农奴波琳娜·列别捷娃（TatianaBabenkova 饰），无子女公爵阿列克谢·彼得罗维奇·戈洛文（VladislavVetrov 饰）的养女，是扬堡县最令人羡慕的未婚女子。女孩。在她命名的舞会上，阿列克谢彼得罗维奇死于心脏病，......

在《制造杀人犯》播出之后，Steven的律师和主播Michelle Li在FB上做了一次直播访谈，Dean在视频中回答了许多FB用户针对案子提出的问题。这些问题主要是关于Halbach案件的庭审，比如为什么Steven没有出庭作证，为什么控方可以用不同的理论分别起诉Steven和Brendan。

视频在油管上有，标题是defense attorney dean strang answers your making a murderer questions。我看完之后觉得Dean在里面聊到的内容很好的补充了纪录片中省略的部分。有些问题也是在看纪录片时一直不懂的，Dean解释了之后感觉对辩方策略有更清晰的理解。所以我将主要的问题和Dean的回答听写了下来，简单翻译了一下，贴在下文大家看看。

Why was no one held accountable for the obvious fraud, tampering with evidence and misconduct of office?
Dean: A criminal trial is all about whether to hold the one person accused accountable or not, whether he’s proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt or not. The conduct of other people may have a bearing on the verdict as to the guy on trial. But a criminal trial doesn’t address other people’s responsibility or misconduct.
You’d have to go other steps, a civil trial, administrative proceedings.
为什么篡改证据、行为不当的警职人员没有受到追究？
刑事案件只审判被告是否有罪，至于其他相关方的过错要通过其他方式来追究。比如被告可以自己提起民事诉讼，或者通过行政程序等。

Why didn’t Dean put his client on the stand. The jury would have better understood Avery and realized he wasn’t capable of thinking through a murder and cover-up. The guy is simply not intelligent enough to convincingly lie.

Dean: Can’t talk about that directly because it bumps into attorney-client privilege to which steven is entitled.
It’s not the lawyer who decides whether the accused will or will not testify. It has to be the assused’s decision whether to testify or not.There are all kinds of reasons innocent people don’t testify. They may be very poor public speakers, they may be afraid of speaking publicly, they may not be in aid of English speakers(not particularly in Steven’s case), they might have done other things that would come out and make them look bad if they testify, maybe they’ve got prior convictions(those are miserable if you testify).
There are also reasons guilty people do testify.
It’s a much more complicated decision for the accused with advice from lawyers than just “boy if I didn’t do anything wrong I’d get up and tell twelve strangers I didn’t do anything wrong”
为什么辩方没有传唤Steven出庭作证？那样的话陪审团就会明白Steven没有那个水平犯下谋杀罪还掩护罪行。
被告是否出庭作证是由被告自己决定的，律师能做的只是给建议给他。由于律师和当事人的保密特权, Dean不能直接解释为什么Steven不作证。但是需要明白的是，清白者出于各种原因，会选择不去出庭作证。他们可能害怕公开讲话，可能英语讲的不好, 也可能之前有别的犯罪记录会在交叉质询时被控方加以利用。而明知自己有罪的人也会出于各种原因选择作证。
总之整个决定牵涉很多复杂因素，而不是仅仅是“没做错事就没什么好怕的，干嘛不敢上证人席作证”


Why did they allow the evidence from Manitowoc county sheriff’s department to be used in court when they are specifically told they could not search the property?
Dean: It was the decision the department made not to participate. We had no legal right to insist the evidence was no good simply because of who may have found it.
明明Manitowoc警方已经明确被要求不能搜查Steven的房产，为什么他们擅自搜查后搜集的证据可以被法庭采信？
警方部门为了回避要求不参与此次搜查，这是警方主动避嫌的结果而非法庭或其他机构的命令。所以辩方没有权利因此而提出这些证据不被采信。


Mr Strang, I think you and Mr Buting did an excellent job presenting reasonable doubt in the face of clear prejudice. How did you overcome the obvious disappointment you must have felt?
Dean: I’ve lost before [laugh]. It’s hard to lose, but for me I’d rather make the effort and be in the fight than not join the fight at all.
Dean和Jerry指出合理怀疑干的很漂亮。案子的判决结果显然带来失望和无奈，你是怎么消化的？
我以前也有输过啊。输掉官司是很难受，但是在我来说，我宁愿付出努力去搏一把，也不要因为怕输而毫不努力。

Is it true that Steven Avery’s jury contained a father of Manitowoc county sheriffs deputy and the wife of a Manitowoc county clerk of courts employee? Why did the defense allow this? Why was it not mentioned in the Netflix series?
Dean: It has the father of a sheriff’s deputy on it and there was a relative who’s connected to the clerk’s office(I’ve lost the detail). One of the reasons is that you don’t pick a jury, what you do remove the potential jurors that you most want to remove, but you only get six strikes for no cause at all, once people have passed muster as possibly unbiased and able to serve. So you only can remove the six people who you are most concerned about. We exercised our peremptory strikes and State exercised all of its. But you are left with some people that you wouldn’t necessarily pick or you making that choice at the outset. You are not selecting the jury, you are sort of de-selecting who are least fit to serve on the jury.
Steven案件的陪审团中有一位陪审员是Manitowoc副警长的父亲，还有一位陪审员是Manitowoc法院的工作人员的妻子，这个传言是真的吗？为什么辩方没有否决掉这两位陪审员？
陪审团成员的确有一位是警长的父亲，还有一位是法庭书记员的亲戚。之所以没有把他们否决掉，是因为筛选陪审团时辩方和控方都各只有6次机会，所以只能把那些本方觉得最不适宜的陪审员否决掉。剩下陪审员不一定是本方觉得最合适的，或者说如果能主动选择的话本方不会主动去选的，只能说是相对已经被否决的那些来说稍微合适一些（可能也有偏见但相较起来没那么严重）的。

Why wasn’t it moved to a different city, town or county?
Dean: After the March 2, 2006 press conference that the lead prosecutor held, there wasn’t a county in the 72 counties of Wisconsin we could’ve gone to that wasn’t massively affected by that lurid press conference which only later proved to be largely unsupportable by the facts. But it was there, almost a year before the trial. So we opted to stay with the jury in the county that at least was familiar with the sheriff’s department and probably most familiar with the history of Mr Avery’s involvement with the sheriff’s department. There really was nowhere we could’ve gone or we would have had a jury that was a blank slate.
为什么Steven的庭审没有换到另外一个城市或者是镇？
检方06年3月2日的媒体发布会发布的Steven案子的骇人听闻的细节情况大范围地影响了整个威斯康辛州，即使后来这些细节被证明是没有事实根据的。在这个媒体发布会之后，在威州的72个县里面没有一个县是没有受到影响的。就算发布会的内容被证明没有依据，它的影响仍然明显，而且在庭审前一年大家就都听说了。
所以我们选择留在manitowoc，这样的话从manitowoc居民中抽出的陪审员相对比较熟悉Steven和当地警方之间的恩怨。我们实在是找不到哪个地方的陪审团是白纸一张，对检方的发布的信息毫不知情的。

How can they charge Avery for it happened in the garage and Dassey in the bedroom and so forth because the two don’t even match. So how can they be charged for crimes that don’t even match up?
Dean: The formal question there from a lawyer’s perspective would be “Does due process allow prosecution to present inconsistent theories of guilt in two separate trials”.
(Have you seen it happened before?)
I have seen it happened before. The case’s law, the courts, on this, have been disappointingly unclear about what the limits are of prosecution’s ability to do that. Regardless of what the courts say, if ultimately my profession is dedicated to a search for the truth, presenting irreconcilable theories to two different groups of citizen jurors can’t possibly serve a search for truth.
检方起诉Steven的时候说Teresa是在车库被杀，起诉Brendan的时候又说Teresa是在卧室被杀。这根本对不上。为什么同一个案子里，起诉不同的被告可以用完全不同的说法？
从律师角度来看，这个问题的正式表述会是“在正当程序的要求下，检方可以在不同的庭审对同一罪行给出不同的说法吗”
我有见过这种情况发生。令人失望的是，法律和法庭在这方面没有清晰的给出检方“在同一案件中用不同理论起诉不同被告（以确保更高定罪率）”的职权限制。不管法庭怎么说，如果我的职业最终是为了追求真相，那么向两个不同的陪审团兜售不同的理论（来让他们分别作出有罪判决）不可能服务于追求真相的目的。