Who Is Jerry Buting Attorney
Jerry Buting is a Wisconsin-based criminal defense attorney known for handling high-profile cases and appellate work. He leads a law practice focused on serious criminal matters, including homicide, drug offenses, and federal charges. His firm provides trial-level and appellate representation across state and federal courts according to Forbes guidance on selecting counsel.
Buting graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School and has spent decades in private practice. His career includes trial work, post-conviction litigation, and appellate advocacy. He is recognized for a methodical, evidence-driven approach to defense strategy as outlined by Cornell Law on criminal defense basics.
Jerry Buting Attorney Practice Areas
The practice covers felony and misdemeanor defense, including violent crimes, drug trafficking, firearms offenses, and white-collar charges. The firm also handles appeals, post-conviction relief, and parole or probation matters. Representation spans both state court and federal court proceedings with some matters intersecting SEC enforcement actions.
Key focus areas include jury trial preparation, cross-examination strategy, suppression motions, and sentencing advocacy. The office works with forensic experts, investigators, and mitigation specialists to build defense cases. Services are structured around individualized assessment of evidence, legal exposure, and procedural options per Cornell Law on criminal procedure.
Notable Cases and Outcomes
Buting is widely known for his role in the defense of Steven Avery, a case that drew national attention and was later covered in the documentary series "Making a Murderer." He has also represented clients in other high-stakes Wisconsin criminal matters involving serious felony charges and complex evidentiary issues.
Case outcomes have included acquittals, hung juries, charge reductions, and successful appeals. The firm emphasizes appellate work when trial results are unfavorable, challenging rulings on evidence, jury instructions, and constitutional issues. Results depend on case-specific facts, jurisdiction, and procedural posture as referenced by Supreme Court records.