• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Adnan Syed gets a new trial

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
19,092
Reaction score
11,186
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

JumpinJack

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
6,628
Reaction score
2,971
Location
Dallas, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Adnan Syed, Subject Of 'Serial' Podcast, Will Get A New Trial : The Two-Way : NPR

I don't think there was enough to get him a new trial, this was mostly brought on by media pressure. Now that he's got a new trial and the case is so cold I don't think he will be convicted. The case against him wasn't the greatest but it was pretty solid that he had something to do with her murder.

Well, the judge found that he had not had decent representation by his attorney. For one thing, it says the defendant had a witness who was speaking to him in a library at the time that prosecution said the girl was being murdered, and his attorney never contacted her. That's a pretty big deal.

So I don't know. But if it's true he didn't have sufficient representation, that's a reason for a new trial. If any of us were tried, using only the evidence of the prosecution, we'd all be convicted. The prosecution doesn't present evidence that helps the defendant. He presents only evidence that convicts. It's up to the defense to present evidence that helps the defendant.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
19,092
Reaction score
11,186
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, the judge found that he had not had decent representation by his attorney. For one thing, it says the defendant had a witness who was speaking to him in a library at the time that prosecution said the girl was being murdered, and his attorney never contacted her. That's a pretty big deal.

So I don't know. But if it's true he didn't have sufficient representation, that's a reason for a new trial. If any of us were tried, using only the evidence of the prosecution, we'd all be convicted. The prosecution doesn't present evidence that helps the defendant. He presents only evidence that convicts. It's up to the defense to present evidence that helps the defendant.

The only problem is that the lawyer did speak to the person and choose not to use them because Adnan already had 2 other different alibis that he was more sure of.

If you listen to the serial podcast (highly recommended) you see the whole thing is a mess because no one can pin down where Adnan, his buddy Jay or the victim are really at any time after school is out on the day.
 

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
29,956
Reaction score
14,648
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well, the judge found that he had not had decent representation by his attorney. For one thing, it says the defendant had a witness who was speaking to him in a library at the time that prosecution said the girl was being murdered, and his attorney never contacted her. That's a pretty big deal.

So I don't know. But if it's true he didn't have sufficient representation, that's a reason for a new trial. If any of us were tried, using only the evidence of the prosecution, we'd all be convicted. The prosecution doesn't present evidence that helps the defendant. He presents only evidence that convicts. It's up to the defense to present evidence that helps the defendant.

And then there was the issue with the outgoing calls making a good case for pinpointing where a phone is but that with incoming calls that is not that definitive at all and his lawyer not even cross examining the expert on that.

Judge Martin P. Welch agreed with the defense’s claim that the lawyer in Syed’s initial trial provided ineffective counsel when she failed to cross-examine the state of Maryland’s cell tower expert about the reliability of key evidence. The state had argued that the cell tower data accurately placed Syed at the location near where Lee’s body was found.

crucial new evidence. “Undisclosed,” created by Syed family friend Rabia Chaudry, discovered a fax cover sheet from AT&T that noted the unreliability of cell tower information due to a technical glitch.

“Outgoing calls only are reliable for location status. Any incoming calls will NOT be considered reliable information for location,” the sheet read. Syed’s original lawyer, Cristina Gutierrez, did not introduce it at trial.

those are things any competent lawyer should have been able to do.
 

JumpinJack

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
6,628
Reaction score
2,971
Location
Dallas, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
The only problem is that the lawyer did speak to the person and choose not to use them because Adnan already had 2 other different alibis that he was more sure of.

If you listen to the serial podcast (highly recommended) you see the whole thing is a mess because no one can pin down where Adnan, his buddy Jay or the victim are really at any time after school is out on the day.

It seems the defense atty didn't present ANY alibi witness. Also, the woman witness has stated that no one talked to her. So...there's that. I'm not familiar with the case, but it sounds like the lawyer is making excuses. The woman states that she was speaking to the guy in the library at a certain time.

Apparently this was proven enough to the judge so that he ordered a new trial.

I'm unfamiliar with all the evidence and facts, though...as is everyone in this forum. I'm sure the judge knows what he's doing. Getting a new trial like this is rare. Judges don't allow it often. A defense atty has to be pretty bad for a judge to order a new trial.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
19,092
Reaction score
11,186
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It seems the defense atty didn't present ANY alibi witness. Also, the woman witness has stated that no one talked to her. So...there's that. I'm not familiar with the case, but it sounds like the lawyer is making excuses. The woman states that she was speaking to the guy in the library at a certain time.

The person who made the alibi first refused to speak, the lawyer did try to contact her. She changed what time she saw him in the library, also he had already given two other alibis one was at track practice and the other was getting a letter of recommendation for college. The lawyer, who is now dead not making excuses, made a choice of which one to use and only long after the trial and her death did the girl alibing him come out. Hard to put that on having a bad lawyer.

Apparently this was proven enough to the judge so that he ordered a new trial.

I'm unfamiliar with all the evidence and facts, though...as is everyone in this forum. I'm sure the judge knows what he's doing. Getting a new trial like this is rare. Judges don't allow it often. A defense atty has to be pretty bad for a judge to order a new trial.

Judges had already looked over this case multiple times and declared no reason for a retrial. This was the 2nd or 3rd level of appeals. It was only because of the 2 sets of mostly one sided podcasts that the trial was granted. That was even alluded to in the judges ruling.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,101
Reaction score
12,358
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Sorry to necro a 9-month-old thread, but I've just started listening to the podcast. I'm really enjoying it and am fascinated by the ambiguity of the case, and even more so by my own ambiguity and credulousness. Each episode has me changing my mind about Adnan and Jay's involvement with the murder. I'm aware of feeling manipulated by convincing writing and differently constructed narratives. It's a little bit like watching a plate-spinning performance. On either side of the guilty-not guilty divide there are various spinning theories and evidential tracks and the story-tellers keep dashing backwards and forwards with little manipulations that keep those ideas spinning in our minds. It's clever story-telling and riveting listening, but is it as dispassionate a form of investigation as it purports to be? I'm not sure, but I'm hooked.

On the retrial, I suspect that the shed-loads of reasonable doubt that the podcast and Innocence Project investigations have dug up will have to count for something.

I'm not wholly convinced of Adnan Syed's innocence, and I'm absolutely unconvinced of his guilt so, from a legal standpoint, he's got to walk. I think.

In any case, even if he did do it, he's now served 18 years hard yakka. In many jurisdictions that's more than most people found guilty of murder serve. But I guess that's a different debate.
 
Top Bottom