I'm 7 episodes into S2, and it's really striking the different approaches both legal teams are taking.
Zellner - who I really don't like, she's way too celebrity and fame-obsessed - seems to love experimentation, trying every type of testing to prove that it was impossible for the crime to have happened the way the police and prosecutors say, so should be considered unsafe. She's throwing a lot of mud, but I'm not sure enough is sticking (the blood spatter stuff is unconvincing), though the bullet fragment looks to be the most compelling.
Nirider and Drizen are much more of your academic-type lawyers, focusing on case laws and precedent and not getting their hands dirty. (I don't think I've seen either of them near the Avery's property). I found it interesting that during the appeal in Chicago, most of their disgust at the appearance of Ken Kratz wasn't because he's an unbelievably awful shitbag, but that he was giving a press conference in the lobby of the courthouse and (indirectly) shilling for his book there.
I'll see how the rest of the series plays out, but I don't think I've moved much from my position at the end of S1 that Brendan Dassey is completely innocent and that the police framed a probably guilty man in Avery.