steven s case. they were co-conspirators and they allegedly now are convicted of carrying this murder out together. and but, a federal habeas corpus case based on the statements made by his attorney very leading statements suggesting that this kid was guilty before he met with them, and what are the chances that it will get traction? and the statements he made are very, very incriminating and very, very bad for brandon, but however, the court is going to be looking at the overall trial, and not an isolated statement, and look at the breadth, and see this person has fair counsel and loyal to the person, and somebody trying to advocate on e behalf of brandon. in looking at the whole case, i think that maybe there is evidence that he was trying to be an effective counsel for this young man, but you have to get over the hurdle of the confession. that confession is very, very damning, and you have to address that point, and whether or not the lawyer did a good enough job
had should have been included and were, and the most significant points, evidence, and argument of the defense should have been included, and were. less significant points, necessarily, they had to be omitted. the point that you raise, there was dna from steven avery on the hood of teresa s car, and that could have been transferred from his skin, and it also could have been transferred from any other surface that had his dna, a toothbrush for example. or as, and there is testimony the on this from the glove of a division and criminal investigation investigator who didn t change gloves after handling the inside of the car which included steven avery s blood and then touched the hood to pop the hood of the car. so, any surface with his dna could have transferred it to the hood. it takes explaining and certainly less significant in the end than blood