re: The Case Against Adnan Syed - HBO-

quote:

---

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.

---

The jury system is a fundamental tenet of the american justice system. Unfortunately, on the federal side, jury trials are going the way of the do do bird (because, for reasons outside the scope of this discussion, a defendant is often much worse off on the sentencing front if he elects to have his trial before a jury and is found guilty). But this is a state case, and jury trials are still common things in most state court criminal proceedings, and for good reason. You are much more likely to be acquitted by a jury than by a judge. If you're on trial for murder, you go for a jury trial every day of the week.

And, yes, appellate courts do give great deference to the factfinder of the trial court on issues of fact. But the issue on appeal here is whether the information that WASN'T presented to the jury was significant enough that it might have been outcome determinative. I'm not about to read that entire opinion, but I actually think a higher appellate court overruling a lower appellate court in a 4-3 decision on a question like that is somewhere between questionable and quite questionable.

So, even though I would have voted guilty if I would have been on that jury, I would have voted to give him a new trial if I were on the appellate court that ruled against him. To say that an alibi witness clearly wouldn't have changed the jury's decision is bollocks. Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't have, but that's the kind of evidence that certainly might have been outcome determinative. Thumbs down to those 4 appellate judges.