Netflix’s true crime docuseries Making a Murderer took the world on a rocky ride late last year. If you missed it, the series followed the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach in rural Manitowoc County and the subsequent first-degree intentional homicide convictions of Steven Avery and his 16-year-old nephew, Brendan Dassey. For me the lasting impression from this show is how the criminal justice system seemed to fail Dassey.
Millions of people flooded social media with their thoughts and opinions, confusing the Google search bar with a law degree. There were thousands of T-shirts made with phrases like “Free Dassey," Facebook groups, and even a petition to the White House to pardon Avery and Dassey.
Recently, a federal judge in Wisconsin seemingly heard the nation’s cries and overturned Dassey’s conviction after Dassey served 10 years in federal prison. The court ruled that Dassey’s confession, which was made without his attorney or a parent present, was "involuntary" and was based on false promises by the interrogators. The court also alluded to Dassey’s "age and intellectual deficits." Through this court’s holding Dassey could be a free man after 90 days (when the appropriate appeal timeline has been exhausted).
Is this a one-time phenomenon, or is something bigger happening here? The 2014 podcast Serial followed Adnan Syed, who was convicted of killing his high-school ex-girlfriend. After an inundation on social media, a Maryland judge set aside Syed’s 1999 murder conviction and granted him a retrial.
Trial by media and its impacts on juries is not a new issue. Just think about the O.J. Simpson trial. Now, with Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, the potential impact is exponentially increased. The Sixth Amendment guarantees an individual’s rights to a fair trial and to an impartial jury. Can a judiciary ensure impartiality of a tribunal and fairness of a trial when the cacophony of laypersons' views on social media is so loud? It is our obligation as citizens to participate in a democracy, to have an understanding of current affairs, and to engage in open debate with an unfettered flow of information. Has our open criticism of the process in these cases had an impact on appellate review? It seems to have had a real, beneficial impact on people like Dassey and Syed, who upon review were both granted relief from possibly wrongful convictions. It is difficult to assess what holds more importance in our society—the First Amendment or the Sixth Amendment. The true question is, how do we balance freedom of speech and the right to a fair and impartial trial in our technologically savvy society?