It is our opinion that, if McClain’s testimony had been presented to the jury, it would have “alter[ed] the entire evidentiary picture,” because her testimony would have placed Syed at the Woodlawn Public Library at the time the State claimed that Syed murdered Hae. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696. Such testimony would have directly[…]
I wanted to get this out sooner, but I’ve been swamped with my own cases. By now, much has already been written and discussed regarding oral argument in State v. Syed. Journalists published their articles that day and you can now purchase an audio of the arguments from the Court of Special Appeals and draw your own conclusions. So, I’ll try and narrow my focus a bit. […]
As you know, on June 30, 2016, the post conviction court vacated Adnan Syed’s convictions and granted him a new trial. The post conviction court found that Syed’s trial counsel’s failure to cross examine the State’s expert on the unreliability of incoming call cell phone data was deficient and that that error created a substantial possibility that the result of the trial would have been different. […]
There has been much paper pushed back and forth as of late in the battle to secure Adnan Syed a new trial. In this post I’m going to walk you through what has been filed and what to expect next. Without requiring you to read all the way to the end to learn the bottom line- though I’d love it if you would- I think we can expect one more filing from the State. If you want to view all of the key documents, Undisclosed Wiki is a great resource. […]
On June 30, 2016, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted relief in Adnan Syed v. State. You can read the Court’s 59 page Memorandum Opinion and Order at the end of this post. I’m going to attempt to bottom line the key points in the Court’s opinion.
There were three issues before the Court:
- Did Mr. Syed’s trial counsel render ineffective assistance in failing to contact Asia McClain as a potential alibi witness?
- Did the State fail to turn over documents to defense as required by law?
- Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance in failing to challenge the reliability of the State’s cell tower location evidence
The Court denied relief on the first two claims, but granted relief as to the third claim. You only need to win on one issue to win a new trial. Mr. Syed did not need to will on all of the claims in order to ultimately prevail.
Did Mr. Syed’s trial counsel render ineffective assistance in failing to contact Asia McClain as a potential alibi witness? […]
Most everyone has heard of the standard of proof in a criminal prosecution, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is the highest standard of proof in our legal system. It was the standard of proof that applied during Adnan Syed’s trial. The State was tasked with persuading the jury that Mr. Syed was guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and Mr. Syed was presumed innocent until the State satisfied its burden of proof. […]
I’ll translate this into plain language in an update to this post, but here are the fundamentals of Brady: In Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court held that the state’s suppression of exculpatory evidence at trial violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To prevail on a Brady claim, Petitioner[…]
**UPDATE: The Court of Special Appeals granted the ALA in Adnan’s case on February 6, 2015. The case was sent back to Judge Welch in Baltimore City Circuit Court for the court to consider Asia’s affidavit and potential testimony. Adnan is also attempting to amend his petition with an additional claim regarding the cell phone[…]