Adnan Syed (Serial) - Murder convcation vacated

[irishtexan 11519]

So because he was popular that means they assume she was lying?

[clapclapclap 9000]

Quote

2) Whether Adnan's attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by not investigating Asia.

Obvious first question:

"Do you remember when we used to dance, and incidents arose from circumstance?"

Edited March 9, 2019 by clapclapclap

[DanRydell 799]

I assume she still would have had a commensurate staff of assistants, investigators, etc., that would have vetted Asia.

 

 

You clearly don’t know many criminal defense attorneys.

 

 

[Kyle 207]

9 minutes ago, DanRydell said:

 

 

You clearly don’t know many criminal defense attorneys.

 

 

ass-ume - suppose to be the case, without proof.

:)

Edited March 9, 2019 by Kyle

[TwiceHorn 31472]

On 3/8/2019 at 2:24 PM, bschoolprof said:

The Maryland Court of Appeals (their state supreme court) overturned the Court of Special Appeals ruling 4-3.  Adan's conviction is thus reinstated and he is not granted a new trial.

article

opinion

There were two legal questions the court took on:

1) Whether Adnan had waived a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for not investigating the reliability of cell phone tower evidence.  The court rules yes - he waived it because he did not raise this issue originally in his post-conviction proceedings.  This all grew out of post-serial internet sleuthing.  Even the dissenting justices agreed on the waiver issue. More on this if interested:

  Reveal hidden contents

After serial ended and the internet got ahold of the case files, some noticed that a fax cover sheet sent by AT&T to the police as part of the cell tower location evidence indicated that "incoming calls are not reliable for location." The exact meaning of this and the implications for the case are still hotly disputed. Those who think Adnan is guilty argue this is boilerplate information that refers to a report that was not used to establish call location. Adnan's supporters say it calls the cell phone evidence into question and should have been investigated by his trial attorney.  There was a great deal of testimony on this issue at the latest post-conviction proceedings in 2016, but it's still a muddled mess.  Regardless, the court ruled that since Adnan had this evidence in the defense files all along and did not bring up this issue in his initial post conviction proceedings, he had waived the claim. Even the dissent agreed it had been waived. 

2) Whether Adnan's attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by not investigating Asia. This is a two pronged test: a) whether counsel was deficient in investigating the witness (the majority ruled yes); 2) whether the deficiency was "prejudicial" or would have mattered in terms of the verdict (the majority ruled no).  More on why they said no:

  Reveal hidden contents

Here is their reasoning from the opinion:

"Even taking Ms. McClain’s statements as true, her alibi does little more than to call into question the time that the State claimed Ms. Lee was killed and does nothing to rebut the evidence establishing Mr. Syed’s motive and opportunity to kill Ms. Lee. Thus, the jury could have disbelieved that Mr. Syed killed Ms. Lee by 2:36 p.m., as the State’s timeline suggested, yet still believed that Mr. Syed had the opportunity to kill Ms. Lee after 2:40 p.m. Ms. McClain’s testimony, according to her affidavit, failed to account for Mr. Syed’s whereabouts after 2:40 p.m. on January 13, 1999. Likewise, Mr. Syed’s statements to the police fail to account for his whereabouts after 2:15 p.m. when school let out. Therefore, even if the alibi testimony had been admitted into evidence it could not have affected the outcome of the case because that evidence did not negate Mr. Syed’s criminal agency."

They then recount Jay's testimony, Jenn's testimony, testimony of other witnesses that saw the two together that night, the cell phone evidence, and Adnan's inconsistent statement to police about asking for  ride, etc. They go on to say:

"Given the totality of the evidence the jury heard, we conclude that there is not a significant or substantial possibility that the verdict would have been different had trial counsel presented Ms. McClain as an alibi witness. Ms. McClain would have been an alibi witness who contradicted the defendant’s own statements, which were themselves already internally inconsistent; thus Ms. McClain’s proffered testimony could have further undermined Mr. Syed’s credibility. Moreover, Ms. McClain’s account was cabined to a narrow window of time in the afternoon of January 13, 1999. Her testimony would not have served to rebut the evidence the State presented relative to Mr. Syed’s actions on the evening of January 13, 1999. At best, her testimony would have highlighted Mr. Syed’s failure to account precisely for his whereabouts after school on January 13, 1999. Trial counsel’s deficient performance, therefore, could not have prejudiced Mr. Syed in light of the totality of the evidence presented to the jury." 

 

 

Ugh.  I don't like the state being able to appeal these.  It just seems to me to be inconsistent with the presumption of innocence, or the policy that underlies it, more accurately.

[TwiceHorn 31472]

On 3/9/2019 at 1:20 PM, DanRydell said:

 

 

You clearly don’t know many criminal defense attorneys.

 

 

This is the truth.  There are plenty of defense lawyers that have staff and resources commensurate with any type of trial.  But these folks cost in the 10s or more likely 100s of thousands of dollars to retain/engage for a major felony.

The more workaday criminal defense lawyer may have access to such resources, but only if the client is able to pay for them on an hourly or per-task basis.  They are able and diligent trial lawyers (and some aren't this at all), but to assume that proper resources will be brought to bear for a non-wealthy client is foolish.

[Kyle 207]

I have not seen Adnan doing many publicity stops since he got out of prison. What gives?

[Chet Steadman 940]

Your thread bumps are kinda shitty.