In the ruling, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals said he had received ineffective legal counsel at his trial because his original lawyer had failed to call a witness whose testimony, if believed, “would have made it impossible for Syed to have murdered Hae.”Is that really the standard for ineffective legal counsel that will be applied for people who don't have elaborate podcasts creating the sense that something is terribly amiss?
२९ मार्च, २०१८
"Adnan Syed of ‘Serial’ Is Granted a New Trial."
The NYT reports.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८ टिप्पण्या:
He did it.
It’s pretty laughable. Almost as laughable as the lawerying by the States Attorney, Thiru Vignarajah, at the reopened PCR hearing. It’s like he skipped the day where they taught law at law school. And if he took trial ad he failed it. Pretty sad.
What a scam. Syed had 15 years to perfect his schtick and dupe the gullible White Liberal lady. I heard nothing in Serial that suggested he was innocent.
Ronald Gasser needs a new trial, but he won't get one because Black.
The deeper dive done by Undisclosed podcast caused me to doubt his guilt more than Serial. They uncovered the witness referred to in the decision. Still, I am not convinced he is innocent, but I do believe he had a lousy trial.
We could ask Brendan Dassey
This type of post-conviction appeal is my exact specialty as a prosecutor; what I've been doing for the past 14 years. From what I've read, Syed's claim that his attorney was ineffective for not presenting an alibi witness is actually a very common claim and it doesn't surprise me that he was awarded a new trial. I never listened to the podcast so I don't have any bias or preconceived notions. I haven't delved into the procedural history though so I can't evaluate this fully enough to say whether the attention brought by the podcast seems to have influenced the decision to award a new trial. After the alibi witness claim, there would have been a hearing (under Pennsylvania law anyway but I think it's a typical standard) before making a decision to award a new trial. The trial attorney would testify as to whether he knew that the witness existed and, if he did, whether he had a reasonable basis for not presenting it. For instance, if the strategy was to claim self-defense, you don't present an alibi too. Maybe he interviewed the potential witness and she was an inconsistent mess. Then the putative alibi witness herself should testify before the judge deciding the appeal, and give the testimony that was never presented. The prosecutor cross examines, and the court decides if the alibi and witness are strong enough that presenting them at trial would likely have made a difference. Only then should a new trial be awarded.
My favorite alibi story on post-conviction review: defendant convicted of armed robbery. Several years later, he appeals and says his attorney was ineffective for not presenting an alibi. Seems defendant was at the movies during the time of the robbery, at a theater at some distance from the crime. We had an evidentiary hearing to explore this claim, and defendant testifies that he told his lawyer about the alibi and even gave him the movie stubs to prove it. His lawyer then testified that, yes, his client did tell him about being at the movies. Unfortunately for defendant, this lawyer kept excellent records and he still had the "alibi" movie ticket stubs which he brought to the hearing. The tickets were NOT for a show that took place during the time of the robbery and NOT for a theater far from the crime scene; the tickets were for a show that let out about an hour before the crime took place and in a theater that was in the same neighborhood as the robbery. Cue the Warner Brothers "wahh-wahh" loser sound. The judge did not grant a new trial.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा