If you have watched the “Serial” podcast Season 1, it is a true story and is still happening. On Thursday, June 30, a Baltimore circuit court judge vacated the murder conviction of Adnan Syed, now 35. In 2000, he was charged with the murder of his ex-girlfriend, Hai Min Lee. This case was documented and investigated in Sarah Koenig’s popular podcast. He had been sentenced to life in prison. It was announced by Syed’s Lawyer that he had been granted a new trial.
A copy of the Maryland Court order was obtained by news sources. In this, the Judge, Martin P. Welch, agreed with the defense on that Syed’s previous lawyer provided inefficient counsel. She had failed to cross-examine the state of Maryland’s cell tower expert regarding the reliability of the crucial evidence. While the state had argued that this cell tower data had accurately pinpointed Syed’s phone’s location near the location of burial.
The case through “Serial” drew massive attention, being the fastest podcast to have 5 million downloads and streams on the Apple Store. Then there was also the unofficial spinoff “Undisclosed.” A family friend of the Syed’s created this spinoff, Rabia Chaudry. In this crucial new evidence regarding the case was uncovered. There was a fax cover sheet discovered from AT&T which noted that cell tower information was unreliable due to technical glitches. The sheet stated, “Outgoing calls only are reliable for location status. Any incoming calls will NOT be considered reliable information for location.”
However Syed’s previous lawyer, Cristina Gutierrez, did not introduce this information at trial. Syed’s current attorneys argued cell tower data linking Syed’s phone to the burial site at the time of Lee’s murder was misleading. This information had been presented to jurors without a cover sheet warning that incoming call data was unreliable. Therefore they were not given all of the necessary information.
A criminal defense attorney from Portland, Oregon, Kevin Sali, who has been following the case, indicated that it is typically “very hard” to win ineffective counsel claims. Sali said that “You basically have to show two things: That your lawyer’s performance fell below the constitutional minimum standard — not that they did a bad job or could have done better. What makes that difficult is that a lot of things a lawyer will do or not do are considered judgment calls.” He also added that “You also have to show that if your lawyer had done a constitutionally competent job, the result of the case could have been different.”
That means that at Thursday’s ruling, Syed’s claim satisfied both requirements and that the judge believed that Gutierrez had been “constitutionally ineffective,” and that cross-examination of the witness may have affected the outcome of the case. Gutierrez had also failed to contact key alibi witness Asia McClain Chapman, who saw Syed about the same time the prosecutors claim Lee was murdered.
She spent nearly two days on the stand, testifying she and Syed spent about 15 minutes talking in the library in Jan 1999. However, this was not the case originally, and despite her repeated efforts to reach Syed’s defense team, she had offered to be an alibi but was never contacted. She also wrote letters and sent them to Syed in jail. She detailed their meeting, however at that point it was not much use. These letters were used as proof by the current defense team and have remained consistent for 16 years.
The Prosecutors did not let their chance go, though, using one of the letters to try to impeach Chapman’s testimony. Deputy Attorney General Thiru Vignarajah suggested it contained information taken directly from search warrants executed much later than the letter’s March 2 date. Implying that Syed fed Chapman information.
Brown stated at a news conference, that he “fully expects” the state to appeal the decision. He said he and the defense team have “dug our heels in” and are determined to keep fighting for Adnan Syed. The extensive hearing involved the defense attorneys and prosecutors calling witnesses and vigorously cross-examining others.
At the recent trials, Brown presented the judge with an affidavit from the radio frequency technician. He had testified at Syed’s initial trial for the prosecution. He stated that his testimony would have been different if he’d seen the instruction sheet prior to taking the stand.
However this trial means something different for Lee’s family, they must relive the pain of losing their daughter again. In February, when the post-conviction trial was happening, the family in a statement stated that the push for a new trial had “reopened wounds few can imagine.” The family stated: “It remains hard to see so many run to defend someone who committed a horrible crime, who destroyed our family, who refuses to accept responsibility when so few are willing to speak up for Hae.” Also that “Unlike those who learn about this case on the Internet, we sat and watched every day of both trials — so many witnesses, so much evidence.”
This has been the second attempt at a new trial. In 2014 Welch denied post-conviction relief bid. He determined that Gutierrez’s decision not to pursue Chapman was due to a reasonable strategy, not neglect. Instead of her testifying, the original prosecutor Kevin Urick took the stand and recalled a conversation with Chapman in 2010. In this, he stated that Chapman had decided not to come forward. However, she testified recently that Urick misled her and mischaracterized their conversation. She found out about his statements regarding their conversation on “Serial.” After this, she reached out to Brown and offered to testify.
The “Serial” podcast, debuted in the winter of 2014 and attracted millions of listeners. It allowed listeners to become detectives at home. Not only was this case highlighted but so were the faults in the justice system. This trial needs to happen in order to find out the truth. The time has come around after an extremely long wait. Let us continue to watch where this trial takes Adnan Syed next.
