<p>We don’t know that. The mistrial occurred before the prosecution closed its case, so before the jury had heard all the evidence and before the jurors would have discussed the case amongst themselves. We don’t know how many jurors were interviewed by the defense after the mistrial – typically only a handful of jurors are open to talking to lawyers – it could be that the defense approached the jurors who seemed most receptive to them and got the answer they wanted to hear.</p>
<p>I have seen plenty of cases where the jurors seem to be siding with one side from their demeanor and from questions they ask, and the verdict goes the other way. </p>
<p>Very interesting and thorough analysis, Treemaven. </p>
<p>I know you are saying you are not attempting to impeach the jury’s verdict or apply an appellate standard of review. </p>
<p>But does your analysis of this case (and myriad others like it) lead you to conclude that the standards of review SHOULD change to allow a jury’s weighing of the evidence and credibility determinations to be re-evaluated on appeal? Just curious as to whether your thoughtful analysis of the problem you see here leads you to any thoughts about the solution, or whether you think this is simply an inherent problem with our current system that can’t be fixed. </p>
<p>( It certainly can’t be the case that cases can be reopened and reexamined based on the kind of additional evidence collected by the podcast, which was not much new. But I don’t think you are saying that.)</p>
<p>I don’t feel that we’ve been given all evidence available - I think we have been given cherry picked tidbits, with nothing from key witnesses who are either unavailable or were unwilling to talk to SK-- and also with serious bits of evidence glossed over. For example, the words “I am going to kill” written on the back of the breakup note from Hae found at Adnan’s house. SK says it sounds like something from a cheesy detective novel… and then drops it… Somehow I can’t see jurors having the same reaction. </p>
<p>No one ever gets a perfect trial – there are always mistakes made along the way, things that jurors hear that they shouldn’t, things that they don’t hear that they should. The law doesn’t promise truth, it promises due process. </p>
<p>Adnan had a very long trial, represented by an experienced private attorney. Obviously the attorney was also having problems at that stage of her life and career, and that probably impacted her conduct of the trial – but legally it would be necessary to point to very fundamental errors. A potential alibi witness who was never interviewed certainly could fit that description – but for me, the Asia thing is not credible because of Asia’s retraction. It makes her seem more like an attention-seeker who tells people what she thinks they want to hear.</p>
<p>I’d add that Asia’s claim that she was never contacted by the defense is not necessarily true – that’s what she says now, but at the time she could have been deliberately avoiding contact…</p>
<p>I did have cases as a lawyer where client’s offered “alibi” witnesses that seemed to be sham witnesses – perhaps because the witness’ story seemed a little too convenient, or because the story being told by the alibi witness is at odds with what the client or other witnesses have previously said. (That is, client tells lawyer that he was at place X, and then along comes the proffered witness ready to swear that client was at place Y.) That sort of stuff puts the lawyer in an ethical quandary – and may be a reason that a lawyer would not be in a particular hurry to talk to a witness. Under those circumstances I would probably assign a investigator to contact the witness, but I wouldn’t prioritize it. I have experienced “alibi” evidence blowing up on me during a trial – when a prosecutor was able to prove convincingly that the alibi witness was mistaken about the date – so I learned to be very careful about taking “alibi” testimony at face value. I also know that juries tend to also be skeptical of alibi testimony offered by a friend or family member-- so a lawyer might choose to look for other evidence to corroborate the alibi before even talking to the witness. </p>
<p>Adnan’s lawyer is not here to explain – so it could be sloppy investigation on her part, it could be a mistake, or it could be a deliberate decision based on other factors suggesting that Asia was not reliable. We won’t know. But again, in 2014 Asia is absolutely useless as a witness because of her recantation – there simply is no possibility of her testimony being taken seriously by anyone at this point. </p>
<p>This suggests that Asia is at best unsure of her recollection and at worst offering to lie for Adnan, but looking for confirmation from him that her statement would be helpful. </p>
<p>If Asia had been offered as a defense witness, the defense would probably have been required to disclose her letter to the prosecution – and may have been required to do that in advance of trial, depending on Maryland law (some states require advance notice of an alibi defense together with discovery of all written witness statements) … so I can see why this witness might have been seen as poison from the outset. </p>
OK, link above to Asia letter seems to have been obliterated --here’s a link to the documents from the Serial podcast site – http://serialpodcast.org/maps - it’s really tricky to get to the 2nd pages of the letters, but it’s possible.
There’s also a typewritten letter from Asia dated March 2, 1999 where she reiterates her offer to testify, but then asks, “What is the so called evidence that my statement is up against? And who are these WITNESSES?” –
Then there is the affidavit she signed at the family’s behest after Adnan’s conviction, dated March 25, 2000 - and in that statement she reports specific times, saying that she left the library at 2:40 p.m. That would negate the prosecution’s argument about the timeline but doesn’t help Adnan if you assume that the come-and-get-me call was the incoming call at 3:15.
Nottelling, even with all its faults, I still believe our jury system and legal system is the best model I know. So, no, I’m not advocating any type of wholesale revision of it.
However, I am not so naive as to believe that mistakes—and grevious ones—don’t occur. I don’t know what I would suggest be done to correct those. But I don’t think it is the least bit harmful—or disrespectful—to re-visit cases such as Innocence Project does or to indulge in some arm-chair evaluation here.
For the sake of my loved ones, I do hope that there would be an avenue to revise such a terrible wrong when it does occur. I’m not willing to acquiesce and throw away the key if there is a reasonable possibility that misrepresentation or misinterpretation occurred simply because there isn’t a pidgeon-hole available in the current system.
Which is not to say that I think there should be no finality whatsoever in a criminal (or civil) matter. The vast majority of cases are well-served by the appellate procedures that are in place. But in all things, especially those involving humans. nothing works 100% as designed in all instances and in all circumstances.
And I don’t know about you, but I sure hope me or mine weren’t that outlier! And if so, would sure hope there were someone willing to buck the system on my behalf.
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree! I COMPLETELY support the work of the Innocence Project and in fact I worked pro bono on death penalty habeas petitions earlier in my career, when I had the stamina.
And I definitely see nothing wrong with arm chair re-evaluations! And I LOVED the podcast, although I personally reached a different arm-chair conclusion based on my glimpse of the evidence thru the podcast.
I was just genuinely curious about whether you had any thoughts abt systemic changes that you’d like to see in light of your conclusions.
Very interesting that there were supposedly 80 witnesses ready to swear that Adman was at the mosque praying until the cell phone evidence placed him at the burial scene during the relevant time frame and then the witnesses evaporated.
Just a technical point – the inclusion of a name on a witness list does not mean that the witness is actually going to testify to a particular point. I am not familiar with Maryland criminal procedure, but in general discovery rules require counsel to serve a list of the names of all potential witness on opposing counsel a specified time ahead of trial. In criminal cases, the rules in different jurisdictions are different about what the defense has to disclose to the prosecution, but typically there will be a rule requiring the defense to give notice of intent to provide an alibi defense along with a witness list. If a witness’ name is not disclosed, then that witness can be prevented from testifying.
Because of those rules, it makes sense for an attorney to err in favor of over-disclosing – to include the names of everyone known who is even a potential witness, whether or not the defense has talked to that person or thinks that the person will testify. Another tactical advantage to giving an over-inclusive list is that it makes it harder for the attorney on the other side to figure out who the key witnesses are. That is, maybe there are 3 important witnesses on the list, but there names are buried in random spots among the list of 80 people, and the defense is hoping that the prosecutor’s investigators won’t have time to talk to everyone on the list ahead of trial. So there’s a fairly good chance that Adnan’s lawyer simply turned over a roster drawn from the membership list of the Mosque. Note that the discovery letter is very vague about which witness will testify to what.
So it’s probably not as simple as cell phone records being produced and then witnesses evaporating – it’s more likely that the defense did not have a clear idea of the prosecution’s time line until trial, so some of the witnesses may or may not have been relevant depending on how the testimony developed. The cell tower records don’t tell much of a story by themselves – it is only in connection with Jay’s testimony that they are meaningful.
Whether Serial reached out to Urick multiple times is uninteresting-- he said he wasn’t going to talk to them.
What IS interesting to me is that he said the essence of his case was Jay saying that Adnan showed him the body, and the cell phone record showing Adnan’s phone at Leakin Park. Those two facts are exactly why I thought Adnan was guilty before I read Urick’s interview.
Well Urick didn’t say anything about the case that was particularly newsworthy – but I don’t think he did himself any favors by lying about the attempts that were made by the Serial staff to contact him. SK might not get everything right but I think it’s clear to listeners of the program that she and her colleagues were pretty dogged in their attempts to get people to talk to them, and frustrated when so many refused to be interviewed or go on record.
I could accept the idea that the former prosecutor was “not authorized” to discuss the case… but not when he changes his mind a month later. My guess is that he doesn’t want to talk about some of the stuff they did with Jay to get his cooperation and massage his story – there is a whole thing about a sham guilty plea that wasn’t discussed on Serial but seemed pretty shady. (My personal theory is that Jay did more than merely testify against Adnan in order to get his no-jail deal).
@roma828 – I posted a link to the Serial response above. Do you really think that any journalist would NOT try to contact the prosecutor in a case? They made repeated efforts and I am pretty sure that they made a point of describing them in one of the earlier episodes.
I’d add that the record is pretty clear that they were playing dirty pool with Jay. I’m talking about the court record, as described in the appellate opinion. That doesn’t make Adnan innocent – In my career as a lawyer I had the combination of a guilty client and an over-zealous prosecutor more than once. Sometimes it can be a combination of sincere belief that an accused person is guilty along with frustration at the difficulty of putting together the evidence to prove a case that leads a prosecutor to cross boundaries… though I have also encountered a few prosecutors who just seemed to habitually break rules even when there was no particular need for them to do so in a particular case.
@calmom I wasn’t being snarky. I had listened and read all the articles and agree with your point that it made sense they reached out to the DA. I thought maybe I missed something that showed definitively Urick was being untruthful.
@Snowdog, again… you are 100% entitled to your opinion that the evidence as you understand it was not enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – but as a matter of law, the testimony of Jay alone was sufficient for the jury. If the jury believed that Jay was telling the truth when he said that Adnan showed him the body and admitted killing Hae… that’s enough. (Even if they believed he was mistaken or lying about everything else-- the seeing the body part is pretty damning).
Because Jay was an accomplice, the law also required that his testimony be corroborated in some way, but any form of corroboration, however slight, is legally sufficient. I don’t think the cell records were needed for that, because the testimony of witnesses like “Cathy” (? not sure of name) – who saw Adnan with Jay that evening would also be legally sufficient. (I’m thinking of the witness who testified that Adnan was at her house acting strangely,and that he got upset about a phone call from the police looking for Hae.)
Actually, I’m thinking that the testimony of the police officer who talked to Adnan that night would have provided legal corroboration, but I don’t know for sure what he testified to. However, my understanding is that Adnan admitted in that first call (on Jan 13) that he had asked Hae for a ride after school, but denied it in later police interviews. That admission would have also corroborated Jay’s account, and it would have been allowed as an exception to the hearsay rule as an “admission” or “declaration against interest.”
