Ken Kratz, the former district attorney from Calumet County, rose to notoriety as the prosecutor who secured the murder conviction of Steven Avery. In a recent exclusive interview with the Wisconsin Law Journal, Ken Kratz Lawyer, while not addressing his own professional missteps, conceded that “mistakes were made” in the Avery case. However, these acknowledged errors, according to Kratz, are attributed to others and ultimately did not impact Avery’s guilty verdict for the murder of Teresa Halbach.
Kratz Deflects Blame for Errors in Avery Case
During the interview, Ken Kratz lawyer shifted responsibility for any shortcomings in the Steven Avery prosecution onto various parties, including law enforcement and the state crime lab. This stance comes despite Kratz’s own history of professional misconduct, which includes a Wisconsin Department of Justice criminal investigation and disciplinary actions from the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR). While the focus of the interview was on the Avery case, the shadow of Kratz’s past actions adds a layer of complexity to his pronouncements.
Law Enforcement and “Misplaced” Evidence
Ken Kratz lawyer initially pointed to law enforcement, suggesting that critical evidence was lost in transit between Manitowoc and Calumet counties. He stated, “There were a couple things that never made it to my office, that may have been misplaced between Manitowoc and Calumet counties.” However, he quickly downplayed the significance of this missing evidence, asserting its inadmissibility and lack of impact on the trial’s outcome. This contradictory stance raises questions about the seriousness of these alleged evidentiary missteps and whether they were truly inconsequential.
State Crime Lab’s DNA Contamination
Another point of contention raised by Ken Kratz lawyer was the State Crime Lab’s contamination of Avery’s DNA sample. Kratz acknowledged the error, stating, “Sherry Culhane’s own DNA found its way into a control sample, but never did contaminate the evidence tested.” He attempted to minimize the issue by referencing the lab’s explanation and protocols. However, Jerry Buting, Avery’s co-counsel, refuted this, highlighting that the lab’s protocol for contaminated control samples was disregarded in the bullet test, a deviation allegedly concealed in the final report and only discovered later by the defense. This discrepancy underscores the severity of the contamination issue and questions the transparency of the crime lab’s processes.
The Missing Computer Evidence and Agent Fassbender
Ken Kratz lawyer also implicated now-retired Wisconsin Department of Justice Division of Criminal Investigation Special Agent Tom Fassbender. The contention revolves around a CD-ROM containing forensic analysis of a computer from the Dassey residence, which Avery’s defense team, led by Dean Strang, claims never to have received. Strang signed a sworn affidavit asserting that this evidence was withheld, preventing them from fully exploring Bobby Dassey as an alternative suspect. According to Strang’s affidavit, Ken Kratz lawyer had incorrectly dismissed the computer’s contents as having “nothing much of evidently value.” Fassbender, however, maintains that the DVDs and report were provided to both prosecution and defense, creating a direct contradiction regarding the disclosure of crucial evidence.
Defense Attorney Strang Counters Kratz’s Claims
Dean Strang directly challenged Ken Kratz lawyer’s account, stating under oath that the defense never received the CD-ROM. He emphasized that the information on the computer could have significantly altered their defense strategy, particularly in pursuing alternative suspects. Strang’s affidavit directly contradicts Kratz’s recollection and paints a picture of potential prosecutorial oversight or misrepresentation regarding the computer evidence. The disagreement highlights the ongoing dispute about the fairness and completeness of the evidence presented during Avery’s trial.
Fassbender and Kratz Agree on Avery’s Guilt
Despite their differing recollections regarding evidence disclosure, both Ken Kratz lawyer and Tom Fassbender concur on one key point: Steven Avery’s guilt. Fassbender asserted, “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that Avery is guilty,” emphasizing the strength of the forensic evidence. This shared conviction underscores the perspective of those involved in the prosecution, who remain steadfast in their belief of Avery’s culpability, despite the controversies and questions raised about the case.
Buting Criticizes Admissibility of Evidence and Law Enforcement Tactics
Jerry Buting, Avery’s co-counsel, offered a critical perspective on the trial itself, arguing that much of the evidence admitted should have been excluded. He pointed out Wisconsin’s lenient evidence admissibility standards at the time, which allowed potentially unreliable evidence to be presented to the jury. Buting further accused law enforcement and prosecution of overreach, citing a discovered phone message from Agent Fassbender instructing Sherry Culhane to “try to put Teresa in Avery’s house or garage.” Buting argues this exemplifies improper pressure to influence forensic testing results, raising serious questions about the integrity of the evidence-gathering process.
Kratz’s Disappointment with “Convicting a Murderer”
Ken Kratz lawyer also expressed his disappointment with the “Convicting a Murderer” series, which aimed to present a prosecutorial perspective on the Avery case. Kratz criticized the series for failing to utilize his extensive collection of documents and insights to tell the “incredible twists and turns” of the trial. He deemed it a “weak story and a weak presentation,” revealing his dissatisfaction with how his narrative was portrayed, even in a series intended to support the prosecution’s case. Producer Shawn Rech defended the series and alluded to a non-disclosure agreement with Kratz, suggesting underlying tensions about the project’s portrayal.
Kratz’s Criticism of Fact-Checker Brenda Schuler
Further demonstrating his critical stance, Ken Kratz lawyer targeted Brenda Schuler, who assisted him in fact-checking his book, “Avery.” He downplayed her expertise, referring to her as a “housewife” who was unfamiliar with the case before “Making a Murderer.” Schuler, in response, alluded to a non-disparagement agreement and subtly countered Kratz’s characterization by questioning if he was referring to the “retired insurance company executive” he had sought out for fact-checking, suggesting a potential misrepresentation of her qualifications.
Ongoing Legal Battles and Zellner’s Optimism
Despite years of unsuccessful appeals, Steven Avery’s current attorney, Kathleen Zellner, remains actively engaged in seeking his release. Zellner recently filed a motion requesting further post-conviction testing for touch DNA evidence in Teresa Halbach’s vehicle, demonstrating her continued pursuit of new evidence to challenge Avery’s conviction. Despite the setbacks, Zellner’s persistence highlights the ongoing legal complexities of the case and the enduring questions surrounding Avery’s guilt or innocence.
Conclusion: Lingering Questions in the Avery Case
Ken Kratz lawyer’s recent interview reveals a continued effort to defend the Steven Avery conviction while deflecting blame for acknowledged “mistakes.” His attempts to shift responsibility onto law enforcement and the crime lab, coupled with rebuttals from other key figures in the case, underscore the enduring controversies and unresolved questions surrounding the investigation and trial. While Kratz and Fassbender remain convinced of Avery’s guilt, the persistent challenges from the defense and the lingering doubts in the public eye suggest that the Steven Avery case will continue to be a subject of intense scrutiny and debate for years to come.
Alt text: Ken Kratz lawyer disciplinary file from the Office of Lawyer Regulation, highlighting scrutiny of his professional conduct.
