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.

I responded earlier and thank you again for the correction.

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.

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."

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.