All-Star Defense Attorney
DOUG ANTON
Opens Up About The Steve Avery Case
Douglas C. Anton, Esq. is the principal and owner of the Law Offices of Douglas C. Anton, Esq. Mr. Anton has been a practicing attorney for over 20 years in the state and federal courts of several states in the United States. He is also admitted and qualified as an attorney and counselor of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Mr. Anton has a general practice to serve the needs of his vast amounts of clients, but enjoys a focused practice on Criminal Defense as well as Entertainment and Sports Law. Mr. Anton’s clients range from professional boxers, NBA and NFL player clients, internationally famous recording artists, actors, musicians and politicians, just to mention a few. He has also conducted defenses of those accused of murder, arson, drug crimes, rape, robbery, and the like. Mr. Anton is a trial attorney, which means he is rarely in the office and can be found bouncing from one courtroom to the next in various courthouses throughout any given week.
He owns a company called Conception Sports & Entertainment Management, LLC, which handles the careers of several of his legal clients and many, many more that are not in need of legal services but just representation in a myriad of entertainment and sports fields.
I recently had the opportunity to talk to Doug Anton about the most controversial murder since the O.J. Simpson trial.
Chaunce Hayden: As a defense attorney, what is your take on the Steve Avery documentary? Was he framed or is he guilty of murder?
Doug Anton: I have been practicing criminal defense in numerous state and federal courts. After doing it for so long, we think that we get a good handle on who is or who is not telling the truth. The truth is, the human factor is so confusing that it is difficult to tell. The documentary was very good. It did a good job showing both sides of the story equally and fairly.
There are so many moments in the documentary that stand out. One is the way 16-year-old Brendan Dassey is treated by the police. Your thoughts?
To some people, the interrogation of Brendan Dassey was fine. To others, it was a pressured twisting of his thoughts. That is why reasonable minds differ. Personally, I feel that even without the testimony of the boy, there was enough to find Steve guilty, but by very little. However, that does not mean that it resulted in a good verdict. I believe sincerely that both the boy and Steve were tried unfairly, especially in light of the first defense attorney for the boy and the investigator they used. What they did was horrific and unconscionable in the practice of law. I am stunned that those actions alone were not enough to overturn both verdicts and provide each defendant with a new trial. So technically, just like with OJ Simpson, I think the defendant committed the crime, but after hearing about the new evidence, I don’t think the conviction should stand and they should both be given new trials.
As for the crime itself…if it was not Steve, then who was it?
This is a legitimate question. Dead girl, on his property, with some evidence pointing to him, including phone calls earlier that day. If it wasn’t Steve, then someone would have had to plan to kill the girl, either on his property or somewhere close, and then bring the body there to be burned. I know as a matter of fact from my own cases that police set up defendants they don’t like. But this kind of set-up would have to have involved several people. Let’s say it was not Steve. When he walked outside and saw a fire, or days later when he walked by the fire pit, wouldn’t he have questioned, “Hey, who made a fire here?” and called someone? If Steve did not do the murder, then he would have had to know about it after the fact, thought the police were trying to set him up, and took action to ruin their plan.
I can’t begin to imagine what it must be like to be innocent of a crime and go still go to prison, not once, but twice.
One thing that nobody discussed is what happens to an otherwise “good” person when they go to jail. Steve was in a state prison for 18 early years of his life. Surrounded every day by the worst of the worst criminals, as he was a convicted rapist. If people think that this does not change a man, they are wrong. I have clients that go to jail on a plea bargain for serious crimes for much less time than the crime was originally charged for, but even with that, state prison changes a man. A young non-criminal on his first offense will learn how to become a criminal and survive in state prison. His every day teachers will be the worst of the worst criminals. Getting a GED does nothing to stop this onslaught of influence. Add to it the anger and self-entitlement one feels when they are exonerated after 18 years and you have one newly educated, twisted, pissed off-at-the-whole-world dude coming out into the world. Although not discussed in the program, Steve had some run-ins with the law prior to his incarceration, so he was already not the poster boy for the church. People should not discount how angry a person is, losing 18 years of their life, after being educated and God knows what else by hardened criminals, when they are released into the world. In my own personal opinion, he came out a different man. The young lady came to the property, asked him the wrong question, probably something about the rape. He smacked her and then he got pissed and took all of his rage out against her. He may have even done it in a blind rage. That’s my opinion, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. Just like with the OJ trial, where they had a possible killer, the cops often take extra, unnecessary steps to help their case, like with the glove. Here, the police may have planted the key in the house, the bullet in the garage or the blood in the car, just to “seal the deal” on who they believe did it. This is unwarranted bolstering of a good case and can often lead to a guilty person walking. It would be interesting if a blood preservative is eventually found in the blood samples, which may demonstrate that the blood found in the car was taken from evidence rather than from an injury at the crime scene. But even that is not conclusive. Since I cannot make up my mind to convict or not, I am more than ever glad we have the jury system to listen to ALL of the evidence and look at all of the witnesses and assess credibility and make a determination.
Lets start with the defense. What would you have done differently?
I would have done polygraphs of my client, Steve, and of the boy. I understand from the boy’s motion that the boy asked to be polygraphed. I would not only do it to find out what the poly says but to find out other things from my client that they do not think to tell me, or maybe even lie about, that could lead me into different ways of helping them. If you want to know if a polygraph test works, go get one for yourself. Write questions you know the answers to, and then try to lie your way through a polygraph. You will be stunned by how accurate they are. Even though they are not admissible in court, I have yet to see a prosecutor who was not impressed with both ours, and then eventually, their own polygraph test that a client passes when all other evidence is circumstantial. Of course, if your client fails one or two tests, you have no obligation to tell that to anyone, or even let anyone know you have conducted such an exam. I would have started there. I think these defense attorneys did a great job for Steve. They seemed to cover everything. The only thing I would have done differently is I would have developed an alternative theory based on the evidence. When all of the evidence leads to my client and my only defense is, “Why would my client do such a thing?”, it looks shallow. However, if the evidence leads to my client but I can show that others had motives and opportunities, that gives the jurors something else to consider. The evidence in this case could have been re-arranged and re-categorized to shine the light on other individuals, in order to shift the focus off of Steve. This is commonly referred to as “Plan B” which is often good at increasing reasonable doubt. For example, in the OJ Simpson trial, they tried to say that drug dealers had an issue with Nicole and Faye Resnick and that was who may have killed her – because of the way her neck was slashed, like a certain gang normally does. In Steve’s case, who else has access to his property? Who else had something to gain by Steve being out of the picture? Who else “could have” done this crime? Then I would focus my investigative staff of all retired detectives on showing that the evidence proves this other person, specifically, did the crime. Not “it could have been some one else.” I would actually give them the “someone else” because the evidence would demonstrate that it could be someone else. I think this jury started out on Steve’s side and if they had someone else to think about that was not on trial, that may have justified and increased the reasonable doubt so that a conviction did not get handed down. Other than that, there may have been a hundred things I would have done differently or nothing at all, but I would need to see all of the evidence first.
What did you find most interesting about the documentary?
Like other attorneys that I have discussed this case with, the most interesting thing to us was the amount of access the filmmakers were given to private attorney work products and other evidence. They have so much evidence and not only did they get it after the fact, it is clear, that from the timed reactions of the people in their interviews, that they received a lot of it as it was still going on. That’s amazing. Outside of that, this case is like others. There are always two sides to every criminal trial. My experience tells me that it is not a shock that they are diametrically opposed all the way through to the end. That’s why cases that cannot be resolved by plea, go to trial.
What is interesting to me is that it is now 7 or more years post-conviction and Steve still spends every day at the law library fighting against his conviction. I know a lot of guys who say they are innocent, but who do nothing on a daily or weekly basis, or at all, to continue to defend themselves. Prison is hard enough, but to add to it, continuing the constant fight every day to prove your innocence says something. To be honest, this continued active desire to clear his name has pushed me over the 50% mark to make me believe he is not guilty of this crime. But then again, who is? No one is that good where they can cover up everything. Make a list of suspects like the police do and then vet them out until you find holes in their stories. Eventually you will find out who is not telling the truth and then interrogate them until they crack.
If you could say anything to Steve Avery, what would that be? What would you want to ask him?
I would ask him more about what those 18 years were like in prison prior to being released. I would ask him about the girl, how he knew her, what was up with those calls, etc. I would ask about the fire. Did he make that fire that night? Why was the RAV4 (the victims car) on his property? Did Brendan Dassey ever bring him his mail? What parts of everyone’s stories are true, and where does Steve say they start to be lies? For example, does Steve say that Brendan Dassey came over that night and brought him his mail? If “yes”, okay, then what happened next? Did Brendan just leave? Was the girl there? If “no”, then did the police find that particular days mail in Steve’s house? Was it checked for Brendan’s fingerprints? Criminal defense is a puzzle. There aren’t 100, 500, or 1000 pieces to consider, there are 1 million pieces of a puzzle that we have to put together BETTER than the state does, and if we do, we can present a more reasonable set of facts to a jury to aid them in making their findings and conclusions.
Do you have a theory on who might have committed the murder if it was not Steve?
This is speculation, but I am not at all comfortable with the defense investigator for Brendan Dassey’s attorney. I’m not saying he committed the crime, but he acted so outside of his scope of duties and obligations and it seems, at least from the motion for new trial testimony, that he was a religious man and that his intentions were based upon his religious beliefs. Something rubs me very wrong about this. So, my answer would be that if Steve did not commit this crime, someone very high up with a reason took it upon himself to do it, and set Steve up. But it would have had to be a crime of opportunity, so I would look to, for example, anyone involved in law enforcement that ALSO had an issue with this girl. For example, did any of the detectives or that prosecutor who got caught ‘sexting’ have any relationship, friendship, or whatever with the victim? Then maybe, the pieces of the puzzle could make sense. Someone wanted to get rid of her, and hated Steve, so “boom” – two birds with one stone.
The prosecutor turned out to be a criminal himself. What did you think of the way he worked the trial?
Listen, the guy likes women. This is not crime. The fact that he is a bit of a pervert, okay, I don’t have a problem with that, because remember, I am a defense attorney. That he is an elected official in an office to protect victims and the people he is carrying on with are those defenseless victims? Now, THAT is wrong. That shows poor judgment and a willingness to use his position of power to advance himself, no matter what the cost to himself, the victim, or the profession. Listen, he is not alone in this. When you meet the doctor who saves your dad’s life, you consider them like a God. That same thing happens to lawyers. A victim will see a prosecutor as a God when he is her only male defender and puts down the evildoer. There have been times when I represented young men, got them off of serious criminal charges, and have had advances/sexual overtures made to me by sisters and mothers of those clients. Those types of situations make people look to us as “heroes” who saved their loved ones. But, we are bound by a higher obligation. We do not abuse our positions of power. We are supposed to be better than that. We are bound by ethical obligations and our respective religion should bind us to moral obligations. So we smile, say “thank you for the expression of admiration but I am in a relationship and/or not interested” and then advise them to just make sure the bill gets paid. With great power comes great responsibility. That’s from Spiderman, but it holds true here. That’s why it’s wrong for attorneys to be ambulance chasers. We know the guy in the ambulance is in such a need that he is not thinking straight. That’s why it’s wrong for a prosecutor to carry on with victims; they are injured, they need help, they are vulnerable and not thinking straight. That prosecutor let his power go to his head. He started to believe he was God. He is not. No human is. We live day-to-day like anyone else. We try to do our job properly and respectfully to our profession, peers, and loved ones. So I think the prosecutor is messed up a bit, but he took his lumps. I don’t think his propensities or “sexual addictions” affected this trial one way or another on any substantive level.
What are your thoughts on the judge?
The judge was good. I don’t agree with all of the decisions he made on evidence admission, or on the post-conviction motions, but he was well within the bounds of the law and conducted himself properly.
What should be done now?
Science and infiltration for Plan B, after the fact. First, get the top guns in science to try to prove that the blood found in the RAV4 came from that tube and not from the scene. Secondly, get from Google, the government or any other source that may have any satellite imaging of the areas in question for the case for all of the time periods in question. Follow Steve in his car or while he was walking. Follow the victim in her car. Do this for two months leading up to the murder. Also, see who came and went to the victim’s house, work, or even called her. Look at the history of the victim. Make a list of everyone (even arguably, in law enforcement) and their families and everyone the victim knew in her life and see where it crosses. Infiltrate every aspect of everyone’s lives by investigation and find out links to an alternative theory. One is out there because it always is. Seek out side-by-side comparisons of everyone who was involved until a link is found. If Steve did NOT kill her, I guarantee there will be a link found and that will lead you to the killer. Legally, since Steve has gone to and then been rejected by every court, his only hope is to discover new evidence.
Are the police involved in the crime scene investigation criminals in your opinion? What should happen to them?
No, but only because there was never anything proved against them with regard to criminality. They were sloppy and maybe even planted evidence, but nothing was proved. Remember, I am a criminal defense attorney so EVERYONE is innocent until proven guilty, even the police. Are they criminals and planted that key and bullet? Or did they just miss it the first time because they thought they got the guy and did not need any more? It’s a real question, so you will never find me crucifying anyone without some evidence. Stupidity is NOT evidence. But they should be trained better because we rely on them to do the right thing when others do not. When they fail, they let all of us down and they let down all of the people who came before them who worked so hard to keep up law enforcement’s reputation to be there to protect and serve. Cops are human too. They have ONE job: CLOSE THE CASE. I tell clients this all the time: COPS ARE THE ENEMY. Do not trust them. They are only there to close their case. If they think you did it, they will make sure that they look at evidence to prove you did it and will neglect anything that exculpates you. That is totally fine, because that is our system. That is why there are prosecutors and defense attorneys, judges and jurors. Our system works when each does their specific compartmentalized job and there is a synergy thereafter.
How much money could Steve successfully sue for if he is released?
If he proves that he is innocent, the sky would be the limit. What he would collect is a different story. Either way, he would have lost a great majority of his life to these legal battles and I don’t know that any amount of money could ever undo that. If you told me that I had to serve 18 plus 10 years in jail, and at the end of the 28th year you would give me $500 million dollars, I would decline. Life, and the freedoms we enjoy on a day-to-day basis, is way more precious than any amount of money in the world.
Doug Anton can be reached at his office,
201-487-2055 douglasanton@gmail.com.
www.DouglasAnton.com,
www.ConceptionSportsManagement.com
The post The Steve Avery case appeared first on MN Magazine.