Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

BaltimoreBombers t1_je1gycz wrote

Everyone who got the result they wanted last year didn’t seem to care much that Mosby snubbed the victim’s family, as she has countless times before. It was pretty obscene, considering those involved in the original arrest & prosecution dispute’s Mosby’s “findings” and still stand by the conviction.

70

addctd2badideas t1_je1ihsv wrote

The victim's family is convinced, despite how poor the evidence was, that Syed was the killer and nothing will change that, even if someone else is prosecuted and convicted. There's no scenario where they will be satisfied unless Syed is in jail.

And I feel for them. I do. I have a daughter and I'd be in emotional agony over this if it was mine.

But that's also why, legally speaking, prosecutors and the courts aren't supposed to let them dictate legal strategy or the direction of a case.

58

BaltimoreBombers t1_je1jp83 wrote

Let the family “dictate legal strategy”? Mosby called the brother in California and basically said “you know the guy the state has been assuring you for 24 years strangled your sister? I’m going to release him in a few days despite the protests of the Attorney General and original prosecutor. Better take off work & fly home immediately if you want to be heard.”

46

EthanSayfo t1_je1ldyf wrote

Except he was present via Zoom, and was heard, which apparently is not even required, but he was granted anyway. According to the article.

22

longhorn718 t1_je1qn0w wrote

And the court recognized that it wasn't a fair substitute to being in person. The rights in question involve adequate notice, and the state can't arbitrarily trample on the constitutional rights of one party. Mosby knew better but didn't give any fucks.

29

EthanSayfo t1_je1rsh5 wrote

I don’t disagree that Mosby probably fucked this up, and that it was done in a hasty manner.

The problem is, this is now really creating a new victim in Syed, or should I say, adding to his existing apparent victimhood, as it’s now known widely how problematic the original case against him was. He was certainly not given an adequate defense, and the investigators and prosecutors clearly ignored some evidence, and exaggerated other evidence greatly.

10

longhorn718 t1_je1xsxk wrote

I get that, but justice is supposed to be blind and dispassionate. If the law was broken to get him out of jail, that is not a furtherance of true justice. That's more akin to vigilantism. If his case crumbles within the legal framework, it super sucks for him but is at least legal.

It's like defense lawyers of the most hated criminals and suspects. Emotionally, defending them seems terrible, but even the worst of the worst are constitutionally guaranteed a vigorous defense.

10

dynamobb t1_je1z2i7 wrote

If this thread of comments is correct and the father attended via zoom but syed has to go back to prisom because a different judge interpreted zoom as not adequate as a substitute for being in person…that just doesnt seem like blind and impartial justice

8

longhorn718 t1_je210l3 wrote

I believe part of those rights include legal counsel or at least enough time to put together the victims' thoughts and arguments or pleas or whatever they get to say. It might just be that Mosby needed to get the zoom option approved at a certain level. I haven't read the whole opinion.

Also, I've just now found one source (AP article via BG Daily News) that says Adnan "will not be taken back into custody."

3

Bmorewiser t1_je2ab6p wrote

That’s the thing… they don’t have a right to say a word at this particular hearing. They don’t need time to gather thoughts or retain counsel to intervene, because they don’t get a say. They are not parties and even this court agreed they have no right to be heard.

They have a right to notice and to attend, and they got notice (albeit late) and they did attend (albeit virtually). They even got to speak when they weren’t entitled to. The decision puts form over substance on the thinnest of grounds all for nothing. Absent some change in position from Bates, all that happens here is a quick redo I would think.

8

longhorn718 t1_je2ewq7 wrote

You may see it as form over substance, which is your right. I just believe that courts and legal professionals should strive to follow laws and not ignore a party's rights when that party raises the issue. (Party in that sentence is not meant as a legal party, just a character in the overall story. They're legal parties of their appeal though...? Not important.)

Adnan gets to stay free for the next 60 days. It doesn't affect his daily living. Everyone believes that nothing will change for him in the end. I don't understand why some people are arguing against the Lees when they're the actual victims in this whole saga. If they want to defend and exercise their rights, then they should have that chance.

5

EthanSayfo t1_je1yt0z wrote

Well, we’ll see if this vacating of the vacating passes muster by the Supreme Court, or whether we’ll end up with a vacating of the vacating of the vacating kind of situation.

4

Alaira314 t1_je36s6u wrote

And this is a lesson to all about how we can't, can not, cut corners. Everything must be done to a standard that is without reproach, because any crack left will be clawed at until our work is undone.

6

International-Ing t1_je26ih3 wrote

The appeals court found that the deficient notice was the fault of the judge, not the prosecutor. So it was the the judge that knew better but didn’t care.

9

longhorn718 t1_je27bwc wrote

I responded earlier and thank you again for the correction.

1

addctd2badideas t1_je1s3rh wrote

Except we dealt with over 2 years' worth of zoom hearings and even trials during COVID lockdown so would all of those proceedings be subject to this kind of ruling?

6

longhorn718 t1_je1ylx9 wrote

Those were extenuating circumstances that involved public health considerations and staffing concerns. There was no reason aside from whatever was going through Mosby's head to deny the Lees their legal rights.

I was not part of any of the legal discussions regarding zooming hearings and trials, so please don't take my arguments as gospel! I'm just trying to logic this out.

4

Finnegan-05 t1_je2gz75 wrote

Zoom hearings and trials are still going on in some jurisdictions because they have proven to be just as effective and more efficient and are helping to clear the backlogs. Attending by zoom will be a thin argument on appeal.

11

damagecontrolparty t1_je31dol wrote

Especially since it's not like they needed to put on a case or anything. I do think they should have had more notice and the opportunity to have an interpreter since it seems like the parents may need one.

1

ChampagneWastedPanda t1_je3cvl3 wrote

and this

“News of Mosby’s plan to revisit the case came the day before jury selection was slated to begin in Mosby’s own federal perjury and fraud trial; she currently faces two perjury charges and two false mortgage application statements.

The trial was delayed until March 2023, but the day her trial was scheduled to begin, Syed was freed from jail. The timing of the Syed news has been questioned by several critics, including Nachtman who said Mosby’s “end game was to get Marilyn Mosby’s name in the spotlight” in a positive way to “take the limelight away from her own personal legal problems.”

5

ChampagneWastedPanda t1_je3fu8i wrote

It’s definitely clear there is racism on both sides of this trial. Lee’s fingerprints were submitted to the FBI to check her immigration and naturalization. Syed was clearly targeted in a post 9/11 trial

2

[deleted] t1_je3apkb wrote

[deleted]

−7

Ok_Requirement7707 t1_je3uhxa wrote

Wrongfully convicted? Ha! Based on what? You’re little podcast and side hustle as a part time investigator? Have you actually examined every piece of evidence presented by the state and defense team in his initial trial? No. Keep your biased opinions to yourself.

6

CrabEnthusist t1_je1imp4 wrote

This is really suprising to me. No beef with victims' rights as a concept, but I'm suprised the Appellate Court bought the arguement that Maryland law grants victims the right to have their own lawyer present at these hearings, who can ask questions, introduce testimony, and in general act like a second prosecutor. I simply don't see evidence for that as a protected right in the law as written.

Frankly, I see the MD Supreme Court reversing this.

37

BaltimoreBombers t1_je1kqvq wrote

Mosby wanted to do it quickly to take attention away from her own federal indictment. It’s not the best way to do court proceedings. I would be more mad at her than the notion that a victim’s family gets to have a lawyer present when facing a convicted murderer before his release.

28

CrabEnthusist t1_je1lttd wrote

I'm not "mad" at all, I just don't agree with the Court here. Sure, Mosby Bad, I agree, I guess that just doesn't change my reading of Maryland victims' rights law.

18

longhorn718 t1_je1rat3 wrote

Respectfully, how is "you broke the law and denied the family their legal rights'" not good enough? Mosby argued that the state broke the law by not turning over exculpatory evidence. Seems hypocritical to use that argument in one hand then turn around and defend having broken a law in the other.

13

International-Ing t1_je25861 wrote

I suppose one thing to note is that the appeals court found that the deficient notice was the fault of the court not the prosecutors. This is because it was the judge who - on Friday- set the vacate hearing date for Monday. The prosecutor immediately notified the family after exiting the judges chambers and then followed up on that on Sunday.

The appeals court also confirmed that the victims representative does not have the right to speak at at these types of hearings, only to attend. Which isn’t surprising because the statue is clear. Here the judge did allow him to make a statement albeit over zoom. If you read the appeals court order, the judge in this case is not required to let the victim representative speak at the new hearing, only attend. So while the judge will almost certainly let him speak since that happened last time, the judge is not required to do so.

14

longhorn718 t1_je272ha wrote

Thank you for clarifying. I suppose Mosby could have argued for a later date, but that's not the main issue. It makes more sense to me, then, that the higher court made this ruling. They are essentially correcting a mistake by the lower court, which feels less controversial for some reason.

3

CrabEnthusist t1_je1sqps wrote

Because I disagree about what the legal rights actually are. I believe that the law says victims' representitives have a right to attend modifications or vacatur hearings. I also believe that Mr. Lee was able to attend the hearing, albeit over Zoom. I don't believe that the law entitles victims' representatitives to the right to actively participate through counsel as Lee argued. I have no issue with a ruling that says Mr. Lee was entitled to more notice, which would enable him to attend in person, but that's not all he argued. I haven't gotten a chance to read the opinion yet, so it's possible my concerns are unfounded

8

longhorn718 t1_je1z5v0 wrote

Ah I see. That's fair. I am arguing from the stance that they do have the right of counsel but am basing that on other people quoting/summarizing the relevant statutes (or the correct legal term here).

0

[deleted] t1_je2i51y wrote

[deleted]

7

24mango t1_je5llq4 wrote

Are you seriously asking what harm his freedom brings to her family? They believe he’s guilty of murdering their family member. You don’t know if he’s innocent, but what we do know is that Hae is dead. She’s the actual victim in this scenario, even though everybody wants to pretend that Adnan is.

5

todareistobmore t1_je1tty8 wrote

Yeah, this is appalling and hopefully the SC reverses it. All respect to the Lee family, but I have no idea how one would be able to disentangle their certainty of Syed's guilt vs. cope.

and tbc, I don't mean 'cope' to belittle them, it's just that they were likely assured from everybody on the state's side that Syed killed their daughter, and most people in those circumstances aren't going to spend much time second-guessing it.

5

ChampagneWastedPanda t1_je3ltx7 wrote

It would be impossible. You have to really feel for the family. Read some of the evidence and the autopsy wasn’t signed till 3 1/2 months later. So she wasn’t buried till after. Just hard to imagine, trying to sort through it all as a family

4

Elkram t1_je39xw1 wrote

I personally am not a fan of victim's rights.

I get that the victim feels entitled to some form of justice, but ultimately they aren't the ones trying the case, the state is. And even in a case where the victim has no rights, it isn't like they'd have no voice. In sentencing, judges allow impact statements almost entirely from the victims of the crime. The judge can use those impact statements to inform the sentence.

I just wouldn't want to be in a situation like we're in, where one person's innocence or guilt is hinging on how the victim's family feels about it and not necessarily about whether the evidence was sufficient to convict.

1

capitalsfan t1_je4r82d wrote

No one's guilt or innocence ever hinges on the judgement of the victim's family, that is an absurd notion. They have a fundamental right to be at this hearing regardless of whether or not they have an affect on the outcome.

3

DudleyAndStephens t1_jeahn08 wrote

> I just wouldn't want to be in a situation like we're in, where one person's innocence or guilt is hinging on how the victim's family feels about it

That's not what victim's rights laws mean at all.

1

[deleted] t1_je3aup8 wrote

Victims rights are fine, but they should absolutely be subordinate to Adnan's right to freedom.

0

gs2181 t1_je7hotk wrote

Uh to be clear this is not what the ruling said at all? They very explicitly said the victim does not have the right to be heard nor does their attorney have the right to ask any questions. They reversed because (1) there was insufficient notice and (2) because they said the statute gives victims the right to be there in person. (They also seemed to be unhappy about the evidence not being put on the record but that wasn't really in the scope of the appeal so they just hinted at it.)

1

Cody_in_Baltimore OP t1_je1cfim wrote

>Maryland’s second-highest court has reinstated the conviction of Adnan Syed, ruling that a “new, legally compliant and transparent hearing” that does not violate the rights of victim Hae Min Lee’s family should take place.
The ruling is likely to be appealed to the Maryland Supreme Court.
>
>“Because the circuit court violated Mr. Lee’s right to notice of, and his right to attend, the hearing on the State’s motion to vacate ... this Court has the power and obligation to remedy those violations, as long we can do so without violating Mr. Syed’s right to be free from double jeopardy,” the court wrote in an opinion posted Tuesday afternoon.
“We can do that, and accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s order vacating Mr. Syed’s convictions, which results in the reinstatement of the original convictions and sentence.”

34

addctd2badideas t1_je1j0fx wrote

> right to notice of,

I don't understand. Is there something in Maryland code that requires a victim's family for right to notice of or right to attend? I always thought right to notice was for a defendant.

Court cases are not dictated by the victim's family in capital murder cases, as I understand it. Notifying them of actions by the court is usually a courtesy, albeit something that should be the policy of every prosecutor and Mosby failed miserably at this one, but I expect nothing less of her. Still, it shouldn't be enough to vacate the vacating of a conviction. Once it's vacated, that's it, isn't it? Doesn't double jeopardy apply?

Would love an attorney to weigh in here.

35

Animanialmanac t1_je1n337 wrote

I’m not an attorney, I was a crime victim and my daughter was a victim, I work with victims of violent assault who need physical therapy and have knowledge of their cases.

Our attorney told us in Maryland crime victims have the right to be informed of any action or proceeding that affects the interest of the victim, or victim’s family, guardian, heirs. That includes bail hearings, when the prosecutors stet the charges, dismissing cases.

Ms. Mosby’s prosecutors are known to do this to victims, not notify them before they dismiss cases or stet charges, not notify of bail hearings.

This is a link to a know your rights list for victims. Ms. Mosby’s prosecutors violated most of these in cases I experienced.

Anecdotally I was at hearing with a patient four years ago, the prosecutor announced she was dismissing the case, the judge asked the victim if she was informed about the dismissal before the hearing. The victim wasn’t information so the judge the scolded the prosecutor and did not let her dismiss the case.

https://www.umaryland.edu/roar/know-your-rights/

74

FriedScrapple t1_je28ly1 wrote

That’s so unacceptable. Thank goodness we’re rid of her, though the human victims of her incompetence will remain.

34

FriedScrapple t1_je1n5x8 wrote

Not a lawyer, but a victim or their representative(s) have the right in MD to attend any hearing where the defendant is present. Mosby says her office didn’t violate their rights because Lee’s family could have dialed in on Zoom, Lee family lawyers says the family isn’t technically inclined and the parents need translation assistance, and they were not given proper notice or support to arrange anything, and the judge agreed that this was a violation of their rights.

And we all know and saw what actually happened. Mosby was losing, this hearing came up right before the election and used it to grandstand on the courthouse steps as some kind of personal accomplishment. She never gave a hoot about victims’ families, other than for grandstanding around an election.

31

Bmorewiser t1_je1vmjd wrote

I can answer. There is a set of statutes and a provision in the state declaration of rights setting forth certain rights for victims. Among those is a right to be notified of and attend certain proceedings. In others, there is a right to be heard too.

Here, the court found that notice on the day before the hearing was insufficient and, though I haven’t read carefully, it seems it found the right to appear means the right to appear in person.

The double jeopardy bit is more complicated, but the gist is because of the error in notification the hearing didn’t count and a dismissal isn’t a formal termination of jeopardy so they can send it back.

Something similar happened with the guy tried for killing Felicia Barns a few years back.

17

addctd2badideas t1_je1wtac wrote

Thanks for responding.

I guess what I'm hung up on is that the "hearing didn't count" ruling seems like an extreme reaction. Wouldn't a proper legal response be for the Lee family to sue the State's Attorney's office for improper method of notice rather than nixing the entire process that freed Syed?

11

FettLife t1_je3jl60 wrote

Yes. This MD statute is balls to the wall insane.

5

One_Finish7966 t1_je71sjm wrote

If a case were improperly dismissed, a victim who sues the prosecuting attorney would only be able to obtain relief against the prosecuting attorney. The defendant in the dismissed criminal case would not be convicted as a result of this lawsuit.

2

FriedScrapple t1_je28a9x wrote

Have MD courts ever clearly defined a specific length of time that is sufficient, and how notice is delivered?

7

Bmorewiser t1_je29akm wrote

I’d have to look. I seem to recall there being a rule that sets a general standard of no less than 5 days, not weekends, but I’m pulling that from my ass. It’s not something I regularly need to deal with.

7

Alaira314 t1_je379sv wrote

Damn, that's tighter than I'd expect. My work asks for two week's(10 work days) notice minimum for requesting leave, and even then you're prioritized below people who requested months earlier. 😬 If they like you they might make an exception for a "good reason" but I've seen people with a grudge stick to the letter of the rules, damn the reason, gotta be fair to everyone.

3

ChampagneWastedPanda t1_je3ar8z wrote

I would have to say though, the tragic murder of your sister at trial is a good reason…

6

Alaira314 t1_je3eyq3 wrote

If it's not legally protected it doesn't matter, unless someone's willing to run interference with the bureaucracy for you. But then you're benefiting from someone playing favorites, which is a whole other can of worms when coworkers start resenting their own "sorry no can do, rules are rules~!" experience with funerals, etc.

5

kindaoveritbruh t1_je4ozno wrote

When the judge dropped the charges, it had to be done "without prejudice," which allowed them to re-file any charges. If the DA honestly thought he was innocent, he would have done so, but there was also societal/office pressure and the victim's family to deal with. If the judge dropped the charges "with prejudice," double jeopardy would attach.

2

Bmorewiser t1_je4ut0z wrote

Unless the statute offers some unique quirk, there’s no way for the prosecutor to dismiss that case in a way that makes it so it cannot be brought again from the posture it was in at the time without engaging in some “funny business.”

Jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn and evidence admitted. Before that, no jeopardy. It also can attach sometimes during a plea. But when the state dismisses a charge, that is almost always without prejudice to their ability to bring it back later if they want subject to some restrictions.

5

ChampagneWastedPanda t1_je39rki wrote

It’s a victim’s rights Brady violation, This is simply an appellate grant of rehearing of the new trial motion. If this was the state appealing it would be routine. It is constitutional

3

DudleyAndStephens t1_jeah6sb wrote

IANAL but I do know that Maryland does have some rules about victims' rights. I'm a bit surprised that they allow a court to void the dismissal of charges but I guess you learn something new every day.

Pragmatically I am glad that this means the decision about the dismissal goes to Ivan Bates. Mosby was such a garbage public official that the resolution of the Syed case would always have been suspect if the final decision was up to her. If Bates looks at the totality of the evidence and agrees that the charges should be dropped I'll have a much easier time accepting it.

2

tbk007 t1_je31s7a wrote

People only think he's innocent because of that dodgy podcast.

23

kindaoveritbruh t1_je3ktue wrote

Anyone seeking a clear and unbiased breakdown of this case should listen to Crime Weekly. It's a LONG one but worth the listen - as all of their stuff is! My opinion: he physically is the one who did it or had knowledge of the murder.

14

bunsNT t1_je3uxoy wrote

That’s my opinion as well.

If the victim had been in her mid to late twenties and involved somehow in criminality, I’d consider that Avenue more seriously but I think the evidence points towards him

10

Longjumping-Air6520 t1_je4gu6e wrote

It is obvious he did it. Thanks to some dumb podcast created to poke meaningless holes in the investigation for entertainment purposes, Hae's family has to go through all this. It's disgusting.

14

rorypotter77 t1_je5yp1o wrote

Thank you for this recommendation. After Serial and Undisclosed, I wasn’t sure what to think but was erring on the side of innocent. I’m going to listen to this one now!

4

90sportsfan t1_je4m7ru wrote

It was a very good podcast, that was about as fair and balanced as you can get (no agenda on either side). And they presented some real smoking gun evidence from both sides that was not widely reported (or reported at all), which was really surprising. Even still, while I admit that I definitely leaned more towards him definitely being involved in some way; I still think there was enough reasonable doubt that he would be found not guilty (as someone else said, not guilty doesn't always equate to innocent).

2

a_protogenfurry t1_je3c68w wrote

Because it made good points about his innocence

8

megalomike t1_je4anym wrote

None of the podcasts about syed developed a single shred of evidence as to his innocence.

9

PM_ME_CHIPOTLE2 t1_je3dpk4 wrote

And because there’s reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

8

YoYoMoMa t1_je4wln6 wrote

My issue isn't that I know he is or is not guilty, but that there is no fucking way he should have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

1

megalomike t1_je4asgb wrote

Imagine thinking a podcast that did an entire red herring episode about the guy who found the body being the real killer only to say "Nevermind! See you next week!" was a serious effort to find the truth.

5

Longjumping-Air6520 t1_je4h1su wrote

Even the producer said that he most likely did it.... in the podcast. People just love an entertaining story. More than thinking logically.

6

DudleyAndStephens t1_jeai7ct wrote

I bet that Adnan did it. If I were on a jury would I have voted to convict him though? Eh, I don't know. It seemed like there was a case for reasonable doubt. I remember one thing that bothered me was the prosecution using the testimony of Jay Wilds. That lying piece of shit could tell me the sun rises in the East and I would be skeptical.

All that being said I also know that my opinions carry no real world weight. Anyone who claims to know what happened based on listening to a podcast is way to sure of themselves.

1

PieceOfPie_SK t1_je3f8rq wrote

The podcast that went into a lot of detail about the questions regarding his conviction... yeah no shit thats why people think he's innocent. There certainly wasn't great evidence to convict.

4

BillFireCrotchWalton t1_je3j4md wrote

There's a substantial difference between "innocent" and "not guilty," and tbh it seems intentionally dishonest to frame those who believe there was reasonable doubt as people who believe he is "innocent."

4

renedotmac t1_je3jh95 wrote

After hearing the podcast, did I think he did it? yes. But I don’t think there was enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

3

sprufus t1_je3ln5c wrote

I have less faith in our justice system than I do in that podcast.

1

gregnegative t1_je6wfok wrote

Thank you. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

I honestly only know what I hear in the media, but I'm willing to admit that. So many people here 'know' he was innocent, somehow 'know' that the victim's family are somehow wrong and just the victims of the media, and now think they don't deserve rights.

It's a podcast. No one here is a cop, a prosecutor, the defense attorney, or knows the people involved. They heard Serial, don't trust the justice system and now because of those two things are assured that they know the truth and the young girl's family are somehow misinformed. Maybe everyone here should tell them to listen to Serial /s

1

duckbokai t1_je39i2a wrote

Whether or not the guy did it, there absolutely was not evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury dropped the ball on that one.

9

Flavious27 t1_je3lf9h wrote

Which is also why the original prosecutor has been leaking information and fought against the conviction being overturned. He is trying to save face because he violated the law to get a conviction no matter the evidence or lack of evidence.

0

BmoreDude92 t1_je1v0y3 wrote

So does he have to go back to jail?

8

going410thewin t1_je2eyk7 wrote

No, the decision is “stayed” for 60 days to allow time for this to work itself out.

18

YoYoMoMa t1_je4wc8x wrote

Our justice system is just so clear and easy to navigate.

4

sixshadowed t1_je3groe wrote

I don't know if Syed is guilty or innocent, I just want justice for Hae Min Lee and her family.

Please can't this suffering family have some peace.

8

NemesisAntigua t1_je583fe wrote

Wow. Imagine being downvoted for that.

1

sixshadowed t1_je5elni wrote

I know Syed is beloved and lionized in circles convinced of his innocence. I don't think he belongs in prison on the evidence we have. But I think Hae Min Lee's story often gets lost, or usurped by those who support Syed. I hated them reading her diary in The Case Against Adnan Syed, when Lee's family pleas are always ignored.

There is no justice in this world, especially not for Hae Min Lee.

6

Sheer10 t1_je2zknw wrote

Great!! He definitely killed her. RIP Hae

3

Tennille_Khan21 t1_je4srd9 wrote

My hog senses are tingling here... I feel that this new hearing is not going to go as smoothly as a lot ppl may think. It could be because I'm still on the "Adnan is guilty" camp and maybe I'm wanting some drama or some new twist to arise. Personally, I just feel that to get to the bottom of this case, sometimes you need to go back to the very beginning and work your way back up, meaning start the trial from over, so that it is fair and transparent for both sides. After all of these back-and-forths, this case has seemed to become a little disjointed, almost like taking pieces from here and there. To me, it doesn't seem that the Maryland court wants to get to the bottom of this case.

3

MickeyRipple t1_je3ax41 wrote

So, they throw him back in prison because the victims representation was not notified, but the Supreme Court will likely overturn that and he will be released again? I feel for the family but after hearing how the police lied, withheld evidence, let the real killer escape and then an inadept public defender who didn't do their job (screwed over Syed), I felt he should have been released.

2

rooranger t1_je2b149 wrote

I hope the new evidence holds and they vacate the conviction a second time.

1

ChampagneWastedPanda t1_je3gili wrote

That’s actually the biggest question that the media is not reporting. If the new evidence is strong enough to hold, this is a formality.

4

joebloggs63 t1_jeawcfn wrote

GOOD, Throw his butt back in jail where he belongs

1

AutoModerator t1_je1cds6 wrote

Hello there!

Links from the domain present in your post are known to present a soft paywall to users. As a result, some users may have difficulty reading the linked content.

It may be helpful to provide a comment containing a synopsis or a snippet of the major points of the article in order to help those who may not be able to see it.

In accordance with the subreddit rules, please do not post the entirety of the article's contents as a comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

0

going410thewin t1_je1h186 wrote

They can’t just let this one go, can they?

−2

jawolfington t1_je1v1be wrote

Adnan Syed killed Hae Min Lee.

−18

going410thewin t1_je23hoe wrote

Proof?

13

[deleted] t1_je2i8tp wrote

[deleted]

−17

CallMeHelicase t1_je2jpm2 wrote

As did the court that convicted the central park 5, who were later found to be innocent.

15

Dr_Midnight t1_je3anik wrote

> As did the court that convicted the central park 5, who were later found to be innocent.

Court of Law also convicted George Stinney, Jr. as well as the Scottsboro Boys.

Court of Law also convicted Timothy Masters.

...and Herman Williams.

...and Anthony Ray Hinton.

...Kirk Bloodsworth.

...and the list goes on which is, the absolutely blatant racism of cases like George Stinney, Jr. aside, why I will continue to stand by the principle of Blackstone's Ratio.

4

[deleted] t1_je2l03f wrote

[deleted]

−11

Eat_the_Path t1_je3l4xm wrote

It's not like the US has some kind of history of falsely imprisoning people of colour based on flimsy or fabricated evidence.

5

CallMeHelicase t1_je44j9h wrote

We can't blindly trust courts. The fact that a court convicted someone is not proof that someone is guilty or innocent. You could consider it an argument for someone's guilt/innocence, but not irrefutable proof.

Critical thinking matters. I don't know if this guy is guilty or not, and I don't think anyone can be 100% sure for this particular case.

2

JaesopPop t1_je329ga wrote

A court of law also vacated that conviction, before reinstating it. If it’s vacated again do you think that’s evidence he is innocent?

12

[deleted] t1_je36hn6 wrote

[deleted]

−10

JaesopPop t1_je380ai wrote

Do you think courts have no point because the possibility exists that a conviction can be vacated?

11

[deleted] t1_je4dota wrote

[deleted]

−9

JaesopPop t1_je4x10k wrote

It was a question.

0

[deleted] t1_je5em9g wrote

[deleted]

1

JaesopPop t1_je5gyre wrote

The irony of you acting like I've made some stereotypical 'Reddit response' by giving the most stereotypical Reddit response possible is palpable.

Probably time to step away from the computer for a little, friend. Fresh air once every few months can be good for you.

0

OrganizeASpoon t1_je2xxkr wrote

I don’t know if he did it or not. All I know is that he seemed sort of unbothered by his incarceration in that podcast. Which doesn’t exactly scream innocent

−6

NihilisticNarwhal t1_je2zq53 wrote

That's probably the healthiest attitude you can have towards life in prison.

16

sophiapehawkins t1_je3auet wrote

He had also been in prison for 15 years at that point. I’m sure he’d come to terms with the fact that he was going to be in prison for the rest of his life. I’m sure he had a different attitude during the first couple of years.

10

High_Seas_Pirate t1_je3i86g wrote

Serial also wasn't the huge phenomenon it became back when it was being recorded. To Adnan, Sarah was just any other reporter looking for a story.

6

JaesopPop t1_je32dwh wrote

Guilty people are fine with being incarcerated? Huh?

3

Timmah_1984 t1_je285kt wrote

Thank god someone still cares about justice. Syed killed that girl and deserves to be behind bars. He never should have been let out in the first place.

−16

idkmybffjill250 t1_je2avma wrote

Have you reviewed any of the latest evidence presented and gathered??

8

BaltimoreBombers t1_je2e6m4 wrote

The DNA on her shoe could literally be from anyone in the school who touched them, or from a gym locker, or transferred in any number of ways. It’s not like it was under her finger nails, or somewhere unexplainable. The prosecutorial notes that Mosby said referred to a second suspect actually referred to Adnan, as confirmed by the prosecutor who wrote them. There was literally nothing exculpatory in it, unless you’re a conspiracy theorist, which is why the Attorney General came out in disbelief that Mosby overturned the rulings of the highest Maryland courts who saw the evidence and upheld the conviction.

16

Timmah_1984 t1_je2guhr wrote

Yes I have, it’s not really evidence so much as an attempt by his defense to poke holes in the evidence against him. Which is fine, that’s their job after all. However nothing they’ve brought up exonerates him. The cell towers place him where the body was dumped when it was dumped. The cell towers are reliable and accurate, this notion that they aren’t has been debunked by experts. No one knows where it came from either since it was just a note written on a fax cover sheet. He had motive, opportunity and still to this day can’t explain where he was. The DNA evidence on her shoes is also meaningless since they were just in the trunk of her car.

He did this and needs to be in prison. Anything less than that is a miscarriage of Justice.

0

BoysenberryNo4959 t1_je1tbf7 wrote

This is a good decision. Somebody needs to be held responsible for Hae Min Lee’s death. Her family should not have to be revictimized by the legal system with this case.

−27