Introduction

State of Wisconsin v. Brian K. Avery (345 Wis.2d 407) is a pivotal judgment from the Supreme Court of Wisconsin issued on January 30, 2013. The case centers on Avery's appeals for post-conviction relief based on newly discovered photogrammetry evidence. Avery was convicted in 1995 for two counts of robbery and sought a new trial in 2007, arguing that enhanced video analysis exonerated him. This commentary delves into the court's reasoning, the role of new evidence in post-conviction appeals, and the broader implications for the criminal justice system.

Summary of the Judgment

Avery was convicted in 1995 of two armed robberies based primarily on eyewitness testimonies, his confession, and subsequent apologies. In 2007, he filed for post-conviction relief, introducing new photogrammetry analysis of robbery footage which suggested he was too tall to be the perpetrator. The Circuit Court denied the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, granting Avery a new trial. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the new evidence did not create a reasonable probability of a different verdict and that the original trial sufficiently addressed the controversy, thus denying Avery's request for a new trial.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court referenced several key precedents that shape the standards for post-conviction relief in cases involving newly discovered evidence:

• STATE v. LOve: Established that newly discovered evidence must have a substantial impact on the original verdict.
• STATE v. McCALLUM: Emphasized that appellate courts should not weigh new evidence against old evidence but consider its separate impact.
• STATE v. EDMUNDS: Highlighted that appellate courts should assess the reasonable probability that new evidence could create doubt.
• STATE v. HICKS and STATE v. ARMSTRONG: Demonstrated cases where DNA evidence significantly undermined original evidence, warranting new trials.

These precedents underscore the importance of newly discovered evidence's ability to affect the reliability of key testimonies or confessions that were central to the original conviction.

Legal Reasoning

The court analyzed Avery's motion based on two primary theories:

• Newly Discovered Evidence: The photogrammetry analysis was deemed admissible as it was obtained using technology unavailable at the time of the trial. However, the court assessed whether this evidence created a reasonable probability that a jury would harbor reasonable doubt about Avery's guilt.
• Interest of Justice: The court evaluated whether the original trial fully addressed the core issues or if the exclusion of photogrammetry evidence left significant controversies unresolved.

The Supreme Court concluded that:

• The photogrammetry evidence did not sufficiently undermine the strong existing evidence (eyewitness accounts, confession, and apologies) to create a reasonable doubt.
• The controversy was fully addressed during the original trial, as the jury had ample opportunity to assess all available evidence except the photogrammetry, which was not central enough to the conviction.

The dissenting opinions raised concerns about the majority's application of discretionary reversal powers and the potential undermining of appellate courts' authority to grant new trials in exceptional cases.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the standards for post-conviction relief by clarifying that not all newly discovered evidence warrants a new trial. Specifically, for new technology-based evidence to be grounds for overturning a conviction:

• The evidence must significantly challenge the reliability of pivotal trial evidence.
• There must be a reasonable probability that a different verdict could have been reached had the evidence been presented.

Consequently, this case sets a precedent that technological enhancements alone are insufficient for post-conviction relief unless they critically undermine the prosecution's case.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Photogrammetry

Photogrammetry is the art and science of making measurements from photographs, especially for recovering the exact positions of surface points. In this case, digital photogrammetry was used to analyze video footage from the robberies to estimate the height of the perpetrator.

Newly Discovered Evidence

This refers to evidence that was not available during the original trial and could potentially impact the outcome of the case. For it to be grounds for a new trial, it must meet specific criteria demonstrating its relevance and potential to alter the jury's decision.

Interest of Justice

A legal principle that allows courts to grant relief, such as a new trial, when it is determined that the original trial did not achieve a just outcome, even if procedural rules were followed.

Reasonable Doubt

The highest standard of proof in the legal system, requiring that the evidence excludes any reasonable hypothesis except that of the defendant's guilt.

Conclusion

Avery v. Wisconsin serves as a critical affirmation of the standards governing post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin underscored that while advancements in technology can provide new insights, not all such evidence will meet the stringent requirements necessary to overturn a conviction. The decision emphasizes the robustness of original trial processes and the high threshold that new evidence must surpass to influence established verdicts.

Moreover, the case highlights the delicate balance appellate courts must maintain between ensuring justice and upholding the finality of convictions. By reinforcing that only exceptional cases warranting a reasonable probability of a different outcome should be considered for new trials, the judgment seeks to preserve the integrity and efficiency of the criminal justice system.