Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BaltimoreBombers t1_je1jp83 wrote

Reply to comment by addctd2badideas in Maryland’s second-highest court orders new hearing for Adnan Syed, reinstates conviction by Cody_in_Baltimore

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