‘Making a Murderer’ Trial Inspired Reporter to Go Into Law
When he arrived in Green Bay, Wisconsin, in 2004, one of the first stories NBC26 reporter Aaron Keller was sent to cover was a party celebrating Steven Avery’s exoneration. Keller went on to spend two years covering the investigation, arrest and prosecution of both Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, for the murder of Teresa Halbach.
Not long after the trials wrapped up, Keller left journalism to pursue a law degree. He spoke to Rolling Stone recently about how the case inspired his decision, the guidance he got from Dean Strang and Jerry Buting, and the emotional toll of covering the trials. “America has been talking about this [case] for what, a month and a half? Now live with it for two years,” he says.
Was covering the Avery trial the thing that ultimately inspired you to go to law school?
It did. Covering this case led to an extreme amount of curiosity about legal processes, and it gave me the confidence that I would be able to grapple with the ideas of the law. I remember, specifically with Avery’s defense team, [developing] an incredible amount of respect for the way they conducted themselves in a very difficult environment. [Dean Strang and Jerry Buting] conducted themselves and behaved as gentleman, even in a contentious environment like that.
Have you spoken to either Buting or Strang since the trial?
At times during law school, I would email Dean and Jerry and ask them questions. There was a question I had, when I was taking my evidence law class, about the admissibility of scientific testing data. I was reading all the critical cases, and I’m like, “That’s not the way the Avery case went down.” So I emailed one of the two and said, “Hey, I’m trying to learn this, but my memory is not jiving with what my textbook says. Is Wisconsin operating outside of the standard protocol?” And I got an email back almost immediately, and they said, “No, you’re recognizing it! Leave it to you to recognize it. Yeah, we do not follow the national standard for the admissibility of scientific testing.”
What does that mean, exactly?
That was part of the whole EDTA testing, and whether or not the test was accurate. In most states, that test probably never would have even been admissible.
Really? Tell me more about that.
Well, under the federal rules of evidence, it’s called the Daubert Standard. Basically, [it means that] scientific testing methods have to be vetted and written about, and the tests have to be examined to see if it’s even valid.