used as evidence rather than relying on witness testimony. The court received the exhibits but reserved whether they would go to the jury.

After the State rested, Fremgen moved to dismiss a sexual-assault count for lack of independent corroboration of Dassey's statement; the court denied the motion. In the defense case, he examined a school-record witness about language and testing results, Blaine Dassey and Michael Kornely about Brendan's whereabouts and a phone call, and Brendan about his activities and statements to investigators. On redirect, Brendan said he had made up parts of his interview account and described the effect of officers' reassurances. Fremgen also examined a fingerprint expert who found no match to Brendan among the RAV4 prints he compared.

Fremgen presented psychologist Robert Gordon's opinion that Dassey was highly suggestible under leading questions or mild pressure. The court denied a renewed effort to exclude Gordon while limiting his testimony. On redirect, Fremgen addressed Gordon's methods and the distinction between suggestibility and whether an answer was true; he later questioned the State's rebuttal psychologist about reaching an opinion without examining Dassey or administering the suggestibility scale. On Day 9, the court denied a renewed dismissal motion concerning amended Count 3 and rejected the defense's requested corroboration instruction. Fremgen's closing argued that forensic gaps and changes in Dassey's statements left reasonable doubt.