Sexual assault and Kidnapping charges Dismissed Against Murder Suspect Steven Avery in Halbach Case


What is wrong lately with DA’s and prosecutors? In some cases we have overzealous prosecutors going after rape suspects and disregarding exculpatory evidence. In others, like in the case of murder suspect Steven Avery, we have prosecutors not meeting dead lines and having charges dismissed.

MANITOWOC, Wis. (AP) — A judge dismissed sexual assault and kidnapping charges Monday against a murder defendant who investigators said killed a young photographer with the help of his teenage nephew.

Defense attorneys argued the charges be dropped because the nephew’s testimony was needed to support them, and prosecutors missed a Jan. 22 deadline for deciding whether the boy would testify against Steven Avery.

There is a special place for defense attorneys who represent defendants of heinous crimes and act as if their clients are the victims. Steven Avery’s defense attorney went out of his way to bring up a previous wrong that was perpetrated on his client by stating that the assault and kidnapping charges that were dismissed were some how the same.

“How many times will Steven Avery be charged in Manitowoc County with crimes he didn’t commit?” said Avery’s attorney, Dean Strang. “This makes two. …

Avery was guilty of the charges that were dismissed on a technicality. It was the prosecutors fault for not pursuing them. However, the boy scout Steven Avery is still being charged with first degree murder.

Four charges remain against Avery, including first-degree intentional homicide and mutilating a corpse. Jury selection is to begin Feb. 5.

A defense attorney can lie all they want, Steven Avery will be found guilty of his hideous crime and be put away for life. Teresa Halbach’s murder was so horrific that Wisconsin is debating on whether to bring back the death penalty.  Although the legal system inadvertently put Avery away for 18 years, it would appear that they did society a favor by doing so … guilty or not.

Previous Posts: Teresa Halbach

Posted January 29, 2007 by
Crime, Judicial, Murder, Sex Offender, WTF | 19 comments

If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • Steven Avery Speaks out in the Murder case of Teresa Halbach
  • Steven Avery To Be Charged With Teresa Halbach’s Murder
  • Steven Avery charged in the death of missing woman, Teresa Halbach
  • Steven Avery Murder Trial Begins in death of Teresa Halbach
  • Brendan Dassey,16, Nephew of Steven Avery Charged in Halbach Murder

  • Comments

    19 Responses to “Sexual assault and Kidnapping charges Dismissed Against Murder Suspect Steven Avery in Halbach Case”

    1. Mike on January 29th, 2007 7:56 pm

      I bet that Project Innocence group must feel real good about letting Avery out now huh?

    2. Mike on January 29th, 2007 8:00 pm

      BTW according to a news article I read those charges may be refiled in the future, The Judge hasn’t decided on that yet…my guess is when not if they get the murder conviction, they probably won’t file them.

    3. Scared Monkeys on January 29th, 2007 8:13 pm

      Mike, you are probably correct …

      The fact that they keep screwing around with the nephew for a deal is getting ridiculous.

      Avery is not getting out of this one … going away for life.

    4. Rob on January 29th, 2007 8:25 pm


      slam dunk case dropped like a fission bomb. Remains found on HIS property, her keys found hidden in HIS room in a secret compartment and this guy is gonna walk?

      Whats wrong with these law school grads these days? Is a law degree even worth the paper its written on anymore?

      Even Nifong could have won this one.

      I feel horrible for the family and friends of Teresa. Ms. Halbach deserved better than this.

    5. mayan_moons on January 29th, 2007 8:32 pm

      Okay i am LIVID, those 2 charges being dropped coz of prosecuters not having their act together??? Its outragious! Remember the looks of that monstrous POS? When i think of Theresa coming face to face with that bastard i literally cringe. The terror she must of felt is what nightmares are made of. Barry Sheck got this bastard out & i hope he has nightmares for the rest of his life, seeing Theresa in his dreams asking why. Ever since OJ i have despised Sheck.

    6. yoyo muffintop on January 29th, 2007 10:05 pm

      “A defense attorney can lie all they want” – wrong.
      A lawyer cannot knowingly place a witness on the stand to perpetrate a lie, nor can a lawyer knowingly lie to the court.
      Who can lie? That would be the police. The police are allowed to tell you an outright lie in attempts to get you to incriminate yourself. Most common lies are to say they have witnesses or evidence when they do not, or to tell someone that their accomplices have already confessed so they should as well. Just a couple of examples.

    7. Richard on January 29th, 2007 10:52 pm

      What was he, too busy playing politics to do his job? Maybe he was from Aruba, the district attorney ….

      I certainly hope that there is a recall petition available in Wisconsin. This to me sounds like the equivalent of being AWOL.

    8. Patti on January 29th, 2007 11:54 pm

      What the ?!?!?!?

      Defense attorneys can’t lie?

      Oh, Honey, they have a license to lie… where you been?

      In fact, in most cases, they are expected to lie. They are not under oath… they can say whatever they want. Why do you think the judges are constantly rolling their eyes at them. They can spin the wheels of justice any way they want. They’re only objective is to serve their client… and they do it, in any and every way they can.

      Simple example: Opening statements!

    9. Gary on January 30th, 2007 6:18 am

      I’m sorry, what lies did the defense attorneys tell? If you think they did, go to the state bar’s complaint committee. Or say straight out “these attorneys lied”. Don’t put it generally that “all defense attorneys lie” say these attorneys did and risk the libel suit. Either have the courage of your convictions or be quiet.

    10. Mike on January 30th, 2007 8:17 am


      Check out the the David Westerfield case…his lawyers knew he was guilty even before the trial began, even offering the state the location of her body if they would give him life, they said no but they still try to state he was innocent in the trial even going so far as to try and blame her parents…thats lieing to me.

    11. Miss-Underestimated on January 30th, 2007 8:26 am

      I think the defense attorneys should have the people they are defending (claiming innocence) live with them and their families until the case is over.

    12. chloe on January 30th, 2007 1:33 pm

      Of course, some defense attorneys lie and so do some prosecutors and police. We’ve heard it from all sides and to be honest it’s equally despicable. In this case, I’m more inclined to be angry with the prosecution.

    13. Mike on January 30th, 2007 4:18 pm

      I’m more inclined to be angry at the perp.

      The Prosecutors wanted to use Dassey against Avery, but the Judge wouldn’t give them an extension hence they missed the filing date….Avery is toast no matter what, he’ll be wearing stripes for the rest of his life. And now since Dassey can’t make a plea bargain he will have to pay his just price also. Which in my opinion is how it should be.

    14. yoyo muffintop on January 30th, 2007 8:46 pm

      Mike – you’re wrong on the Westerfield case. What exactly were Westerfield’s defense attorneys supposed to do? Refuse to negotiate a plea bargain that would save their client’s life? Disclose the confidential information obtained from their client, thereby potentially further incriminating him? Could have declared a conflict of interest and got off of the case, but then how could Westerfield ever have legal representation without being required to lie to his attorneys? And given the failure of the plea negotiation, what should the attorneys have done at trial? Declined to cross-examine the state’s witnesses? Refused to raise and argue reasonable inferences from the evidence? Concede that the evidence proved their client to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
      They did not present any false evidence or perjured testimony at the trial. They did challenge the government’s proof and argued that it had failed to meet its burden. They did argue reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence – including the possibility that someone other than their client committed the murder. Not only was their conduct ethical, it was both ethically and constitutionally required of them.
      But hey, everyone hates defense attorneys – till you need one.

    15. yoyo muffintop on January 30th, 2007 8:55 pm

      Mike – The jury found him guilty and he’s getting the chair, rightfully so. Unfortunately, he will rot in San Quentin too long a time. It takes forever to electrocute someone in CA. That I bet we can agree on.

    16. Mike on January 30th, 2007 9:24 pm


      How bout reclusing themselves from the case or maybe tell him to plead guilty like he should have. No they and thier piece of shit client put Danielle’s parents thru hell.

      They had to relive the crime all over again…they had to hear what he did to their child in detail…they had to endure having thier daughters autopsy pics shown in open court.

      He by his own admission to his lawyers was guilty as sin and they knew it. If I were his lawyer I would tell him to plead guilty and accept his punishment and stop torturing her parents but no they decided they would basically call Danielle’s mother a slut and it was her thought her daughter was murdered.

      How do you further incriminate when they knew he was already guilty?

      You said “They did argue reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence – including the possibility that someone other than their client committed the murder” how can you do that when you know he is guilty…they knew someone else didn’t do it hence they lied.

    17. yoyo muffintop on January 30th, 2007 10:08 pm

      Mike – I agree what you said carries great moral weight, so to speak, but the argument is basically this: if criminal defense counsel believes his/her client to be guilty, the case is over. At that point, counsel may not “mislead” the judge or jury by cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, or by arguing “false” alternative interpretations of the evidence. Counsel is morally and ethically bound not to dispute evidence and theories he/she “knows” to be true. The argument even hints that counsel should disclose information obtained in confidence from the client if such disclosure is for the greater good.

      A defense attorney’s job is to defend the client, to make sure that their constitutional rights are honored, to require the gov’t to prove its cases beyond a reasonable doubt, and to maintain the confidences of the client.
      What that POS told the attorneys, we will never know.

      But the work around the lawyers used at trial was “not guilty” rather than “innocent”…the court system needs a bigtime overhaul.

    18. Mike on January 30th, 2007 10:53 pm


      Seems to me if he tells them where her body is then they know he is guilty.

      If I recall correctly they even had a so called bug expert in to state that her body had not been decomposing long enough for Westerfield to have murdered her even though they knew he did at that point. Isn’t that misleading the jury?

      We may have to agree to disagree on this issue.

    19. mayan_moons on February 1st, 2007 1:41 am

      Yeah Mike i remember Westerfield on the verge of him telling where Dannielle was so the DA wouldn’t ask for death. Her body was found & the trial moved forward.

      Yoyo……Westerfield’s lawyer tried to implicate his OWN son for the murder during the defense case in chief.

    Leave a Reply

    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
    E-mail It