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?

[Slander and/or Libel]

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?

[Kushahontas]

Yes, as the status quo is an affront to the criminal justice system

[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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I never said that DNA testing required a whole new trial. I said that was one of the legal avenues that might lead there. The plea issue has two prongs; they have to show that the prosecution would likely have offered it, and that the defendant would likely have taken it. I don't think that's a particularly strong argument, as it's unclear to me whether either of those prongs are met, but the broader argument is that Adnan's attorney wasn't working to meet his wishes and that she wasn't informing him about things she said she would do and never did, like checking out alibi witnesses.

There is information that was not discussed on the podcast, if you want to get really deep into it. 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, if you cared to know them. But your previous posts seem pretty clearly to indicate that you have no such interest, and only want to discuss the case from a proudly ignorant position.

[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?

[Slander and/or Libel]

So, wait. You're proudly remaining ignorant about the case, refusing to actually listen to the podcast, yet you feel comfortable flinging around accusations that the judges were influenced by the show? Based on what? This is stupid.

[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?

[Slander and/or Libel]

He didn't win an appeal. He lost all of his primary appeals. The Court of Special Appeals has granted his right to appeal on his Ineffective Assistance of Counsel claims.

These are foundational issues to what you're discussing, and you don't know them. It makes you look like a fool, I'm sorry to say. Why the reluctance to just, you know, listen to the show and/or do some reading about it? Why do you have any interest in it if you refuse to actually engage with any of the details of it?

[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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I know nothing about this story, but as a matter of principles, when there is any uncertainty, I always take the side of the accused. So yes.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

So I'm confused. What are you proposing? A ban on discussion of crime?

[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?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Ok, so you're just self-righteously concern trolling. Got it.

[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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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. You claim this happened 12 years ago when really it happened 15-16 years ago, depending on whether you're talking about the murder or the trial.

You look like a fool. You don't know what you're talking about and you refuse to learn, yet you expect to be treated as serious when you're crying about your flawed perception of what everything is all about. Get real.

[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?