re: The Case Against Adnan Syed - HBO-

A 138 page Post Conviction opinion

God bless the clerk that had to put that together


I’m not reading all of that, obviously, but in response to the section you quoted, I’ll raise you this, from the conclusion of the dissent:

quote:

---

To be sure, there could be circumstances where the record is sufficient for the defendant to overcome the presumption that counsel acted reasonably, without questioning trial counsel.

This case, however, does not present such circumstances. Syed has pointed to no evidence in the record indicating that trial counsel’s decision not to interview Ms. McClain was based on anything other than reasonable trial strategy, relying instead on his blanket assertion that it is unreasonable in every case for trial counsel to fail to contact a potential alibi witness identified by the defense.12

Although possible reasons for counsel’s decision have been discussed, we do not know if these were the reasons that counsel decided not to contact Ms. McClain.

We do know, based on the record, that trial counsel presented a vigorous defense of Syed in the face of strong evidence of guilt.

What we do not know is why trial counsel did not contact Ms. McClain, whether she decided not to for the reasons proffered by the State, or if there
_________________

12 Syed does attempt to poke holes in the State’s asserted reasons why trial counsel reasonably could have decided not to pursue Ms. McClain’s purported alibi. For example, Syed argues that no witness testified in support of the State’s argument that trial counsel may have believed the McClain alibi was fabricated. The State, however, does not have the burden to show why trial counsel failed to interview Ms. McClain. It is Syed’s burden to overcome the presumption that she did so based on reasonable trial strategy. 22
____________________


were other reasons that led counsel to conclude that it was not necessary to further investigate Ms. McClain’s public library alibi.13 Under these circumstances, Syed has failed to satisfy Strickland’s “high bar,” Harrington, 526 U.S. at 105. He has failed to meet his burden to overcome the presumption that counsel’s failure to contact Ms. McClain was based on reasonable trial strategy, and therefore, he has failed to meet the requirements of the performance prong of the Strickland test. I would reverse the judgment of the circuit court granting Syed a new trial.

---

This goes back to my acknowledgement that while defendants are granted strong protections at the trial phase, it is a much more uphill battle at the appellate level.

Broad deference is given to the trier of fact, in this case, the jury. He was unanimously convicted by a jury of his peers, and that shouldn’t be easily cast aside by a judge based on subjective questions of law.

The system of a jury of one’s peers is a guiding principle designed to provide protection from the corruption and tyranny so many seem to think is rampant in the criminal justice system.


That is likely ultimately why the high court reversed the appellate court’s decision.

quote:

---

But the timing of these events has been so drastically different that time or memory lapses can't explain.

---

You would be surprised how scattered the memory of even the best witnesses can be, especially when it comes to details involving traumatic events like this.

quote:

---

I just don't believe anything he says.

---

Honestly I can respect that.

There is the issue of Hae’s car though.

Do you subscribe to the theory that Baltimore County Police detectives found the car themselves then had Jay fake giving them information on the record in order to frame Adnan?

And that Jay is trustworthy enough to maintain that charade all these years?



As for the cell phone expert, that is a quick blurb from a site I’ve never heard of but I’d point out this key piece:

quote:

---

”If I had been made aware of this disclaimer, it would have affected my testimony. I would not have affirmed the interpretation of a phone’s possible geographical location until I could ascertain the reasons and details for the disclaimer.”

---

He’s saying he would have needed more information, not necessarily that he “recanted”.


I’ll try to look through the opinion to see if they address that as well, though

quote:

---

In fact, I haven't heard a single professional argument from someone arguing for a conviction. I'd welcome that.

---

You mean other than the State and the jury that convicted him?

The easy answer there is there isn’t money in documentarians proving that the State got a case RIGHT.

There is intrigue and incentive to produce a show that is entertaining and provides alternate resolutions and even possible corruption leading to an innocent man rotting away in prison.


I would imagine there would be much less incentive for producers to spend the time and money to produce something showing that the system worked.

Where is the intrigue to bring in an audience?