5 things a lawyer reveals were actually legal in 'Making a Murderer'

making a murderer
Netflix

Netflix's 10-episode docuseries "Making a Murderer" has gripped viewers with its tale of possible police corruption.

Advertisement

The documentary follows Steven Avery, a Wisconsin man who was in jail for 18 years for a sexual assault he didn't commit before DNA evidence cleared his name in 2003. 

Two years later, Avery was arrested in connection to the murder of 25-year-old photographer Teresa Halbach. His second arrest coincided with a $36 million pending lawsuit against Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, and the people who put him behind bars the first time.

The docuseries focuses on the role the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department played in Avery's arrests and whether or not Avery was framed.

Tech Insider consulted Michael Benza, a senior instructor of law at Case Western Reserve University, about some of the actions the police committed in the documentary and whether or not any legal infractions took place. Benza did not see the Netflix series.

Advertisement

Here's a closer look at the Manitowoc County's role in the Avery arrests.

Advertisement

"Yes, the police are allowed to suggest a suspect to a witness or victim."

judy dvorak in making a murderer
Judy Dvorak was a deputy of the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department in 1985. Screenshot

Steven Avery was originally arrested as a suspect in 1985 after a local woman named Penny Beernsten was viciously attacked and sexually assaulted by a man while running alongside Lake Michigan.

When Beernsten was taken to the hospital, Judy Dvorak, then a deputy of the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department, said the description Beernsten gave "sounded like Steven Avery."

Avery's family and his defense attorney at the time noted it was suspicious Dvorak offered Avery's name, especially because the documentary points out Dvorak may have been personally biased towards him.

And although it does seem suspicious, there's legally nothing wrong with what she did.

"Yes, the police are allowed to suggest a suspect to a witness or victim," Benza told Tech Insider.

Though Benza said it allows the defense to attack the validity of the identification, he added "it is, however, rare that a court will find that simply telling a witness something like 'I think Joe did it' will get the identification suppressed."

Advertisement

"There is nothing inherently wrong" with showing a picture or sketch before obtaining one from the witness.

making a murderer avery sketch
The Steven Avery sketch Chief Deputy Eugene Kusche drew. Screenshot

Manitowoc patrolman Arland Avery — who is also Steve Avery's uncle — said he was told by other detectives that Manitowoc Chief Deputy Eugene Kusche took Avery's mugshot from a previous offense and drew a sketch of it.

Kusche then showed the sketch to Beernsten who confirmed the man in the drawing was her attacker.

Arland Avery claims this was done instead of drawing a sketch based on Beernsten's actual description, which is what Kusche says he did. Beernsten later was shown a selection of mugshots with Avery's photo before she picked him out of a police line-up. 

Kusche claims he did not see the photograph of Avery until after he made the sketch, which was based on Beernsten's memory. It's worth noting that Beernsten's original statement to the police described a man of different build, height, hair type, and eye color.

But even if Kusche had done what Arland Avery claims, Benza notes "there is nothing inherently wrong" with showing a picture or sketch before obtaining one from the witness. It's also worth noting that using a sketch artist is not legally required by any means.

"Sketch artists do exist but are not used as a matter of course," Benza said. "TV creates the impression that a sketch artist lives at the police station and sketches out each suspect."

Advertisement

The police can take up to two weeks to search your property after obtaining a warrant.

making a murderer
Screenshot

Jumping ahead to the 2005 Teresa Halbach case, viewers of "Making a Murderer" were surprised when a search of the Avery property lasted a whopping eight days.

But the warrant can be executed "within a specified time no longer than 14 days," according to federal law. Additionally, Benza notes "circumstances that arise during the search can prolong the stay beyond the warrant limits."

So there was nothing legally preventing the police from staying on the Avery property for eight days, but Benza told TI that preventing the Averys from going on their property for eight days is uncharacteristic. 

"Generally you are allowed to stay on your property when the police execute a search warrant and even if you want to leave the police can make you stay," Benza said.

People have argued that keeping the Averys off their property for over a week allowed the police to plant evidence against Avery. It was the Manitowoc County officers — who were not supposed to be at the crime scene — that found Halbach's key in Avery's house, which was a major piece of evidence in Avery's prosecution.

Advertisement

"Generally the courts frown on lying to lawyers.... [but] it does happen and the Constitution does not prevent it."

Steven Avery's house making a murderer
Screenshot

The eight-day police investigation of the Avery property found Halbach's key, her bones, and Avery's blood in her car. When Avery was taken in for questioning, his lawyer Walt Kelly was unable to locate him after talking to the police and looking for him.

This is similar to the 1983 rape case where Avery's lawyer at the time, Reesa Evans, said she was unable to locate her client and the sheriff didn't want anyone to have access to Avery.

"So I went over and asked to see him and the deputy told me that the sherrif had ordered that Steven's name not be on the jail list, that he not be allowed any access to the phone, which is illegal, that he not be allowed any visitors, and that he be held in a cell block all by himself so he could have no contact with anybody," Evans said in the docuseries.

When asked whether officers are required to inform a lawyer if his/her client is in custody when asked, Benza said:

"Generally the courts frown on lying to lawyers, but I am not aware of any case where this conduct resulted in something other than handwringing. It does happen and the Constitution does not prevent it."

Advertisement

"There is nothing unconstitutional about interrogating a juvenile without a parent present."

dassey making a murderer
Screenshot

During the investigation, the police announced that Avery's nephew Brendan Dassey had confessed to helping his uncle rape and kill Halbach. Police footage from the time shows 16-year-old Dassey being questioned without a parent or lawyer present.

The defense made the case that Dassey was coerced into confessing because Dassey — who is also learning-impaired with an IQ between 69 and 73 — was questioned without a parent or lawyer present and was asked leading questions.

Since the show's premiere, many viewers agree that Dassey's confession was false.

Still, the police didn't make any legal infractions despite the questionable nature of their interrogation, according to Benza.

"As a Constitutional issue, there is nothing unconstitutional about interrogating a juvenile without a parent present," Benza said. "The age is a factor in whether there was a valid waiver of 5th Amendment and Miranda rights, but it is not per-se unconstitutional."

Benza added that even in circumstances where there are police department rules or state laws requiring a parent to be present, "violating that rule does not equal a Constitutional violation and the statements could still be used against the child."

Judge Jerome Fox denied a motion by the defense that Dassey's statements to the police should be inadmissible due to misconduct during questioning.

TV
Advertisement
Close icon Two crossed lines that form an 'X'. It indicates a way to close an interaction, or dismiss a notification.