Brendan Dassey’s conviction stands. After more than a decade of appeals reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, every court avenue has been exhausted, and Dassey remains in a Wisconsin prison serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole before 2048. A federal magistrate judge overturned the conviction in 2016 on the grounds that his confession was coerced, but the full Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated it in a 4-3 decision, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case in June 2018. Executive clemency from Wisconsin’s governor is now his only realistic path to release.
What He Was Convicted Of
In April 2007, a Manitowoc County jury convicted Dassey of first-degree intentional homicide, second-degree sexual assault, and mutilation of a corpse, all as a party to the crime alongside his uncle Steven Avery, in connection with the October 2005 death of Teresa Halbach.1Wisconsin Courts. Court of Appeals Decision, State v. Dassey, No. 2010AP3105-CR The judge imposed a life sentence with the earliest possible parole date in 2048.
The prosecution’s case relied heavily on Dassey’s own confession. No physical evidence independently tied him to the crime. How that confession was obtained became the central issue at every stage of appeal.
The Confession at the Center of the Case
On March 1, 2006, two detectives questioned Dassey for several hours about Halbach’s disappearance. He was 16. No parent or attorney was present. Court records and evaluations placed his IQ between 69 and 73, with significant difficulty in abstract thinking.
The interrogation drew on tactics associated with the Reid Technique, which uses psychological pressure, minimization of consequences, and implied promises of leniency. Investigators repeatedly told Dassey that being “honest” was the path to going home. His answers shifted under prodding, and in several instances the detectives supplied details that he then repeated back.
Prosecutors argued the confession was voluntary and corroborated by crime scene evidence. Defense attorneys and, later, federal judges argued it was a false confession pulled from a cognitively limited child. Which side prevailed at each stage depended on the legal standard being applied.
How the Appeals Played Out
State Courts
Dassey’s team argued the confession was involuntary and should have been suppressed, and that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance. In January 2013, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals rejected both arguments in a per curiam opinion, finding the confession voluntary.1Wisconsin Courts. Court of Appeals Decision, State v. Dassey, No. 2010AP3105-CR The Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to take the case, ending state-level review.
Federal Habeas Corpus
In 2014, a new legal team filed a federal habeas corpus petition in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, arguing the confession was obtained in violation of Dassey’s Fifth Amendment rights. On August 12, 2016, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Duffin granted the petition. Applying the “totality of the circumstances” test, Duffin pointed to the investigators’ promises and assurances, Dassey’s age, his intellectual limitations, his inexperience with police, and the absence of a parent. He ordered Dassey’s release unless prosecutors chose to retry him within 90 days.2United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Dassey v. Dittmann, No. 16-3397
The Seventh Circuit
Wisconsin appealed. A three-judge Seventh Circuit panel affirmed Judge Duffin on June 22, 2017, agreeing that habeas relief was warranted.3Justia. Dassey v. Dittmann, No. 16-3397 (7th Cir. 2017) The state then requested en banc review, meaning the full bench of Seventh Circuit judges would rehear the case. On December 8, 2017, the en banc court reversed 4-3, reinstating the conviction.4Justia. Dassey v. Dittmann, No. 16-3397 (7th Cir. 2017)
The Supreme Court
Dassey’s team petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.5Supreme Court of the United States. Dassey v. Dittmann – Certificate of Compliance On June 25, 2018, the Court denied the petition without comment. A denial of certiorari is not an endorsement of the lower ruling; the Court simply chose not to hear the case. But it ended Dassey’s federal appeals and left the Seventh Circuit’s reinstatement as the final word.
Why the Full Seventh Circuit Reversed
The majority’s reasoning turned on the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, or AEDPA. Under AEDPA, a federal court reviewing a state conviction cannot simply substitute its own judgment. It can grant relief only if the state court’s decision was an “unreasonable application” of clearly established Supreme Court precedent or rested on an unreasonable reading of the facts. State court factual findings are presumed correct, and the person challenging them must overcome that presumption with clear and convincing evidence.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 2254 – State Custody; Remedies in Federal Courts
The four-judge majority acknowledged that the state courts’ finding of voluntariness was debatable. But debatable was not enough. The majority concluded the Wisconsin courts’ conclusion was within the range a reasonable court could reach, so AEDPA barred federal intervention.2United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Dassey v. Dittmann, No. 16-3397
The three dissenters, led by Chief Judge Wood and joined by Judges Rovner and Williams, disagreed sharply. They described the interrogation as “ghoulish games of 20 Questions” in which Dassey guessed until he landed on the answers the detectives wanted. Judge Rovner, writing separately, emphasized that innocent people, particularly juveniles and those with intellectual disabilities, confess with alarming regularity. The dissent also faulted the Wisconsin Court of Appeals for never mentioning the heightened scrutiny that juvenile confessions require.4Justia. Dassey v. Dittmann, No. 16-3397 (7th Cir. 2017)
The 4-3 split shows how much this case turned on the deference standard rather than the underlying facts. The judges largely agreed on what happened in the interrogation room. They divided on how much latitude AEDPA gives state courts to interpret it.
Can Dassey Still Get Out
With the courts done, Dassey’s attorneys turned to the governor’s clemency power. Wisconsin’s constitution allows the governor to grant both pardons and commutations, but the two have different eligibility rules.
A pardon under Governor Evers’ criteria requires that the applicant has completed all confinement and supervision at least five years earlier. Dassey, serving a life sentence, cannot meet that requirement. Pardons are also unavailable to registered sex offenders, an additional barrier given his sexual assault conviction.7Wisconsin State Legislature. Pardons
A commutation is different. It reduces the punishment without erasing the conviction, and the governor’s constitutional authority to grant one is not bound by the Pardon Advisory Board’s eligibility rules. Historically, Wisconsin governors used commutations to shorten sentences they considered unproductive, and commutation applications once far outnumbered pardon requests.8Wisconsin State Legislature. Executive Clemency Power in Wisconsin Dassey’s attorneys have argued this is the right mechanism for his case.
In December 2019, the Wisconsin Pardon Advisory Board rejected Dassey’s clemency petition without reviewing it on the merits. Governor Evers subsequently declined to act. Dassey’s legal team has publicly noted that the governor has independent constitutional authority to issue a commutation regardless of the board’s recommendation, but as of late 2025 no action has been taken and no formal process for reviewing commutation petitions has been established under the current administration.
Where Dassey Is Now
Brendan Dassey is incarcerated at Oshkosh Correctional Institution in Wisconsin.9Wisconsin Department of Corrections. Oshkosh Correctional Institution He has been in prison since 2006 and will not be eligible for parole until 2048, when he will be 58. The conviction is final as a matter of court proceedings. The case remains a prominent illustration of the tension between AEDPA’s deference to state courts and federal constitutional protections against coerced confessions, particularly when the suspect is a child.