Making a Murderer juror interviews could lead to Steven Avery's freedom
The race to free Making a Murderer's Steven Avery continues.
In Touch Weekly interviewed 13 of the 16 jurors (including alternates) on Avery's murder trial and uncovered new evidence that the case was deliberated improperly. Reporters were on the ground for several weeks in Wisconsin, and while some jurors kept mum, others opened up completely about their experience on the case.
According to the mag, one juror voted guilty because he or she believed Avery's actions included, "Torture and rape. Then he shot her in the head. He cut her up and put her in a burn barrel."
For the juror to have this knowledge, he would have had to have access to the prosecutor's pretrial conference — not evidence presented during the actual trial.
In Touch spoke with an attorney unaffiliated with the case for some insight into the system. Bruce Baron, a New York criminal defense attorney, explained, "If a jury made its decision on incomplete, improper or withheld evidence, then there are absolute grounds for a new trial. The jurors now may well be brought before an appellate review and ordered to describe whether they discussed certain inadmissible details they should not have brought into their deliberations."
Another juror, who had planned to vote "not guilty" and wasn't present in the final deliberations, said, "I questioned things all the time. I'd send notes to the judge, and he'd call me in to talk about it. A lot of questions weren't answered."
Will insight into the jury force an appeal for Avery? We'll be watching.