Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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