CONVICTION OVERTURNED MD - Hae Min Lee, 17, Baltimore, 13 Jan 1999

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you for post of the Maryland court Media Advisory Soulmagent. Still reading, but I find Wild's plea
deal with the State just a "little bit" Hinky.
 
PBS Newshour article from today:

Maryland stands by its case against ‘Serial’ subject Adnan Syed
BY ERIC KRUPKE AND RUTH TAM January 14, 2015 at 3:20 PM EST

<snip>

As part of the &#8220;post-conviction process,&#8221; the state&#8217;s appeals court asked the state of Maryland to comment on Syed&#8217;s request. The state responded Wednesday and &#8220;respectfully request[ed] that the Court deny the application.&#8221;

<snip>

The application asks the court to consider whether Cristina Gutierrez, Syed&#8217;s lawyer in the original 2000 trial, provided him with ineffective assistance. Syed suggests that Gutierrez erred in not following his request that she seek a guilty plea offer from the state.

<snip>
Click to expand...
 
39.321201, -76.689017 This is where the truck pop was said to have happened per Jay , however it was misrepresented often by Jay.
 
Soulmagent said:
The state responded ,not the courts. Adnan is still waiting.
Click to expand...

Not sure why the media is so confused about this proceeding. You are right that he's waiting, and he's going to keep waiting for a very long time yet. The state's response was on a very narrow issue ordered by the court, stemming from Adnan's 2013 appeal papers. But his new arguments have not yet been made, based on new facts uncovered by the podcast, and based on the DNA argument that the Innocence Project wishes to make. It will take several months just for the briefing on the case to be completed. And months after that for a ruling.
 
gitana1 said:
Imo he absolutely did not have anywhere close to ineffective assistance of counsel. Not frickin close. His attorney was a popular and formidable defense attorney with a phenomenal reputation as an intelligent bull dog. What i heard about how she presented the case sounded solid from an attorney perspective and Adnan is satisfied with her representation. There are often reasons you will never know as to why certain things aren't presented. Like lack of credibility or someone makes an appalling witness and it will actually hurt your case to put them on the stand.

Adnan got a solid defense. Not perfect but good.
Click to expand...

Ineffective assistance of counsel is not determined by whether the lawyer had a good "reputation" at the time. This was a six week trial, of which Gutierrez spent only a couple of days presenting the defense. That's "solid" in your eyes? She did not rebut the cell phone expert's testimony, and it now turns out that much of his testimony has been found to rely on junk science. She did not dismantle Jay Wilds' timeline even though he now admits that he perjured himself on the stand. She did not even bother contacting a solid alibi witness to investigate her potential testimony, who would have fatally destroyed the state's narrative. And nor did she make any objections to the absolutely horrendous racial profiling the state exploited to win the conviction. At one point the prosecutor literally stood before the jury and told them, point blank, "He's a Muslim." I assume you're aware that you can't do things like that in criminal trials. But Kevin Urick did, and Gutierrez did not object. That's not "solid."
 
Soulmagent said:
39.321201, -76.689017 This is where the truck pop was said to have happened per Jay , however it was misrepresented often by Jay.
Click to expand...

In his first police interview, Jay said the trunk pop (aka, the traumatic moment that he first saw a teenager's corpse who had been strangled to death by his schoolmate) happened at a strip mall off Emondson Avenue at 4:00.

In his second police interview, Jay says the trunk pop was at Best Buy. At 3:40.

At the trial, Jay does say the trunk pop was at Best Buy, but this time it was at 3:55.

In his interview recently, Jay says the trunk pop happened at Jay's grandmother's house. At 6:00.
 
arizona said:
Ineffective assistance of counsel is not determined by whether the lawyer had a good "reputation" at the time. This was a six week trial, of which Gutierrez spent only a couple of days presenting the defense. That's "solid" in your eyes? She did not rebut the cell phone expert's testimony, and it now turns out that much of his testimony has been found to rely on junk science. She did not dismantle Jay Wilds' timeline even though he now admits that he perjured himself on the stand. She did not even bother contacting a solid alibi witness to investigate her potential testimony, who would have fatally destroyed the state's narrative. And nor did she make any objections to the absolutely horrendous racial profiling the state exploited to win the conviction. At one point the prosecutor literally stood before the jury and told them, point blank, "He's a Muslim." I assume you're aware that you can't do things like that in criminal trials. But Kevin Urick did, and Gutierrez did not object. That's not "solid."
Click to expand...

To be ineffective she's have had to have fallen asleep during trial, or come in drunk or something equally outrageous. Perhaps Sarah Kroenig should have take on the case, she could have played her snappy little narratives, skipped right over all the evidence that showed Adnan's jealousy, batted her eyes at the jury a few times, and none of this would have happened?

Seriously though, it takes a lot to get 'ineffective assistance of counsel', a lot more than people thinking she could have done a better job.
 
I just listened to the entire series over the past couple of days--it was very interesting. Glad there is a thread here--can't wait to see what all you you sleuths have to say about it. My impression upon completing the series is Guilty, but I need to see more court documents to be sure.

Anyways, I found out about it on a thread here about books to read and now I can't find it. I wanted to ask on that thread if there are any similar podcasts like this to listen to. Does anyone know any podcasts or can they point me to the books thread where I originally saw it?
 
SStarr33 said:
I just listened to the entire series over the past couple of days--it was very interesting. Glad there is a thread here--can't wait to see what all you you sleuths have to say about it. My impression upon completing the series is Guilty, but I need to see more court documents to be sure.

Anyways, I found out about it on a thread here about books to read and now I can't find it. I wanted to ask on that thread if there are any similar podcasts like this to listen to. Does anyone know any podcasts or can they point me to the books thread where I originally saw it?
Click to expand...

There is a podcast called 'True Murder' that takes a true crime book and interviews the author every week (or so) they go through the entire case and you get the authors point of view, that one is brilliant, 'Sword and Scale' is great too also try 'The Generation Why' .. I'm sure there are others :)
 
Mrs G Norris said:
To be ineffective she's have had to have fallen asleep during trial, or come in drunk or something equally outrageous. Perhaps Sarah Kroenig should have take on the case, she could have played her snappy little narratives, skipped right over all the evidence that showed Adnan's jealousy, batted her eyes at the jury a few times, and none of this would have happened?

Seriously though, it takes a lot to get 'ineffective assistance of counsel', a lot more than people thinking she could have done a better job.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that's incorrect. Failing to contact an alibi witness has been long recognized, standing alone, as ineffective assistance of counsel under the 6th Amendment, without even reaching the other facts I've pointed out (that you notably don't address). Why Gutierrez failed to contact the alibi was unknown prior to the podcast. But the podcast interviewed the witness and uncovered what actually happened, which is a very substantial blow to the state's case.
 
We have no idea why Gutierrez did not follow up with Asia. Perhaps Adnan told her something that made calling her to testify impossible (if Gutierrez believes Asia is lying for example, she cannot ethically call her as a witness). Perhaps she felt like she would be taken down on cross exam and thus not worth calling. She might determined that Asia was remembering the wrong day.

We will never know, because she's unfortunately gone, and Adnan of course won't be forthcoming as it's not in his interest to do so.

Meanwhile poor Cristina Gutierrez gets dragged through the mud now that she's not here to defend herself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Gardenlady said:
We have no idea why Gutierrez did not follow up with Asia. Perhaps Adnan told her something that made calling her to testify impossible (if Gutierrez believes Asia is lying for example, she cannot ethically call her as a witness). Perhaps she felt like she would be taken down on cross exam and thus not worth calling. She might determined that Asia was remembering the wrong day.

We will never know, because she's unfortunately gone, and Adnan of course won't be forthcoming as it's not in his interest to do so.

Meanwhile poor Cristina Gutierrez gets dragged through the mud now that she's not here to defend herself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

These are all (fanciful and factually unsupported) excuses for why an attorney would not call an alibi witness to the stand. Gutierrez did not even CONTACT McClain. We know this because McClain confirms it, and Gutierrez's notes confirm it. Failing to contact an alibi witness is ineffective assistance of counsel. Period.
 
arizona said:
These are all (fanciful and factually unsupported) excuses for why an attorney would not call an alibi witness to the stand. Gutierrez did not even CONTACT McClain. We know this because McClain confirms it, and Gutierrez's notes confirm it. Failing to contact an alibi witness is ineffective assistance of counsel. Period.
Click to expand...

Fanciful? Mmmmkay. :rolleyes: I suppose Gutierrez spoke with you from the grave and told you her reasons, that's why you're so sure. If not then you cannot claim to know the reason and you cannot claim it is fact that she did not go further with Asia due solely to ineffective assistance.

Fact is, you don't know what her reason was. And she isn't here to tell you. It's fanciful to think you have a direct line to the dead to make that claim. :)





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I think Asia wasn't credible, maybe Adnan admitted to his lawyer he doesn't remember talking to her that day or similar. He didn't even sound convinced in the podcast, actually.
 
Mrs G Norris said:
I think Asia wasn't credible, maybe Adnan admitted to his lawyer he doesn't remember talking to her that day or similar. He didn't even sound convinced in the podcast, actually.
Click to expand...

Right. In fact, he sounds *very* taken aback that Koenig looked for Asia, found her, and spoke to her.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 67 more.
Total: 3,212 (members: 68, guests: 3,144)

Online statistics

Members online
68
Guests online
3,144
Total visitors
3,212
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,566
Messages
18,173,492
Members
232,677
Latest member
Amakur
Back
Top