Making a Murderer's Steven Avery was first represented by lawyers Dean Strang and Jerry Buting.

The pair of defence attorneys worked with Avery during his original trial, which played out in the first 10 episodes of the true crime Netflix series – but he was eventually convicted of the murder of Teresa Halbach.

Netflix

Related: Making a Murderer's original lawyers discuss "right decision" in Steven Avery's appeal

Now years into the post-conviction process, Avery has continued to state his innocence and, with new lawyer Kathleen Zellner fighting his corner, is trying to appeal this conviction.

Taking up much of Making a Murderer's second season, Zellner's work has so far included some pretty rigorous re-testing of the crime scene evidence, as well as examining analysis from new experts. This has lead to a whole host of new information, as well as new theories coming into play.

Netflix

Zellner is trying to win a new trial for Steven Avery. One avenue that's open to her, as part of the post-conviction process, is to look at whether the counsel that her client received during his court case was effective – something that Strang and Buting have previously made clear that they have no qualms about.

"You don't have the luxury at this point, if you're picking up a case this late, of overlooking any possible reason for a new trial," Strang said in Making a Murderer's second season.

Netflix

Related: Kathleen Zellner filmed ANOTHER documentary for a case more difficult than Making a Murderer

They also believed the ruling that came right before Avery's 2007 trial, which prevented them from pointing the finger at other suspects, limited their options when defending Avery. "We had other suspects," Jerry said, before adding that this ruling "handicapped" them "from the beginning".

For many Making a Murderer fans watching at home, this has always been a real sticking point. Why were Steven Avery's lawyers not allowed to point the finger or raise questions around other potential culprits? So…

Why WERE Steven Avery's lawyers not allowed to point the finger at anyone else?

During an exclusive interview with Digital Spy, Dean Strang and Jerry Buting discussed this odd regulation and the potential impact it could be having on the US justice system.

Netflix

"That rule of Wisconsin Law befuddles almost every person in the UK who has any understanding of the legal system at all," Strang told us. "And indeed in most of the world people simply are left scratching their heads at that rule."

"[The rule] is one that puts a greater burden on the defence in trying to establish innocence, than it puts on the prosecution trying to prove guilt."

Buting revealed that it's not unique to Wisconsin, and is something that is present in other states in different forms. He added that "not every state has a strict rule or a strict test that must be met before this kind of evidence can be presented to a jury."

"It stems from the general belief that you shouldn't be able to just blow smoke at the jury or confuse them and have them looking at other suspects who really couldn't have any connection to the crime," he explained.

Giving a hypothetical example to illustrate this, he said: "If you wanted to argue that the real killer was, let's say, the business partner of the deceased but that guy was over in Hawaii at the time of the crime in Wisconsin then obviously he or she couldn't have done it. And so the jury shouldn't be allowed to be distracted by that kind of evidence."

Netflix

Related: What could we expect from Making a Murderer season 3?

However, Buting was keen to highlight the potential flaws in the rule.

"The legal [and] technical hurdles that you have to overcome for the defence to be able to present that evidence are ridiculously high and there's a real double standard because it requires you as a defence attorney to prove the other suspect had a motive... even though the prosecution never has to prove the defendant had any motive to kill. So it's completely bizarre to most people when they hear about this rule of law."

"It's just, I think, another example where with time the deck has gotten stacked against people who are accused of crimes in order to make it easier for the state to obtain convictions.

"Which of course raises the potential of there being wrongful convictions as well."

Making a Murderer Part 1 and Part 2 are now streaming on Netflix.

Want up-to-the-minute entertainment news and features? Just hit 'Like' on our Digital Spy Facebook page and 'Follow' on our @digitalspy Instagram and Twitter account.



This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io