I didn't know taking it back was something you could do
March 28, 2023 2:30 PM Subscribe
Court Reinstates Adnan Syed’s Murder Conviction in ‘Serial’ Case and Orders New Hearing (NYT gift link) The Appellate Court of Maryland ruled that a lower court had violated the right of the victim’s brother to have been notified of and to attend a hearing.
The Appellate Court of Maryland ruled that a trial court had violated the right of Young Lee, brother of Hae Min Lee, the victim, to have been notified of and to attend the hearing in September when a judge vacated Mr. Syed’s conviction.
In a 2-to-1 decision, the appeals court ordered the trial court to hold a new hearing on the motion to vacate Mr. Syed’s conviction that would give Mr. Lee enough notice to attend in person, unlike the previous hearing, which he joined via Zoom.
The decision does not mean that Mr. Syed must immediately return to prison because the appeals court issued a 60-day stay of its ruling to give both sides time to consider next steps, said David Sanford, one of Mr. Lee’s lawyers.
The Appellate Court of Maryland ruled that a trial court had violated the right of Young Lee, brother of Hae Min Lee, the victim, to have been notified of and to attend the hearing in September when a judge vacated Mr. Syed’s conviction.
In a 2-to-1 decision, the appeals court ordered the trial court to hold a new hearing on the motion to vacate Mr. Syed’s conviction that would give Mr. Lee enough notice to attend in person, unlike the previous hearing, which he joined via Zoom.
The decision does not mean that Mr. Syed must immediately return to prison because the appeals court issued a 60-day stay of its ruling to give both sides time to consider next steps, said David Sanford, one of Mr. Lee’s lawyers.
Just as a heads up, the gift link appears to be paywalled.
posted by corb at 3:09 PM on March 28, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by corb at 3:09 PM on March 28, 2023 [1 favorite]
OH WTF. Yeah, it's totally a weird situation, but I believe, after hearing the podcast, that Syed does NOT deserve to be behind bars. I'm also blocked behind the paywall, but that guy deserves more than this.
posted by Snowishberlin at 3:18 PM on March 28, 2023
posted by Snowishberlin at 3:18 PM on March 28, 2023
This is a travesty. There is no reason for Young Lee or any of the Lees to have any involvement whatsoever, for the same reason that criminal trials are always The Sovereign v. Defendant. It is ridiculous that the argument that injustice should have been continued to be visited on Syed because the victim's family wasn't given a place at the table was given any more respect than a casual dismissal.
Both of the judges and Lee should be ashamed of themselves.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:34 PM on March 28, 2023 [17 favorites]
Both of the judges and Lee should be ashamed of themselves.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:34 PM on March 28, 2023 [17 favorites]
This also illustrates how "victim's rights" laws are often tools for the prosecutor to attack the defendant, as well.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:38 PM on March 28, 2023 [44 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:38 PM on March 28, 2023 [44 favorites]
Stuff like this should be the reason the legal concept of "harmless error" exists, and yet here we are.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:56 PM on March 28, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:56 PM on March 28, 2023 [4 favorites]
There is literally a law giving the victim’s family standing. The trial court was found by the appellate court to have violated that law.
posted by MattD at 4:32 PM on March 28, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by MattD at 4:32 PM on March 28, 2023 [8 favorites]
FFS. Was so happy when he was finally released, and now I'm again lamenting the state of the legal system in the US.
posted by Snowflake at 4:34 PM on March 28, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Snowflake at 4:34 PM on March 28, 2023 [1 favorite]
1. I'm technically an officer of the Maryland Courts
2. But I'm an in-house counsel of a corporation so fuck me I don't know shit. I'm not your lawyer and I sure as shit am not Syed's lawyer.
3. This is going to come out the same way the second time.
4. Maryland victims have statutory rights that were apparently violated, hence the appeal.
5. It's still going to come out the same way.
6. I agree that victims' rights statutes are problematic, but here's where we get into that political sticky wicket: half your constituents want to lock everyone up for everything forever, half want radical prison reform, and sometimes it's all the same people. I rarely sympathize with politicians, but on crime/prison reform...
posted by atomicstone at 4:40 PM on March 28, 2023 [18 favorites]
2. But I'm an in-house counsel of a corporation so fuck me I don't know shit. I'm not your lawyer and I sure as shit am not Syed's lawyer.
3. This is going to come out the same way the second time.
4. Maryland victims have statutory rights that were apparently violated, hence the appeal.
5. It's still going to come out the same way.
6. I agree that victims' rights statutes are problematic, but here's where we get into that political sticky wicket: half your constituents want to lock everyone up for everything forever, half want radical prison reform, and sometimes it's all the same people. I rarely sympathize with politicians, but on crime/prison reform...
posted by atomicstone at 4:40 PM on March 28, 2023 [18 favorites]
This is still messed up but according to the AP, at least Syed will not be taken back into custody, which makes all of this even more crazy.
posted by ensign_ricky at 4:57 PM on March 28, 2023
posted by ensign_ricky at 4:57 PM on March 28, 2023
The judge appears to be doing their job in accordance with the law as given to them by the Maryland legislature. And honestly it doesn't seem like it's going to change the outcome; it seems more like a "dot every I, cross every T" sort of thoroughness exercise. The law gives a victim's representative a right to attend some hearings in person, they apparently didn't get that, so the court is going to run the hearing again. It seems extremely unlikely that Lee is going to be able to bring forward information or testimony that will alter the outcome—courts and judges kinda dislike doing that under the best of circumstances. And the ruling followed by an immediate stay suggests that the court doesn't think the original defendant is much of a threat to the public.
Deciding "well I listened to a podcast and I think he's not guilty, therefore he should be free, damn the process" is sort of the flip side of the "rough justice" coin. I want judges and a justice system that follows the statutes and procedural rules and smacks people around when they aren't followed; once you start shrugging and letting procedural stuff slide because it feels like the "right" outcome was obtained, you're making a dangerous assumption that the judges will always agree with you on what's "right".
We don't want judges who are mindless automatons, but we probably want their discretion to exist within well-defined bounds.
posted by Kadin2048 at 5:03 PM on March 28, 2023 [26 favorites]
Deciding "well I listened to a podcast and I think he's not guilty, therefore he should be free, damn the process" is sort of the flip side of the "rough justice" coin. I want judges and a justice system that follows the statutes and procedural rules and smacks people around when they aren't followed; once you start shrugging and letting procedural stuff slide because it feels like the "right" outcome was obtained, you're making a dangerous assumption that the judges will always agree with you on what's "right".
We don't want judges who are mindless automatons, but we probably want their discretion to exist within well-defined bounds.
posted by Kadin2048 at 5:03 PM on March 28, 2023 [26 favorites]
I'm not a MD lawyer so I don't want to say anything with too much finality, but I've read the decision and the statutory provisions it cites and I can see nothing that indicates that the remedy for any violation of a victim's representative's right to be notified of and attend a vacatur hearing is reinstatement of the sentence (which effectively inflicts a penalty on the defendant for the state's error).
Given that the representative apparently got to speak via Zoom even though he does not have the statutory right to do so, this decision seems to reflect appellate distaste for the vacatur more than anything else. But I will defer to any MD lawyers.
posted by praemunire at 5:05 PM on March 28, 2023 [10 favorites]
Given that the representative apparently got to speak via Zoom even though he does not have the statutory right to do so, this decision seems to reflect appellate distaste for the vacatur more than anything else. But I will defer to any MD lawyers.
posted by praemunire at 5:05 PM on March 28, 2023 [10 favorites]
it seems more like a "dot every I, cross every T" sort of thoroughness exercise
I don't give a shit if the I's and T's in "incorrect conviction" have their dots and crosses in place.
posted by Etrigan at 5:07 PM on March 28, 2023 [5 favorites]
I don't give a shit if the I's and T's in "incorrect conviction" have their dots and crosses in place.
posted by Etrigan at 5:07 PM on March 28, 2023 [5 favorites]
There is literally a law giving the victim’s family standing. The trial court was found by the appellate court to have violated that law.
And the point is that this is an unjust law that is used to fuck with defendants and their rights under the guise of "supporting the victim". Because if the victim's family is given the "right" to attend any and all hearings, that means that it's the victim's family that gets to set the calendar, not the defendant - which in turn can violate their right to a speedy trial, among other things.
This is going to come out the same way the second time.
Then why is it so important that Lee be in attendance, other than that a bad law gives him the right at Syed's expense? Because the argument here seems to be that Syed was obliged to endure further injustice so that Lee could attend for...what purpose, exactly? This is the sort of shit that erodes the legitimacy of the legal system.
(Also Lee's statements, where he talks about not having time to assess the evidence to speak on it, illustrates why justice demands that he should be barred from the room, because it seems from his statements that he thinks he should be allowed to weigh in on the legitimacy of the evidence. Which leads to...)
I agree that victims' rights statutes are problematic
Victims' rights statutes are often pushed for by prosecutors to give them tools to use against defendants that let them hide behind victims.
Deciding "well I listened to a podcast and I think he's not guilty, therefore he should be free, damn the process"
But we should be telling unjust processes to fuck off. The whole point is that Young Lee is arguing that further injustice be visited on Adnan Syed by the state for his sake. That is reprehensible.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:11 PM on March 28, 2023 [16 favorites]
And the point is that this is an unjust law that is used to fuck with defendants and their rights under the guise of "supporting the victim". Because if the victim's family is given the "right" to attend any and all hearings, that means that it's the victim's family that gets to set the calendar, not the defendant - which in turn can violate their right to a speedy trial, among other things.
This is going to come out the same way the second time.
Then why is it so important that Lee be in attendance, other than that a bad law gives him the right at Syed's expense? Because the argument here seems to be that Syed was obliged to endure further injustice so that Lee could attend for...what purpose, exactly? This is the sort of shit that erodes the legitimacy of the legal system.
(Also Lee's statements, where he talks about not having time to assess the evidence to speak on it, illustrates why justice demands that he should be barred from the room, because it seems from his statements that he thinks he should be allowed to weigh in on the legitimacy of the evidence. Which leads to...)
I agree that victims' rights statutes are problematic
Victims' rights statutes are often pushed for by prosecutors to give them tools to use against defendants that let them hide behind victims.
Deciding "well I listened to a podcast and I think he's not guilty, therefore he should be free, damn the process"
But we should be telling unjust processes to fuck off. The whole point is that Young Lee is arguing that further injustice be visited on Adnan Syed by the state for his sake. That is reprehensible.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:11 PM on March 28, 2023 [16 favorites]
I apologize. I copied and pasted it into the wrong box, then redid it, I guess that totally screwed it up. Stupid "gift."
Totally agreeing with y'all. This is ridiculously bad to keep yanking the man around on this.
posted by jenfullmoon at 5:16 PM on March 28, 2023
Totally agreeing with y'all. This is ridiculously bad to keep yanking the man around on this.
posted by jenfullmoon at 5:16 PM on March 28, 2023
Sure, the law says the State made an error.
Under what theory of justice does this give the State the right to cause any harm or bother whatsoever to an individual already found innocent of any crime?
The State may have harmed the victim in their error. That must be the State's problem.
posted by NotAYakk at 5:18 PM on March 28, 2023 [17 favorites]
Under what theory of justice does this give the State the right to cause any harm or bother whatsoever to an individual already found innocent of any crime?
The State may have harmed the victim in their error. That must be the State's problem.
posted by NotAYakk at 5:18 PM on March 28, 2023 [17 favorites]
it doesn't seem like it's going to change the outcome
I would like to believe that, but footnote 15 gives me some concerns:
posted by Not A Thing at 5:25 PM on March 28, 2023 [2 favorites]
I would like to believe that, but footnote 15 gives me some concerns:
15 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.That reads to me like the appellate court is putting a pretty heavy thumb on the scale in favor of reversal if this comes back a second time.
posted by Not A Thing at 5:25 PM on March 28, 2023 [2 favorites]
It is probably worth noting that Maryland courts lifted COVID restrictions in April 2022. So that's not a thing.
IMHO, this sounds like a procedural thing. It is unlikely Young Lee has anything to add other than "I don't believe his conviction should be vacated, I believe in prosecution decades ago, I still do." But that's a personal opinion immaterial of the facts.
If Maryland made a mistake, who's suffering more due to that, Lee family, or Syed family?
posted by kschang at 5:57 PM on March 28, 2023 [1 favorite]
IMHO, this sounds like a procedural thing. It is unlikely Young Lee has anything to add other than "I don't believe his conviction should be vacated, I believe in prosecution decades ago, I still do." But that's a personal opinion immaterial of the facts.
If Maryland made a mistake, who's suffering more due to that, Lee family, or Syed family?
posted by kschang at 5:57 PM on March 28, 2023 [1 favorite]
And the point is that this is an unjust law that is used to fuck with defendants and their rights under the guise of "supporting the victim".
Sure, but that's a separate issue. Bad laws are still laws until they are repealed or replaced.
posted by rhizome at 6:22 PM on March 28, 2023 [3 favorites]
Sure, but that's a separate issue. Bad laws are still laws until they are repealed or replaced.
posted by rhizome at 6:22 PM on March 28, 2023 [3 favorites]
*waves hands* I'm going to repeat what I said earlier: I can't find any evidence that the prescribed remedy for a violation of representatives' rights is reinstatement of a conviction that's been vacated. (Also repeating: if a MD lawyer wants to correct me, by all means, feel free to point it out...I can't readily access MD case law for non-work purposes, but I would think a precedent on point would've been cited in the decision.) It seems like everyone supporting the decision is just assuming that the remedy is re-hearing, rather than, e.g., an injunction against the DA to cease violating the law, or a monetary remedy from the state. Why? Does everyone so deeply believe that any minor procedural violation related to a criminal case somehow invalidates the entire proceeding, as if one left out a component of a magic spell? If so....why? Because that's not how it actually works.
(Note: did not listen to Serial, strongest related opinion is that prosecutors should be more willing to review prior cases where there's evidence someone was wrongly convicted, feel sorry for the brother.)
posted by praemunire at 6:32 PM on March 28, 2023 [9 favorites]
(Note: did not listen to Serial, strongest related opinion is that prosecutors should be more willing to review prior cases where there's evidence someone was wrongly convicted, feel sorry for the brother.)
posted by praemunire at 6:32 PM on March 28, 2023 [9 favorites]
It’s worth noting that, according to a non-paywalled article I read on the ruling, it was a split decision with two judges ruling to redo the vacation hearing and one dissenting, saying the law was correctly followed. So aside from arguments of the form “this is or is not justice” it’s not even settled that “this is or isn’t a matter of procedural correctness and following the law”. Any argument from one judge can almost certainly be countered by one from the other, both above my pay grade.
posted by traveler_ at 6:54 PM on March 28, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by traveler_ at 6:54 PM on March 28, 2023 [1 favorite]
You can see the oddity of the decision by flipping it: suppose the trial court had denied the vacatur, but the victim's rep, angered by having to speak by phone, chose to appeal that denial because they didn't get their statutory rights. Result: denial of vacatur overturned?
posted by praemunire at 7:35 PM on March 28, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 7:35 PM on March 28, 2023 [5 favorites]
WaPo article has more:
In a 2-1 decision, the Maryland appellate court ordered a do-over of the hearing at which Syed’s conviction was vacated, which it said “results in the reinstatement of the original convictions and sentence.”
“There is no basis for re-traumatizing Adnan by returning him to the status of a convicted felon. For the time being, Adnan remains a free man,” Suter said. “We remain optimistic that justice will be done.”
Mosby said in a statement the decision “sets a dangerous precedent over a prosecutor’s ability to reverse an injustice,” and defended her handling of the case.
“We notified the victim’s family in line with Maryland law and best practices, and they attended virtually and spoke,” she said. “To now send this case back to court prolongs the pain for the Lee family, and leaves a cloud hanging over a man who deserves to be free, Adnan Syed.”
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:06 PM on March 28, 2023 [2 favorites]
In a 2-1 decision, the Maryland appellate court ordered a do-over of the hearing at which Syed’s conviction was vacated, which it said “results in the reinstatement of the original convictions and sentence.”
“There is no basis for re-traumatizing Adnan by returning him to the status of a convicted felon. For the time being, Adnan remains a free man,” Suter said. “We remain optimistic that justice will be done.”
Mosby said in a statement the decision “sets a dangerous precedent over a prosecutor’s ability to reverse an injustice,” and defended her handling of the case.
“We notified the victim’s family in line with Maryland law and best practices, and they attended virtually and spoke,” she said. “To now send this case back to court prolongs the pain for the Lee family, and leaves a cloud hanging over a man who deserves to be free, Adnan Syed.”
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:06 PM on March 28, 2023 [2 favorites]
Bad laws are still laws until they are repealed or replaced.
Jesus Christ. (reference fully intended)
posted by supercres at 12:03 AM on March 29, 2023 [2 favorites]
Jesus Christ. (reference fully intended)
posted by supercres at 12:03 AM on March 29, 2023 [2 favorites]
(Which is to say: damn I hope that’s not as much of a blanket statement as it sounds like)
posted by supercres at 12:05 AM on March 29, 2023
posted by supercres at 12:05 AM on March 29, 2023
To be sure, that Aquinas dude had some alternate thoughts on the matter. But in the US? I'd say it holds in the majority of cases. I mean, they wouldn't have the saying "hard cases make bad law" if the badness didn't persist!
posted by rhizome at 2:23 AM on March 29, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by rhizome at 2:23 AM on March 29, 2023 [1 favorite]
The answer seems to be that the legislature didn't do a very good job of writing legislation (newsflash: state legislatures never do) and the court is (very) making a bold attempt to step in.
posted by atomicstone at 4:35 AM on March 29, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by atomicstone at 4:35 AM on March 29, 2023 [1 favorite]
What I find ridiculous is that Lee did attend the hearing via Zoom. It's not like his right under the law was substantively violated.
I also think "victim's rights" statutes are problematic except insofar as they require victims be allowed the opportunity to be informed of the goings on. Anything beyond that is a perversion of the way the criminal justice system is supposed to work. It's designed not to be personal for very good reason.
posted by wierdo at 11:39 AM on March 29, 2023 [6 favorites]
I also think "victim's rights" statutes are problematic except insofar as they require victims be allowed the opportunity to be informed of the goings on. Anything beyond that is a perversion of the way the criminal justice system is supposed to work. It's designed not to be personal for very good reason.
posted by wierdo at 11:39 AM on March 29, 2023 [6 favorites]
The whole thing baffles me. Young Lee needs to come in person to beg them not to free Adnan because someone has to do time for his sister's death, even though they've exonerated him with DNA?
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:16 PM on March 29, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:16 PM on March 29, 2023 [4 favorites]
jenfullmoon, that was my thought as well. Are we throwing out all the decisions where people were represented over Zoom during the pandemic? I think not.
posted by lhauser at 4:45 PM on March 29, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by lhauser at 4:45 PM on March 29, 2023 [1 favorite]
A major factor for the appellate court appears to be that everyone else attended the hearing in person, but Lee did not, and this somehow failed the requirement that "victims be treated with dignity and respect."
Reading the decision I get the impression that the majority view Zoom hearings as an obvious necessity during the pandemic, but inherently inferior to in-person presence.
There's really no other way for me to make sense of this decision--they say that Lee had the right to attend in person, but did not have the right to speak during the hearing. Lee was allowed to speak at the Zoom hearing! So if they hold the hearing again, have Lee attend in person, and tell him that he can't say anything, that would be treating the victim with dignity and respect per this decision. It's nuts even before you get to the remedy part.
posted by creepygirl at 9:50 PM on March 29, 2023 [1 favorite]
Reading the decision I get the impression that the majority view Zoom hearings as an obvious necessity during the pandemic, but inherently inferior to in-person presence.
There's really no other way for me to make sense of this decision--they say that Lee had the right to attend in person, but did not have the right to speak during the hearing. Lee was allowed to speak at the Zoom hearing! So if they hold the hearing again, have Lee attend in person, and tell him that he can't say anything, that would be treating the victim with dignity and respect per this decision. It's nuts even before you get to the remedy part.
posted by creepygirl at 9:50 PM on March 29, 2023 [1 favorite]
That reads to me like the appellate court is putting a pretty heavy thumb on the scale in favor of reversal if this comes back a second time.
Maybe? But it also seems like there’s a concern being raised (at least, that’s my impression from the Baltimore Sun article) that the evidence that was considered for making this ruling wasn’t really shared in open court; maybe that’s it? But that could be due to the fact that the information about alternate suspects is leading to a new line of investigation, which shouldn’t be shared yet.
This case is so full of weirdness.
posted by nubs at 11:13 AM on March 30, 2023
Maybe? But it also seems like there’s a concern being raised (at least, that’s my impression from the Baltimore Sun article) that the evidence that was considered for making this ruling wasn’t really shared in open court; maybe that’s it? But that could be due to the fact that the information about alternate suspects is leading to a new line of investigation, which shouldn’t be shared yet.
This case is so full of weirdness.
posted by nubs at 11:13 AM on March 30, 2023
That's why it was on Serial in the first place. :D
posted by kschang at 11:14 AM on March 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by kschang at 11:14 AM on March 30, 2023 [2 favorites]
But it just keeps going!
posted by nubs at 11:21 AM on March 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by nubs at 11:21 AM on March 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
Am listening to Rabia's Instagram livestream and she said Hae's family hasn't shown up for a hearing in 23 years before this.
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:15 PM on March 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:15 PM on March 30, 2023 [3 favorites]
Sarah Marshall and Amanda Knox (the one falsely accused and imprisoned back then) had a really inspiring conversation about the meaning and possible outcomes of "justice" and justice systems this week on You're Wrong About. I think a lot more conversation about restorative vs. punitive justice is something we should do, especially (ESPECIALLY) as regards victims. Our current justice system is crap for both perpetrators and victims, seems like to me.
Thank you to those who are good at picking apart the details of this case, too. I appreciate your attention to the fine points of stuff.
posted by lauranesson at 6:18 PM on March 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
Thank you to those who are good at picking apart the details of this case, too. I appreciate your attention to the fine points of stuff.
posted by lauranesson at 6:18 PM on March 30, 2023 [1 favorite]
« Older Bicycle - by Bartosz Ciechanowski | Cat-Gpt.com Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
This is insane. If a conviction is unsafe, then it is unsafe. It doesn't matter who is in court to witness the decision. Putting someone behind bars when you know that do not have proof beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty is abhorrent and uncivilised.
The victim's family may wish that the perpetrator was behind bars but the evidence suggests that there is a good chance the perpetrator is not (regardless of whether Syed is free or incarcerated).
posted by plonkee at 3:06 PM on March 28, 2023 [26 favorites]