Jan. 24, 2019
Filed by
Kathleen Zellner
Summary
Kathleen has just been notified that some of the bones were returned to the Halbachs without notifying SA's counsel at the time, which violates a WI statute requiring them to preserve certain evidence and notify all defendants prior to any destruction or disposal of certain evidence. She is requesting the appeal be put on hold so she can file a motion with the circuit court, stating the circuit court should find Steven's rights were violated and his conviction should be overturned.
Additional Filings
State Response
Jan. 29, 2019
Jan. 29, 2019
Filed by
State of Wisconsin
Summary
State says the bones are a completely separate issue and defendant should either proceed with the appeal and address these bones with the circuit court after the appeal is finished or she can cancel the appeal and file a new motion with the circuit court. This was essentially the same Response they filed to the Motion for Remand in December of 2018 when she sought new scientific testing.
Defendant Supplemental Response
Feb. 1, 2019
Feb. 1, 2019
Filed by
Kathleen Zellner
Summary

Kathleen says, "the State, in its response to Mr. Avery's motion, makes no effort to deny the due process violations Mr. Avery alleges, i.e., that the State concealed a police report, failed to give statutorily-mandated notice to Mr. Avery and his attorneys of its intent to destroy biological evidence, then facilitated the destruction of the same evidence. The State should not now reap the benefit of its past statutory and due process violations. Such an outcome would contravene the sense of basic fairness inherent in our justice system.

Wherefore, undersigned counsel respectfully requests that this Court enter an order staying this appeal and remanding the cause to the circuit court for proceedings to determine whether the State has violated Wis. Stat.ยง 968.205..."

Note from Tracie Strunsee
Feb. 2, 2019
Feb. 2, 2019
Filed by
--
Summary

"...nobody needed to get upset that they didn't address the issue of the bones since the due process violation isn't actually the motion that is in front of the court. The State argued that the Motion to Stay and Remand should not be granted on procedural grounds, so they didn't need to offer any defense on the constitutional issue.

I should have clarified that obviously the best argument against remanding the case would have been to tell the court that there was no violation since they still had the bones in custody. Since they didn't make that claim, it's safe to say that at least some of the bones were given to the family. We already knew that from the CASO report, but their silence on the issue does essentially confirm it. Personally, I think that also gives more confirmation as to why the case does need to be remanded for a hearing. There is still no reason why they should have argued anything else regarding the disposal of the evidence, though, since that was not the motion in front of the court. Any facts surrounding the disposal (what, why, how) need to be addressed in the circuit court."

Defendant Supplemental Response
Feb. 11, 2019
Feb. 11, 2019
Filed by
Kathleen Zellner
Summary
Kathleen is stating that the evidence logs ("Evidence Property Custody Documents") she was in possession of predated September of 2011 and did not have notations about bones being signed out by Wiegert. Second, she wanted to show that the current Evidence Property Custody Documents reflect that Wiegert signed for the receipt of the bones and indicates this would be consistent with the CASO report that it was for the purposes of returning them to the Wieting Funeral Home. She wants the CoA to take into consideration the differences of the relevant Evidence Property Custody Documents she attached. Not much argument at all in the body of this "letter brief".
Defendant Supplemental Response
Feb. 13, 2019
Feb. 13, 2019
Filed by
Kathleen Zellner
Summary

Kathleen received a voicemail from Williams, which was intended for Fallon in which he was suggesting they not return Kathleen's call until after they look in the evidence bag to see what's in it. Kathleen says this concerns her very much not only because it implies they're not sure whether they have it or not but also because they agreed in 2017 to allow her to test those specific bones. She feels this shows they are being deceptive and dishonest and have misrepresented to her that they are still in possession of this particular bone. She is requesting that the court consider this information when deciding the motion to stay and remand to circuit court.

Here's a link to the audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQJacoELZwU

Decision made by Court of Appeals
Feb. 25, 2019
gavel

Stay and remand granted.

The court calls out the State for failing to address or respond to Kathleen's allegations for destroying the items the state previously agreed to preserve. The court also says they understand why the defense would disagree with canceling the appeal or waiting until the appeal is finished to bring this issue up because dismissing the appeal would mean these issues wouldn't be allowed to be addressed in the appeal. The court says there is a benefit to addressing these issues while they're fresh instead of waiting, which would mean these things will not be able to be brought up at all. Due to these reasons, the court wants all these matters included in the appeal so there will be only one appeal process before them with everything that needs to be addressed at once. In order for them all to be included in this appeal, the defense will have to address these other issues in the Circuit Court first so she can add them to the appeal if the appeal is still necessary after the Circuit Court's proceedings.

What's next?
announcement

The appeal is remanded to the Circuit Court to permit Kathleen to file a motion regarding the State's violations.

Kathleen must file within 14 days.  Her filing is restricted to this issue of the bones having been given back.

The Circuit Court is required to conduct any proceedings necessary to address these claims and enter an order with their decision.  Any requests for hearing transcripts must be requested within 10 days after the Circuit Court's final decision.  Any transcripts that are requested must be filed and served within 30 days.

The Circuit Court must provide the Court of Appeals with their order and any related documents within 20 days after the order is filed.

The appeal is stayed until the return of the Circuit Court's decision.

Kathleen must file her opening appellant's brief within 40 days after the appeal returns to the Court of Appeals.

**IF THE CIRCUIT COURT DENIES THE MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR A NEW TRIAL, KATHLEEN CAN INCLUDE THIS INFORMATION IN HER APPELLANT'S BRIEF.

**IF THE CIRCUIT COURT ORDERS AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR A NEW TRIAL, THE STATE WILL LIKELY APPEAL IT AND IT WILL END UP BACK IN THE COURT OF APPEALS.

**IF AND WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS RULES ON THAT, ONE OF THE PARTIES WILL BE UNHAPPY WITH THAT DECISION AND THE NEXT STEP FOR THEM WOULD BE TO FILE WITH THE WISCONSIN STATE SUPREME COURT