“I’m the Making a Murderer lawyer – what you didn’t see changed my life”

by

Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi created a short film for a class at Columbia University, and were surprised when it unexpectedly became a huge hit on Netflix.

The 2015 documentary Making a Murderer follows the case of Stephen Avery and his nephew, Brendan Dassey, in Wisconsin. The series was filmed over a decade and details how Avery spent 18 years in prison – from 1985 to 2003 – after being wrongly convicted of a sexual assault and attempted murder. He was later proven innocent thanks to DNA evidence.

In 2005, photographer Teresa Halbach was murdered, and both Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey were convicted of the crime and sentenced to life in prison. However, a documentary raises questions about their guilt, suggesting they may not have been responsible for Halbach’s death. Dassey was only 16 years old at the time and has learning difficulties.

Dean Strang and Jerry Buting, the lawyers who defended Steven Avery, unexpectedly became popular figures after the case, attracting over 19 million viewers to the documentary series in its first few weeks. Now, a decade after the documentary aired, Strang—who hosts a new podcast called ‘I Rest My Case with Jonathan Goldberg KC’—is sharing how the experience changed his life.

Why did you want to become a lawyer?

Honestly, law wasn’t my dream. Ever since I was a kid, I wanted to be a cartoonist – I loved drawing! But my dad didn’t really see it as a serious career, he just thought I was doodling. While I was at Dartmouth, I started to realize that making a living just from cartoons would be really tough. My aunt was a lawyer, and my dad kept suggesting law school. Plus, at the time, there were tons of jobs going for new lawyers, so it seemed like a sensible path, even if it wasn’t what I originally envisioned for myself.

I started law school at the University of Virginia in 1985. During my first year, the editor of a Milwaukee newspaper I’d been freelancing for offered me a full-time cartoonist position when their artist left. I was already enjoying law school, and quickly realized it was even more interesting than I expected, so I decided to turn down what had been my dream job. Years later, in 1990, I handled my first major case – the trial that the media dubbed the ‘Dairy Princess murder.’ Though there was no internet or social media at the time, the case received a lot of attention from television and radio, and eventually inspired a made-for-TV movie.

How did you get involved in Making a Murderer?

A civil lawsuit was underway – Avery was suing Manitowoc County for $36 million due to his wrongful conviction in a 1985 assault case. Steven’s lawyers, Walt Kelly and Steve Glenn, shared my name and Jerry’s with the legal team. Steve then called to warn me that two student filmmakers were documenting the case. He described them as talented, friendly, and interesting, and advised me to be aware of their constant presence. I was brought onto the case, and I suggested that Jerry and I work together, as we could share the fees and collaborate more effectively than either of us could individually.

How did your first meeting go with filmmakers Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi?

After spending three months in Manitowoc, they’d already spoken with Steven by phone while he was in jail, gotten to know his family, and built a good relationship with them. Jerry and I met with them between 2006 and 2007 to learn about their project – what they were working on and what they hoped to achieve.

We met some very intelligent people and explained that we were handling a murder case and needed to stay focused, respecting the confidentiality of our client. Because Laura had previously practiced law, she understood our position and they assured us they wouldn’t interfere. We reached an agreement on how we would work together, and they honored it.

We intentionally avoided sensationalizing the crime. There are no graphic depictions of violence, no reenactments, and no dramatic music meant to shock. Our goal was to present the facts as a documentary, exploring how the system impacts everyone involved. I actually have more reservations about the true crime genre as a whole than I do about this particular series.

Are you a fan of true crime?

Actually, I think it’s quite harmful. At its worst, it profits from people’s suffering. We’re talking about incredibly painful experiences – like losing a child to murder or having a loved one sentenced to life in prison.

Everyone involved in the legal system – except for those who work within it or volunteer – is deeply harmed, particularly in cases of murder, as loss is permanent. It’s important for the public to understand how the system works – whether it’s failing victims, defendants, or society as a whole. The challenge lies in balancing public oversight and ensuring accountability with the need to protect individuals and avoid exploiting their suffering. Navigating this balance is incredibly delicate and potentially harmful.

Do you think Making a Murderer sparked a new interest in true crime?

The release of the podcasts Serial, The Jinx, and Making a Murderer – first in October 2014, February 2015, and December 2015 respectively – really sparked a renewed interest in true crime, at least in North America.

I think a big reason why Making a Murderer resonated with so many people is that seeing inside a courtroom like that is pretty rare. It’s not common around the world, and even in the US, it only really started happening in the 1980s, though still photography was allowed much earlier. During the Steven Avery trial, the courtroom was actually set up for media coverage – they had a soundproof room with a glass wall for cameras, and even remote-controlled cameras in the ceiling. The only rule was you couldn’t film the jury. And outside, it was a bit chaotic with reporters rushing up to you with cameras and mics, but you just get used to it as part of the job.

Did you ever think the series would reach as many people as it did?

I believed participating in their film project carried very little risk or pressure. I didn’t think many people beyond their Columbia University class would ever see it. Moira and Laura needed to create a short film for their master’s degree, and they hoped it could become a full-length documentary. I imagined it playing in a small art house cinema to an audience of around 30 people, mostly friends and family. They successfully completed their degrees, and about a year later, they submitted a 30-minute version, titled ’18 to Life,’ to the Tribeca Film Festival, where it was accepted.

My wife, Jerry and his wife, and I took a trip to New York for a film festival – it was our first time. We spent the weekend exploring Tribeca, trying to enjoy the atmosphere. Looking back at a short film we were involved with, I don’t recall our lawyers having much of an impact. After that, we didn’t hear from them for years.

What happened next?

Back in 2014, Laura and Moira unexpectedly contacted me to say they were still developing the project and wanted to film some additional scenes. They spent a few hours in Wisconsin shooting footage, but then I didn’t hear from them again until November 2015. That’s when I got a call letting me know they’d sold the film and were turning it into a 10-part series, scheduled for release just before Christmas. I remember laughing – a murder trial set in a remote part of Wisconsin didn’t seem like typical holiday viewing! Honestly, it struck me as a really strange way to market the film.

Moira and Laura offered to send Jerry and me a DVD of the episodes with a watermark, but I declined. Reliving those experiences was too painful, especially since we lost a case we should have won. I generally avoid watching videos or seeing pictures of myself. Jerry did watch it, and we visited Steven in prison beforehand knowing he wouldn’t be able to. He told me the DVD was a fair and accurate portrayal, with no malicious or untrue content. My wife eventually made me watch it a few weeks after its release, as it was getting a lot of attention. I don’t think I finished watching the entire second season, though.

What was the initial response like?

The launch really took off when, on December 18, 2015, I received an email from someone in South Carolina who had gone to the effort of finding my contact information online. They sent a long, thoughtful message, and by Monday, my inbox was flooded with hundreds of similar emails.

The initial reaction in Ireland, Australia, and England was one of shock and realization – people there felt that if these problems could happen in the US, despite its supposedly superior justice system, then they weren’t immune to similar issues either. In contrast, Scandinavian countries generally expressed a strong belief that such events wouldn’t occur in their societies. I often responded by acknowledging their confidence but cautioning that experts know systemic failures can happen anywhere, regardless of how a country structures its justice system.

On Monday, my assistant told me a man claiming to be Alec Baldwin had left a voicemail. I assumed it was a joke from a friend, but it was actually him. He was incredibly nice, and remained so even after his acting career began to flourish. He was planning to apply to law school at the time and was genuinely interested in studying law.

How long would you say the interest lasted after the show came out?

It was a wonderful experience overall, even though it lasted only about two years. For the first couple of years, I was traveling around 250 days a year, which meant I had to significantly reduce my legal practice. It proved difficult to fully return to it, and eventually, referrals dried up as colleagues realized I was often unavailable. Since 2019, I’ve been teaching full-time, and it’s striking how quickly things are forgotten – I’ve gone from having almost all my students familiar with ‘Making a Murderer’ to none at all. People’s memories are surprisingly short.

What was your hope after Making a Murderer came out?

As a film buff, I always think about the bigger picture, but this story really hit me. While the specifics of the Avery and Halbach families’ case, and the legal battles surrounding it, felt intensely personal to those directly involved, it made me realize something important. It’s easy to get caught up in faraway dramas, but the real issues – wrongful convictions and letting guilty people go free – are happening right in my own backyard. It got me thinking I should be paying attention to what’s going on in my local courts, where I might actually be able to make a difference. These things aren’t isolated incidents; they happen everywhere, and that’s what’s truly unsettling.

Want to see this content?

We can’t display this content because of a security measure called reCAPTCHA. If you’re signed in to Contentpass, please sign out to see it.

Authors

Laura RutkowskiCommissioning Editor

Read More

2026-01-05 10:10