‘Making a Murderer': Steven Avery Files New Appeal

Wisconsin man claims he was the victim of ineffective counsel and a tainted jury, among other grievances

Steven Avery, the Wisconsin man at the center of the Netflix documentary series “Making a Murderer,” has filed new appeal papers asking for his conviction in the murder of photographer Teresa Halbach to be thrown out.

In papers filed Tuesday, Avery — who submitted the filing on his behalf — claims a number of grievances, including an improper warrant, inadequate legal representation and a juror who tainted the rest of the jury with claims of Avery’s guilt.

The papers, filed with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, claim that the first search warrant in the case lists multiple properties, but that “state law and statute clearly has stated limitations on a search warrant, such as 1 property, NOT multiple properties …  this warrant is clearly a warrantless search or could clearly be stated that evidence seized or used at trial is clearly ‘fruit of the poisonous tree,’ illegally obtained evidence. The affidavit was based on clearly falsified, misleading information.”

Avery also takes aim at his legal representatives, stating, “If not for the ineffective assistance of all six trial and appellate counsels, Avery would have been a FREE MAN.”

Much of the paperwork filed Tuesday focuses on Sheboygan County Judge Angela Sutkiewicz , who in November denied motions filed by Avery on his own behalf, alleging that she “inartfully circumnavigated around irrefutable, incontrovertible evidence in Avery’s favor” and engaged in “both an amateurish and deceptive attempt … to cover up material, relevant facts crucial to the state’s case against Avery.”

Avery also alludes to planted evidence in Tuesday’s paperwork, saying that if Halbach’s car had been sealed with tamper-proof evidence tape, “it would be more likely than not evidence blood, etc. could not be placed in victim’s vehicle.”

Avery goes on to state that one juror “made repeated remarks that Avery was fucking guilty … This tainted the other jurors through direct or indirect influence.” He also says that the juror told his colleagues, “if you can’t handle it why don’t you tell them and just leave.” Avery’s papers state that intimidation of jurors requires a new trial.

He also claims that his conviction should be thrown out, saying that it “cannot stand because the court had no authority to substitute a new juror once deliberations had begun.”

Pamela Chelin contributed to this report.