Should Adnan Syed (Serial) be granted a new trial?

[Beet]

I haven't seen this podcast, and I tend to lean towards the anti-carceral side, but isn't there something that just stinks about a convicted murderer getting a new trial based on an entertainment product marketed to millions as just that? Justice and capitalism need to be kept separate. I don't trust the objectivity of this journalist one whit, when she's pushing a narrative that just so happens to be popular, and has a personal and financial incentive behind it. But more fundamentally we shouldn't be doing trial by podcast. Thoughts?

[Beet]

If you haven't listened to the podcast or followed the case, what in the world is your opinion here based on?

For your information, the prospects of a new trial are based on two avenues: one, an ongoing appeal claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for two reasons (not seeking a plea deal though the defendant asked her to inquire, and not interviewing a potential alibi witness who would have destroyed the state's claimed timeline of the case); and two, an Innocence Project inquiry into DNA evidence remaining from the case which was never tested in the first place.

Nobody, but NOBODY, is claiming that Adnan Syed is due a new trial because the podcast was entertaining. That's absurd.

And again, I have to ask, if you claim not to have listened to the podcast or followed the case, what are you using to form your opinion of Sarah Koenig's objectivity?

A strong suspicion that if I did listen to the podcast, my opinion would not change. Even if I did listen to it entirely and felt it was totally objective, how could I really know, so long as my only avenues of information about the case were through the podcast itself? Even if I were to then research it independently, I still would not know as much as the judges and jurors involved. Short of there being a video of what happened, I don't think it's possible for the general public to competently judge such cases. That is why we have a court system. I am worried that the popularity of the podcast had unduly influenced the court system.

[Beet]

I just gave you information about the substantive issues before the court, and they have nothing to do with the podcast. Do you dispute them? On what grounds?

I find it really difficult to credit your opinion on this given that you refuse to actually inform yourself about it.

I don't refuse to inform myself about it, I just don't have confidence that a random citizen such as you or me can overturn the decision of a court based on publicly available information. Nothing you've said changes that. For example, I dispute that testing DNA requires a whole new trial, because why can't they test it and then decide if the results warrant a new trial or not? If the defense attorney failed to tell him about the possibility of a plea bargain- that implies he would have gone for a plea bargain? It's not clear how to remedy that wrong, if true, but a new trial isn't the most obvious answer. The point is that we can sit here and debate this thing forever, but my critique of how this has been handled is deeper than that.

[Beet]

My point is that the talk of a new trial still faces many, many hurdles, and none of it is because of the popularity of the podcast. These are facts that you could verify

I can verify that the podcast didn't influence the court's decision? How? Did the judges not know about the podcast?

[Beet]

So because I haven't listened to the podcast, that means the judges can't have been improperly influenced by it? I don't see how my not having listened to the podcast reduces my ability to argue that the judges weren't influenced by it. It's the most popular podcast in history, it's all over CNN, there's a massive social media campaign to get a new trial, and all of a sudden, at the height of its popularity, a guy who had been in jail for 12 years and lost appeals, all of a sudden wins an appeal that the journalist herself had said was hanging by a thread? You don't see anything suspicious there?

[Beet]

Because if you're asking that question, you've missed the whole point of my post. What I object to is the whole system of forming opinions on ambiguous criminal cases based on podcasts. You're asking me to participate in the very thing I'm arguing against. My interest in this case extends on to revulsion at the idea that the criminal justice system could be influenced by entertainment-for-profit. The only issues relevant to my discussion are whether the judges were influenced by what's going on in the media or not.

[Beet]

Lots of people form opinions for dumber reasons than podcasts.

But I'd put it to you that it's on you to find some kind of evidence that the justice system has treated Syed more favorably because of the podcast than they otherwise would have. Because again, since you baldly refuse to actually engage with the facts of the case, you don't really have any evidence that what you're claiming has happened has, in fact, happened.

If the fact that it's on CNN, every news outlet & paper, the internet is filled with petitions, and everyone and their mother is trying to dissect the case doesn't impinge the prospect of fair and objective proceedings, we'll just have to disagree.

[Beet]

If the fact that it's on CNN, every news outlet & paper, the internet is filled with petitions, and everyone and their mother is trying to dissect the case doesn't impinge the prospect of fair and objective proceedings, we'll just have to disagree.

Except you, who feels comfortable making grand pronouncements about the thing without actually finding out anything about it.

Yes, my grand pronouncement is that criminal law should be handled by the criminal justice system, not the court of public opinion.

[Beet]

And it is being so handled. The state petitioned against Syed's right to appeal, and the court denied the state's position. If Syed wins in the MD Court of Special Appeals, the state will appeal to the MD Court of Appeals (and if he loses, he'll appeal). One outcome is a new trial. Another is nothing. Another is that he'll be allowed to attach the alibi evidence in a supplement to his appeal. Your hand-wringing is ill-informed and misplaced.

Nope. All you've done is enumerate the formalities of which path of cases could lead to a new trial or not- you haven't shown that the judges won't be influenced by the media firestorm. I don't see how it's possible for them not to be. Judges are human beings, not robots. A judge's decision can be influenced by which side of the bed he gets out of in the morning, let alone a biased national crusade saturating the papers for months.

Here's a study that supports my case:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/12/16/3604023/the-judicial-ethics-of-serial-2/

Antonio V- it may be an accused who is being helped by the sudden publicization of this particular trial, but there is no guarantee it won't be the reverse the next time an entertainer toys with the justice system.

[Beet]

I'm proposing that the millions of people who think they know what happened in this case & what the courts should decide next should take a step back, realize that they consumed an entertainment product created for their own amusement, and put their own opinion in the perspective of that realization. Which of course won't happen. For podcast listeners this is nothing. It's another another form of media that they turn on during leisure hours. For the families involved in this case it's real life, it's a life-defining event. It's not something they can just escape from by turning off the TV. But to let that interfere with the self-righteous entertainment of millions, and the career advancement for Sarah Koenig? Hardly, right?

[Beet]

Imagine you're the family of the girl killed. What are you supposed to think? Your daughter was murdered- even you can't be entirely sure it was Adnan, but the evidence points overwhelmingly to him. You went through a trial, which was emotionally difficult, but you did it to get justice for your daughter. That was 12 years ago.

Then, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, a journalist you've never heard of decides to do a podcast on the case. In the podcast she doesn't even pretend to be objective but leaves the listener with a distinct impression that the trial was fatally flawed - in large part due to the incompetence of the defense attorney. Any other conclusion and there would be no story - after all, what value is there a podcast that declares in the end, the right verdict was reached? That's like trying to publish a journal article that includes the null hypothesis couldn't be rejected. The fix was in from the start.

And even if, it was true, that the defense attorney was incompetent, to what fault is that of your own? It's never been considered the victim's family's responsibility to ensure that the defense attorney is competent. That's the state's fault.

For whatever reason the podcast becomes wildly popular. It becomes the most popular podcast of all time. It's praised in all sorts of circles, and is even said to be the coming of age moment for the podcast industry. Meanwhile you're living with the fact that a guy who most likely killed your daughter is being treated as some sort of marytr by the rest of society. Suddenly he's got everyone on his side and no one on your side.

And then, at the height of all this, an appeal which legal scholars considered a long shot- which even the journalist herself said was hanging "by a thread", suddenly the elected judge rules in Adnan's favor against all expectations and wants to hear more about the theory developed in the podcast. Opening the possibility that you'll have to go through a trial again -- reliving every moment of your daughter's murder, reliving all of the uncertainty and emotional and physical toll of a another trial. Or possibly letting your daughter's killer go free as a martyr. Either way he's already won in the court of public opinion.

Where did this family go wrong? They've been victimized twice - once by whoever killed their daughter, and now again, seemingly by all of society, through a journalist who used her bully pulpit to frame the story her way, without any of the fairness accorded between two equal parties that we would expect in any remotely fair system of law.

[Beet]

You've never listened to the show or reviewed any of the evidence. Yet you feel comfortable saying the evidence was overwhelming. You feel comfortable saying the presentation on the podcast (of whose content you remain proudly ignorant) was hugely biased.

Lots of people who've heard the podcast say it's biased. It certainly comes to the conclusion that Adnan is innocent. You keep repeating the phrase "proudly ignorant" but I'm neither proud nor ashamed about not listening to the podcast. I just don't think listening to it would change my perception that it's biased. You never address any substantive points in this discussion. You just keep repeating the same things over and over again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know it happened 15-16 years ago, which makes it even worse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Um, my perception of what "everything is all about" seems to be shared by a member of the victim's family, according to some reports. Who do you think knows the case better - you or him?

[Beet]

Because I'm an old foagie and it hasn't yet sunk in for me how long ago 2000 was.

I've read a lot about this case. You're acting as if just because I haven't heard the podcast I have no interest in it or knowing anything about it. That's clearly false. My entire post was that a podcast shouldn't define the discussion around this case, as it so clearly does.

I don't trust the podcast, or any podcast, to tell us about a criminal case in such a way that we would be qualified second guessing a judge or jury. It's a stylized presentation. It must be written a certain way to bring in listeners- the producers' and journalists' jobs/careers depend on it. The goal is primarily to entertain. There are no controls, no deliberative processes put in place that we would put in place of the goal was to inform listeners so that we could make a judgement or opinion about the case, as opposed to being entertained. Listening to it doesn't make you a juror, and I have no desire to be.

There are good reasons to think the podcast is biased. First of all, the defendant and his family participated in the story, as did another witness favorable to the defense. Meanwhile, none of the family members of the victim participated, despite strenuous efforts to get them to do so. One witness favorable to the prosecution only gave a public interview after his home address was given out in reddit. Second of all, there would be no "story" if Koenig had concluded that the verdict was right. Whens the last time you heard of an investigative journalism piece or advocacy piece that concluded "all is well." "After all those episodes, I concluded that the system worked." That would be a boring story. Koenig was incentivized from the start to reach the conclusion she wanted. Third, there's the fact that she literally comes out and says she thinks Adnan is innocent. That's a clear endorsement of one side in an ongoing dispute. Fourth, people who have heard the podcast have said that it is biased. I don't have to watch Obama's SOTU to have an opinion on his proposals, or know if the speech was a success or which party's policies were advocated. I may still listen to it, but I don't think itll resolve the concerns I've raised here.

[Beet]

This is where it would help if you had any idea what you were talking about. Sarah Koenig did NOT say she thought Adnan was innocent. She said she can't say for sure, but that as a juror she'd have to vote to acquit.

What? She can't say for sure? Shocking.

She concluded that most of the time, she didn't think he did it, even though she won't "swear" he's innocent because she still harbors doubts - but that even if she thought he was guilty she would have to vote to acquit. That's about the most pro-defense statement you can possibly get while still retaining plausiblility.

[Beet]

I guess so, because you never engaged me to begin with. You just came here to castigate me for daring to have an opinion, after I was honest about not having listened to the whole podcast.