Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_je1f1kg wrote

[removed]

408

DenotheFlintstone t1_je1j4ew wrote

Thank you. Was hoping there would be a TLDR.

101

AdSweaty8557 t1_je3utix wrote

That’s great to hear, I was going to say, what’s the point of playing with this man’s life. Freeing him , after all those years, just to send him back. They couldn’t make sure the first time ?

6

3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je239gy wrote

There is no guarantee the conviction will be vacated this time. Mosby and Feldman are gone. The evidence now has to be presented in court with the statements why the evidence supports the decision.

It didn't happen with the original motion. There was a lot more wrong with it than just the Lees were not given enough notice to attend.

It's also not just that the Lees were not given sufficient notice prior to the hearing, it's that the real hearing already happened prior, with the evidence being shown in secret.

61

Storied_Beginning t1_je2kvpp wrote

“If Syed’s case does return to a Baltimore courtroom, it will be handled by a new attorney — former prosecutor Becky Feldman has left the office — and under the administration of new State’s Attorney Ivan Bates. Bates took office in January but said while campaigning he believed Syed’s conviction was flawed and that Syed should be freed.“

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-cr-apellate-court-reinstates-adnan-syed-conviction-sentence-20230328-decyzfjulbelrg3nvuygqtupwy-story.html

33

3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je2lss9 wrote

That was back in 2017, when running against Thiru Vignarajah. In 2022, he ran to the right of Mosby and expressed being tougher on crime. The story made it seem like it was recent, but it's not. Things change a lot in 6 years.

26

WebbityWebbs t1_je2vtb2 wrote

So just how much more tax payer dollars will the criminal (in)justice system waste to try to put someone back in prison, after he has been in prison for decades?

1

3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je2wkkg wrote

It's not just about one case. It's about fixing systematic issues that were present in the Motion to Vacate Syed's conviction. It affects a lot more than just Adnan Syed. It's the original motion to vacate that has "wasted" tax payer dollars, not what is currently going on.

5

oldcarfreddy t1_je4a58u wrote

I think you're just biased from an equally opposing perspective. You're ignoring that the basis for the vacate was grounded on prosecutorial misconduct that the court agreed with. Can't pretend to care about systemic issues then ignore that. That's disingenuous.

10

WebbityWebbs t1_je2xqar wrote

Any attempt to retry the case would be the waste of taxpayer money, was my point.

2

3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je2y7uy wrote

They may not have to retry the case. If a new motion to vacate fails, then Adnan Syed remains a convicted murderer.

20

washington_jefferson t1_je3r36i wrote

I think Adnan is very guilty, always have. That said, he's done enough time in prison. It's time to move on. He does not strike me as a repeat offender. "Life imprisonment" sometimes means a 25 year sentence.

−9

hellomondays t1_je1n3df wrote

Let's hope all that is, like this move sounds dangerously close to double jeopardy. Like, sure, the thoughts and notions of a victim and their family should play a role in the justice system but that role should be small enough as to not infringe on the rights of the accused.

55

KingfisherDays t1_je2tp1e wrote

>the thoughts and notions of a victim and their family should play a role

Should they? At the end of the day, the question is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the feelings of the victims have no bearing on that. For sentencing, maybe there's an argument there, but I'd argue that the point of the justice system is to take that kind of vengeance out of the equation.

63

hellomondays t1_je2v5f3 wrote

I'm not saying any sort of major role, like vegance should be the last thing a justice system cares about!

2

3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je299ry wrote

This is just vacating the last motion to vacate hearing, which was not conducted properly.

Some key notes in today's judgement:

> We note that, 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. See State v. Grafton, 255 Md. App. 128, 144 (2022) (Brady violation requires proof that: (1) the prosecutor suppressed or withheld evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to the accused; and (3) the evidence was material). > > It did not explain how, or if, it found that the evidence was suppressed, despite the lack of affirmative evidence that the information had not been disclosed, and the statement in the motion to vacate that, “[i]f this information was indeed provided to defense,” the failure to utilize it would be ineffective assistance of counsel. > > The court also did not explain how the notes met the Brady materiality standard. Additionally, the court found that the State discovered new evidence that created a substantial likelihood of a different result, but it did not identify what evidence was newly discovered or why it created the possibility of a different result."

Also

> We note, however, that, if there is an in-chambers conference, the judge should put on the record what was discussed in chambers. See Poole v. State, 77 Md. App. 105, 120 (1988) (at the conclusion of a chambers conference, the court should announce on the record, “at a very minimum,” what was agreed to during the discussion), aff’d, 321 Md. 482 (1991).

Source: https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2023/1291s22.pdf

17

WebbityWebbs t1_je2w83g wrote

The way Brady violations are handled is shameful. If a court finds a Brady violation under Grafton, the prosecutors and cops should be going to jail. We allow cops and prosecutors to engage in criminal acts without consequence and then act shocked that they are a bunch of criminals.

11

3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je2xcr2 wrote

Agreed, what was presented in Adnan Syed's motion to vacate is not Brady material.

7

Mythosaurus t1_je4kppd wrote

It’s almost as if their “real” job is to harass and terrorize minority communities with a figleaf of deniability.

And that holding them to account with reasonable standards would break these systems and institutions that were founded with evil goals.

−3

Trousers_MacDougal t1_je3l0sv wrote

I commented 6 months ago on the note in the MtV stating "even if [shared with defense]...then ineffective counsel."

It was the weaseliest sentence in a weasel explosion of a document. Glad the court picked up on it as a have your cake and eat it too justification. Once we all saw the content of the note it is manifest why it would not be used in any way by the defense.

4

ScrewAttackThis t1_je31c0t wrote

He hasn't been acquitted. Double jeopardy isn't an issue.

>should be small enough as to not infringe on the rights of the accused

Victims have rights, too.

12

DudeWithAnAxeToGrind t1_je2jc95 wrote

In the meantime, the prosecutor changed. Didn't the new prosecutor run on a campaign promise he'll not agree to vacate the conviction? Basically making the new outcome influenced by political campaign promises. Which would be deeply flawed in itself.

3

3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je2vh30 wrote

No. Bates said that he would drop charges against Adnan and reopen the investigation back in 2017, but has since been more moderate and made comments that were tougher on crime. He never said he wouldn't vacate the conviction in the latest election.

7