Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

longhorn718 t1_je1rat3 wrote

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

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