I presume Syed will remain free, Lee will be given a respectful hearing, and the result will remain the same.
२८ मार्च, २०२३
"A Maryland appeals court on Tuesday reinstated the murder conviction of Adnan Syed, the subject of the 'Serial' podcast who was freed last year..."
"... after he had spent 23 years fighting charges that he had killed his former high school girlfriend.
The Appellate Court of Maryland ruled that a lower court had violated the right of Young Lee, brother of Hae Min Lee, the victim, to have been notified of and to attend a hearing on the state’s motion to vacate Mr. Syed’s conviction.
The appeals court ordered a new hearing on the state’s motion to vacate Mr. Syed’s conviction. The court wrote that it '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.' '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.... We remand for a new, legally compliant, and transparent hearing on the motion to vacate, where Mr. Lee is given notice of the hearing that is sufficient to allow him to attend in person, evidence supporting the motion to vacate is presented, and the court states its reasons in support of its decision."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९ टिप्पण्या:
And who was the one who brokered Syed's release ?
Far-left crooked rackateer and moneylaunderingn racist, BLM stooge, Soros DA Marilyn Mosby (D).
No wonder why the NYT never mentioned that part...
will this result in vacating the vacation of the circuit court’s order vacating Syed’s convictions?
or just a new vacation?
The result will be the same. Syed is a killer and it’s up to Lee’s family to get Justice now.
"I presume Syed will remain free, Lee will be given a respectful hearing, and the result will remain the same."
If I understand the matter, Syed has been convicted of a crime, and sentenced to prison. And that's where the matter stands. Accordingly, he should not be running around loose.
He deemed her a "burden", so he followed the State religion.
well, that's lot better than some judge going "Case dimissed. Free him". They should at least have a hearing.
"I presume Syed will remain free, Lee will be given a respectful hearing, and the result will remain the same."
Yes, exactly (or so I predict as well). From the court's conclusion:
"We remand for a new, legally compliant, transparent hearing on the motion to vacate, where Mr. Lee is given notice of the hearing that is sufficient to allow him to attend in person, evidence supporting the motion to vacate is presented, and the court states its reasons in support of its decision.
Mr. Lee argues that, at the remand hearing, he should be “permitted to mount a credible challenge to the evidence supporting vacatur.” To that end, he requests that this Court “appoint him as a limited-purpose party-in-interest,” or alternatively, appoint the Attorney General’s Office or other suitable entity, to challenge the evidence during a new hearing. That request is denied."
(https://mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2023/1291s22.pdf#page=71)
In other words, Lee can attend the remand hearing in person but not to participate through counsel (nor, one can only assume a right to participate pro se). The trial court will reach the same conclusion (the state hasn't opposed relief during this stage, best I can tell) and again vacate the conviction. Only this time, unlike the last go-round, the trial court will explain its reasoning and cure a deficiency (slip op., fn 15: "although CP § 8-301.1(f)(2) requires the court to “state the reasons for” its ruling, the court did not explain its reasons for finding a Brady violation."). Have to say, the idea that a 3rd-party to a criminal case can obtain reversal of the grant of relief makes me pretty queasy. But that's something else.
Really, you think that there is no potential he stays in jail? I'm assuming the panel saw the evidence used to release him. I would guess that if it was something like, the DNA doesn't match or he was in prison at the time, the panel would have let it go, maybe with an admonishment to the state's counsel. I assume it was all evidence gathered by an activist group, cherry picked to convey their point of view. Maybe not even going over the trial record. Perhaps the brother has key evidence they just didn't want to consider, like "I saw them leave together" or even "I saw him kill her".
So, have the authorities ever arrested the accomplice who led them to the body the accomplice claimed he helped Syed conceal?
It isn't like they have no idea at all who killed Lee. It was either the accomplice or it was Syed.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा