| Last updated
Kathleen Zellner shared a tweet which read: "We are pleased to announce that a reward of $100,000 is being offered, by a concerned citizen, for the arrest and conviction of the real killer of Teresa Halbach. All tips should be called in to (630) 847-3733."
If you have no idea what this is all about, then you've clearly never watched Making a Murderer, although even if you have you could probably do with a refresher - so here it is.
Steven Avery served 18 years in prison for a wrongful conviction of attempted murder and got exonerated by DNA evidence in 2003. Following his release, Avery filed a civil lawsuit against Mantiwoc County for $36 million (£27.3 million), which was still pending when he was arrested in connection with Halbach's murder in 2005, for which he was ultimately sentenced to life in prison.
His lawyers argued that the prosecution's evidence was inconsistent, claiming they were attempting to frame Avery in retaliation to his lawsuit.
The case later became the subject of the 10-episode Netflix documentary series Making a Murderer, which first aired at the end of 2015. Off the back of series, hundreds of thousands of people signed a petition appealing to the US President to pardon Avery.
A second series of the documentary was released in 2018, documenting Kathleen Zellner's fight to get Avery released from prison. However, earlier this year, Avery's appeal for a new trial against his murder conviction was rejected by judge Angela Sutkiewicz.
She said: "In this matter, the defendant cannot show that the State knew of the potential exculpatory value of the evidence. Nothing of record indicates that in 2011, when the material was given to the Halbach family, the material was re-classified as human bone.
"Dr. Eisenberg also testified that the material found in the quarry was largely unburned. This does not support the defendant's argument that the victim was murdered and burned in a place other than the Avery property and placed there at a later date."
Following the ruling, Zellner said she wasn't shocked by the decision not to offer her client a new trial, but would continue to fight his case.
She said: "We are not surprised by this ruling. In the greater scheme of things it is not important. The appellate court has jurisdiction of the entire appeal which has numerous issues. The appellate and supreme court of Wisconsin will make the decisions that matter on these issues and establish precedent on these issues."
Chosen for YouChosen for You
Most Read StoriesMost Read