Aug. 25, 2021
Filed by
Kathleen Zellner
Summary

Kathleen filed a Petition for Review to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

She says the court imposed a higher burden on Steven Avery than on others, the state's duty to disclose evidence imposes no duty of diligence on the defense, and bad faith must be presumed when the state breaks the law. 

Additional Filings
RESPONSE OPPOSING PETITION FOR REVIEW
Sept. 8, 2021
Sept. 8, 2021
Filed by
State of Wisconsin
Summary

The state has responded to Kathleen's petition for review.  I will post a summary once I've read it.

The state claims Steven was not treated differently because his case was on TV.

Rebuttal to the State’s Response
Sept. 9, 2021
Sept. 9, 2021
Filed by
Kathleen Zellner
Summary

Kathleen posted a rebuttal to the state's response.  She said she can't file it but she posted it for us to see.

Awaiting ruling from Wisconsin Supreme Court
access_time

The supreme court has no time limit to decide whether or not they will review.  If the review is granted, there will be more briefs and oral arguments.  If it's denied, federal habeas is the next step.

Based on past practice, the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision on whether or not it will hear Avery's appeal will probably be decided by the end of this year.

The clerk has 50 days to compete the summary with his recommendation and submit it to the presiding justice. It's distributed to the other justices two weeks before conference, but there's no specific time frame as to when the conference will be. It's not necessarily going to be the first one available once it's in the presiding justice's hands.  Here is a link to the procedure - I have highlighted the relevant section, which starts on page 5.  

Click here