On the request of prosecutors, a Maryland courtroom on Monday vacated the conviction of Adnan Syed, whose identify could also be acquainted should you’ve listened to the “Serial” podcast or watched the HBO sequence “Forbidden Love.”
Greater than twenty years in the past, a jury discovered Syed, then 18, responsible of murdering a fellow teenager, Hae Min Lee, and he was sentenced to life in individual. Fourteen years into his jail time period, “Serial” revealed a possible alibi witness and famous points with among the proof introduced at his trial. It additionally make clear the poor illustration Syed obtained from his counsel, who was disbarred only a 12 months after Syed’s conviction. A choose in Maryland granted Syed a brand new trial, and an appellate courtroom upheld that call.
Due course of — or the authorized safeguards afforded to all defendants — principally protects the accused till there’s a conviction; after that, defendants want to finish the proverbial Hail Mary move to get a brand new trial.
However in 2019, the very best courtroom in Maryland, in a divided opinion, reversed the choice of the appellate courtroom. It agreed that the efficiency of Syed’s trial counsel in investigating the case was unacceptable however concluded that the proof introduced towards Syed at trial was too sturdy for that deficiency to have made a distinction. Later that 12 months, the U.S. Supreme Court docket declined to listen to the case.
Syed’s new attorneys from the Maryland Workplace of the Public Defender and the College of Baltimore’s Innocence Mission pressed on. Lastly, in a movement submitted final week, the prosecutors sought to vacate his conviction as a result of they’d uncovered info in regards to the doable involvement of two different suspects in Lee’s homicide. Not less than one of many suspects was recognized to the prosecutors earlier than Syed’s trial but that was not disclosed to him, leading to “Brady violations” — that means proof useful to the protection was not correctly made accessible. The prosecutors additionally acknowledged “important reliability points concerning essentially the most essential items of proof at trial.”
To make sure, the state has not conceded that Syed is harmless — solely that it now not had “confidence within the integrity of this conviction” and that Syed must be launched from jail, with out bond, whereas prosecutors proceed their investigation. Syed should still be tried once more for a similar homicide.
Whereas the ruling is actually price celebrating in the intervening time, Syed’s expertise exposes some disagreeable truths about our prison justice system. For starters, due course of — or the authorized safeguards afforded to all defendants — principally protects the accused till there’s a conviction; after that, defendants want to finish the proverbial Hail Mary move to get a brand new trial, a lot much less earn their freedom.
Amongst different issues, due course of provides defendants the fitting to stay silent and the fitting to an lawyer. They’ve the fitting to see the prosecutors’ proof earlier than trial and to confront their witnesses in courtroom. Prosecutors, in the meantime, should show their case past an inexpensive doubt. And so they should persuade a jury of the defendant’s friends, chosen with the defendant’s enter, that they’ve cleared that very excessive bar.
As Syed’s case demonstrates, these protections are usually not good. However the pre-conviction safeguards are nonetheless strong and efficient. Sadly, they fall nearly completely by the wayside following a responsible verdict or plea. The system is geared to stop harmless folks from being convicted. However as soon as convicted, guilt is assumed, and the system shifts towards defending the conviction.
Ideas just like the presumption of innocence and the “rule of lenity” (the precept that any ambiguous prison statute should be interpreted within the defendants’ favor) are changed by procedural hurdles set as much as forestall courts from attending to the deserves of post-conviction petitions until defendants current their arguments in a well timed manner at each step of the appellate course of, to permit an orderly evaluation of the problems earlier than the file turns into stale.
Even clearing these hurdles is on no account a assure of success. Prosecutorial misconduct and courtroom errors are usually not sufficient to earn a brand new trial; usually, defendants should exhibit that they’d an inexpensive likelihood of prevailing at trial as effectively — and the courtroom ordinarily considers the proof within the mild most favorable to the prosecution. What’s extra, the bar for displaying that the protection lawyer was incompetent, that the choose made consequential errors or that the jury reached an irrational verdict is nearly impossibly excessive.
Simply this 12 months, the Supreme Court docket held that receiving ineffective illustration at each the trial and post-conviction levels isn’t any motive for prison defendants to get a brand new trial — they can not assault the competence of trial counsel when their second lawyer, additionally incompetent, failed to take action, and the defendant due to this fact waived an opportunity to assault the trial counsel’s efficiency.
To be truthful, the shift from defending the accused to preserving the conviction is a necessity. 1000’s of defendants annually petition courts for launch. In our observations as former legislation clerks to judges to whom these petitions are made, the overwhelming majority are frivolous. If courts entertained every with full-blown evidentiary hearings, our justice system would grind to a halt and the due course of that the accused obtain might endure.
If judges are occupied with holding ineffective hearings, they might give much less consideration to motions asking to dismiss indictments, suppress search warrants and different pretrial requests that will have advantage. Extra importantly, defendants might not obtain the speedy trials to which they’re entitled to beneath the Structure.
That reveals one other fact in regards to the system: We’re more and more counting on prosecutors and investigative journalists to guard convicted defendants as a result of the remainder of the justice system can’t all the time shield them. Prosecutors have the facility to get convictions like Syed’s vacated, and journalists are sometimes essential to bringing consideration (and due to this fact stress) for them to take action.
There’s a rising variety of conviction integrity items at district lawyer places of work (practically tripling within the final six years), in addition to sections just like the Sentencing Evaluate Unit, which filed Syed’s movement, that contemplate releasing defendants who’ve already served prolonged phrases. These items are desperately wanted as a result of, whereas most prosecutors are honorable and conscientious, there are notable exceptions. And even trustworthy prosecutors can convict harmless defendants — it typically simply takes a mendacity witness, which is the main motive for convictions uncovered as wrongful.
Since so many convicted defendants and their households vie for prosecutors’ consideration even when undeserving of any aid, reporters might help determine worthy circumstances and pave the best way for eventual launch. For convicted defendants like Syed, journalists are sometimes the one remaining hope.
