'Making a Murderer Part 2' attorneys: Series highlights painstaking post-conviction process

Alison Dirr | Appleton Post-Crescent

The attorneys featured in Netflix's "Making a Murderer Part 2" hope viewers see the series as more than entertainment.

"I hope that the viewers understand how many obstacles the courts have created in exonerating a person who is actually innocent and/or did not receive a fair trial," Illinois attorney Kathleen Zellner wrote in response to questions from USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin.

Zellner is representing Manitowoc County's Steven Avery, one of two men serving life sentences for the 2005 murder of photographer Teresa Halbach. Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, have maintained their innocence. They are represented by attorneys whose work is chronicled in Part 2.

Part 1 of "Making a Murderer," which Netflix released in December 2015, brought international attention to their trials and the investigation into Halbach's murder. Many who viewed those first 10 episodes concluded that their convictions were the result of a corrupt justice system in which the two men were framed for a crime they didn't commit. Detractors called the series one-sided and said it left out key details.

Part 2, which was released on Friday, follows the steps attorneys are taking through the federal and state appeals processes.

RELATED: 'Making a Murderer:' Things to know before your Part 2 binge (spoiler alert!)

RELATED: Appeal of 'Making a Murderer' reveals public's fascination with true crime, gory details

RELATED: Spoilers: The biggest revelations from 'Making a Murderer Part 2'

RELATED: Unwanted attention: Manitowoc braces for new round of Avery, 'Making a Murderer'

Avery's case is before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in Dassey's case in June.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice has fought to keep their convictions in place since Avery and Dassey were sentenced in 2007 to life in prison.

"The Wisconsin Department of Justice has proudly defended these convictions in order to preserve the justice owed to Teresa Halbach and her family," Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel said in a statement to USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin. "The courts have rejected the appeals by Avery and Dassey time and time again because they were guilty and their guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We are confident that Avery’s latest attempt to void his conviction will fail as well."

A DOJ spokeswoman said the department could not participate in an interview because of the ongoing litigation.

Former Calumet County District Attorney Ken Kratz, who prosecuted the cases and has been the target of significant criticism, did not respond to a request for comment.

Steven Drizin, one of the attorneys who has represented Dassey for about a decade, said he thinks the series walks the public through the intricacies of post-conviction work in a way that other documentaries and films don't.

"They might see the final moment or when someone walks out of prison or they might read about the DNA test that comes back and proves that somebody is innocent, but there’s an awful lot of work that goes in before those highlight reels come out," he told USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin on Tuesday. "And season 2 really does I think show the incredible amount of work that is necessary to right a wrong."

Drizin said viewers should realize these cases can take decades.

Drizin and another of Dassey's longtime attorneys, Laura Nirider, said they see the possibility of change in the justice system. They said they've tried to explain complex legal concepts, among them the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, known as AEDPA, which was featured in Part 2.

The law was an element of Part 2 that some viewers have started questioning.

It is based on theory that federal courts shouldn't meddle in the decisions of state courts, Nirider said, and she claims it prevented Dassey's release.

"The reality is that this case shows the problem with this law when it comes to wrongful convictions," Nirider said.

When Dassey was convicted, he was seen as a notorious murderer, she said, and elected state court judges don't necessarily have an incentive to defend the constitutional rights of people who are believed to have committed a heinous crime.

"That's why we have the ability to go to the federal courts: To seek relief from federal judges, who have life tenure, who can make unpopular decisions to defend people's rights when it's called for," she said.

That is what should have happened for Brendan, she said, and it's what did happen in two federal courts. The first overturned his conviction and the second upheld that decision.

It was AEDPA that ultimately led to a third federal court decision that reversed the previous two.

Nirider said she's already seen tweets to senators and representatives about AEDPA, which she says is exciting. She also sees the public educating itself about how the justice system works, which she expects will change the dynamics of the system in many ways.

"The next time that somebody is called for jury service and they happen to have seen 'Making a Murderer' One and Two, maybe they'll be thinking differently when they hear ... a juvenile defendant has confessed," she said.

Loving how much the once-obscure AEDPA is being flamed on Twitter right now. Let’s get this unjust law off the books. It’s the reason why Brendan Dassey is still in prison. Some background reading: https://t.co/15gWEpnrVD by @lilianasegura — Laura Nirider (@LauraNirider) October 21, 2018

In a lot of ways, the Twitter chatter has mirrored that of the first season: Avery and Dassey are innocent. Kratz is terrible. Their attorneys are trying to save them from an unjust system that just refuses to let them go.

The social media critiques under #MakingaMurderer are few and far between.

#MakingAMurderer - am I the only 1 who thought #zellner wasted time with those ridiculous blood experiments? It's inexplicable how blood could end up in car but not on steering wheel? Here's 1 explanation: he wiped off wheel but missed a few other places. — Harry Parsons (@HarryParsons92) October 22, 2018

Zellner, who steals the show in Part 2, has been praised on social media.

"#makingamurderer part 2 was absolutely incredible!," tweeted one viewer. "I genuinely think under @ZellnerLaw he will be a free man. Also, I'm not surprised #KenKratz received the hate he has, he is an awful man who has wrongfully jailed two innocent people!!"

#makingamurderer part 2 was absolutely incredible! I genuinely think under @ZellnerLaw he will be a free man. Also, I'm not surprised #KenKratz received the hate he has, he is an awful man who has wrongfully jailed two innocent people!! — Nathan Edwards (@NathanEdwards16) October 22, 2018

Jerry Buting, one of Avery's two trial defense attorneys, said he has received primarily positive feedback from people who have seen Part 2. Some, though are disappointed that Zellner is arguing that he and attorney Dean Strang were ineffective in their defense of Avery. Buting and Strang emerged as folk heroes after Part 1 was released and have since toured the world to talk about criminal justice reform.

He said he's tried to explain that it's part of any post-conviction attorney's job to look at how well he and Strang represented their client.

"Kathleen Zellner is just doing her job, so we don’t take it personally," he told USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin.