To begin with Steven's case. There was certainly an unusual amount of days given to trace evidence at the Avery's property. With all the evidence planted or found, Avery's judicial official had an already biased opinion to begin with. All law enforcement officers were against him, and two of which were involved in his prior false imprisonment case. With all the evidence in the world, Steven Avery had such a slim chance of persuading ANY official in his case. Brendan Dassey's case was a whole different level of unjust. First given a lawyer whom which asked Brendan to plead guilty, when you are legally supposed to be given a defense lawyer on YOUR side. It was only way later he was given two lawyers of which believed and understood Brendan, his mentality, and his story. It was shown numerous times, this his mind was tampered with by cops who only wanted to hear what they wanted, and make it a statement. His jury spent almost no time reviewing his case, and his judge also held biased opinions about him. Whether or not these two committed the crimes they did, their cases need to be reopened, re looked at, and justified. Not only that, but in a different state.
I do not believe the evidence presented was sufficient for a verdict that calls for it to be beyond a reasonable doubt. I do think the car key was planted since the only DNA on it was Steven Avery's and none of the victims. The nephew is mentally and emotionally so delayed that he would say anything that was suggested to him.
Blown away by the amount of inconsistent evidence and abuse of power from the law enforcement to the legal system. The crime of what happened to the 16 year old nephew is appalling. He understood nothing of what was happening. He didn't even understand what the word "inconsistent" means nor did his mother!
Everyone, including Steven Avery should be given another opportunity for a trial because that is how the justice system in the United States works. Everyone is given a trial and an opportunity to appeal a trial if it does not turn out the way a person feels it should have.
When a person is tried, they are convicted if the jury believes that there is no "reasonable doubt." In Avery's case, this just wasn't true. There was evidence that was shoddily reported and presented at trial that would have definitely called some bigger issues into question. When our legal system fails (whether we believe in ultimate guilt or not), we need to provide another opportunity for a fair trial.
Steven Avery should have been given, and has been given another opportunity for a trial. He was wrongly convicted of sexual assault and served 18 years in prison. Later DNA evidence tied the crime to another man, and Steven Avery was exhaunerated. Nothing can give him those 18 years back, but at least justice eventually prevailed.
No, I don't think Steven Avery should be given another opportunity for a trial. There are a lot of wrongful accusations made in the States and people are convicted for crimes they haven't done. If Avery is given a new trial, all of these people should be given new trials, too.