MovieChat Forums > Making a Murderer (2015) Discussion > Duffin Rules on State's Request to add E...

Duffin Rules on State's Request to add Exhibts

posted 8 years ago by mme3924-1
8 replies | jump to latest

On October 5, the State filed a Motion to Supplement the Record and Request to Expedite with Judge Duffin's court, seeking to supplement the record on appeal to include various recordings and interviews that were not specifically considered by Judge Duffin.

Judge Duffin, who ruled in the habeas case for Brendan Dassey, has apparently denied the State's Motion to supplement the record.

"The respondent has made no effort to show that the relevant exhibits were omitted due to error or accident, as required under Rule 10(e). The decision to initially omit the subject exhibits from the record may have been a conscious, strategic choice on the part of the respondent."

"Accepting for present purposes that the court has the inherent authority to expand the appellate record to include matters not presented to the district court, the court is not persuaded that doing so here furthers the interests of justice. The respondent having made no effort to show that the exhibits were omitted due to error or accident (or offer any other explanation as to why they were omitted), the court presumes that the omission was due to a conscious choice the respondent now regrets."

"As for Exhibit 5, the respondent argues that it is relevant to show that Dassey’s confession was reliable. However, the court concluded that the reliability of Dassey’s confession was irrelevant."

"As generally cumulative, and thus in the court’s view, largely irrelevant, it might seem a little matter to add exhibits to the record, especially those exhibits to which Dassey does not object. ... Therefore, the court declines to exercise its inherent authority to expand the record to include documents that this court did not have the opportunity to consider when deciding Dassey’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus."

[–] ToHelenBackAgain 8 years ago

Short version: "You tried the case once. This isn't a second bite at that apple."

Appealing the vacation of conviction is a lost cause.

"But... what about the relevant conundrum?"

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

right. No "do overs".

Apparently they now want to add exhibits that they did not include in the first go round. Did they exclude them the first time due to error or because they thought they hurt their response? Do they now want to add them because they think they will help their appeal of Duffin's ruling?

Duffin seems to have his suspicions, but either way he has said no. And, in any case, his ruling didn't have to do with guilt or innocence, but how the confessions were obtained.

[–] wewannawii 8 years ago

And here's the legal precedent specific to habeas appeals that Duffin ignored:

http://lawrepository.ualr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1239&context=appellatepracticeprocess

Even if the omission from the district court record was not inadvertent, some federal courts of appeals allow supplementation under FRAP 10(e)(2) when

(1) the proffered materials bear heavily on the merits of the issue before the court,

(2) a new issue arises on appeal,

(3) the subject of appellate review is a habeas petition or an appeal from an administrative proceeding, or

(4) the proffered materials have been stipulated to by both parties.

Footnote: 14. In cases of judicial review of administrative proceedings or habeas petitions, the federal courts of appeals have also demonstrated willingness to supplement the record with materials from state courts or agency proceedings, even if they were omitted from the district court record. See ML. v. Fed. Way Sch. Dist., 394 F.3d 634, 641 n. 8 (9th Cir. 2005) (granting supplementation of the appellate record with testimony from the administrative proceeding because a reviewing court must examine the administrative record as a whole, even if the district court record did not include the testimony in question); Crockett v. Hulick, 542 F.3d 1183, 1188 n. 3 (7th Cir. 2008) (granting supplementation of the record with jurors' affidavits and accountability instruction from a habeas petition).

For example, in review of habeas petitions, a federal court of appeals may take judicial notice of the relevant state court documents even if they were not a part of the district court record.

Footnote: 21. See White v. Gaetz, 588 F.3d 1135, 1137 n. 2 (7th Cir. 2009) (taking judicial notice of state court transcript)

If supplementation is not already permitted under FRAP 10(e)(2) or FRE 201,39 federal courts of appeals demonstrate particular leniency with supplementing the record under their inherent equitable authority in habeas cases. In Brown v. Watters, the Seventh Circuit used its inherent equitable authority to permit supplementation of the record with the defendant's commitment proceedings.

Footnote: 40. 599 F.3d 602, 604 n. I (7th Cir. 2010).

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

Just to point out a couple of relevant words you quoted and even put in bold: "some federal courts of appeals allow." What is left after "some" are removed is "most." As in, "most federal courts of appeals do not allow." Later, there is reference to "may take judicial notice. As in, it is normal and proper for judges to decide based on the particular context before them.

In this case, Duffin stated he was "not persuaded that [allowing the supplemented information] furthers the interests of justice." That is, he judged that "the proffered materials" did not "bear heavily on the merits of the issue before the court." That judgement is completely in line with the spirit of the quoted material. There is no evidence or implication that Duffin ignored anything.

In fact Duffin even overtly stated his awareness of the relevant legal context when he noted "Accepting for present purposes that the court has the inherent authority to expand the appellate record to include matters not presented to the district court..." That is, he acknowledged having authority to expand the record, but chose not to for the reasons given, which is also indisputably in his authority. No ignoring involved whatsoever.

The real problem with supplemental information is when the source is some passionate dude on an internet movie chat site. An amateur doing an internet search on matters of sophisticated law - well, as they say, don't try this at home, folks.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

There is no evidence or implication that Duffin ignored anything.

Indeed.

The words "some" and "may" are so obvious, one would think they wouldn't have to be pointed out. I think Duffin probably knew if he was in his rights to deny the supplemental material.

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

I think Duffin probably knew if he was in his rights to deny the supplemental material.

Yes, and I just edited my post to add the bit that implies he was well aware of the discretionary nature of the decision given the scope of his authority.

It's impossible that while he knew he had the authority to expand the record, at the same time he did not know he had the authority not to exercize it. Authority is only authority if you can choose, yay or nay. Otherwise it's meaningless.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

[–] wewannawii 8 years ago

Among those "some federal courts of appeals" is the 7th Circuit... i.e. the higher court in Duffin's jurisdiction.

http://faculty.law.lsu.edu/toddbruno/mandatory_v__persuasive.htm

When Decisions Are Mandatory

Whether a decision of a particular court is mandatory, whether it must be followed by another court, depends on the source of the decision. As a general rule, the decisions of a court will be mandatory authority for any court lower in the hierarchy. Decisions from a court lower than the one in question are never mandatory.

Federal Courts

United States Supreme Court--The decisions of the United States Supreme Court are mandatory authority in all courts, federal and state, when the decisions cover points of federal law.

United States courts of appeals--Decisions of the U.S. courts of appeals are mandatory on district courts and other lower courts within the circuit. Court of appeals decisions are persuasive authority in the other circuits, both for other courts of appeals and for lower courts. Federal courts of appeals decisions are not binding on state courts.

United States district courts--The decisions of U.S. district courts are mandatory on specialized lower courts if within the appellate jurisdiction of the district court (i.e., bankruptcy, territorial courts, etc.). District court decisions are not binding on state courts.

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

Since Duffin wasn't ruling on a superior court's decision there was no issue of hierarchy and mandatory authority.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson