Adnan Syed deserves a new trial but will never get it.

I do not know if Adnan Syed killed Hae Min Lee on January 13, 1999, and you either. The conviction of Syed for Lee's assassination in 2000 has been the subject of many podcasts and documentaries, including the popular first season of Serial– This can help you decide if you think he or she deserves his current life sentence. We will probably never have definitive evidence anyway. But the current legal The battle of Syed, which took a new turn last week, does not revolve around this issue of guilt or innocence. It focuses on Syed's right, in the sixth amendment, to an effective assistance of his council. For years, his legal team has been fighting for a new trial, alleging that his first defense attorney had not provided sufficient representation on the constitutional level.

By 2018, it seemed that Syed would get that second chance when a Maryland court of appeal granted him a new trial. On Friday, however, Maryland's highest court overturned its decision, finding no violation of the Sixth Amendment. His decision 4 to 3 is seriously flawed – bad for anyone looking for a more accurate picture of Lee's tragic murder, but especially for the Constitution and for criminal justice. This weakens the right to the assistance of a lawyer in Maryland and inexplicably rejects the value of an alibi witness of an accused accused of first degree murder. Whether Syed killed Lee or not, he deserves much more than the superficial rejection of his constitutional rights by the court.

Syed's record has been eternal for so long, so it might be tempting to dismiss his last call as a frivolous and ultimate attempt to do a do-over. This is nothing of the sort. The sixth and 14^th The amendments guarantee the effective assistance of the accused to criminal prosecution. And although the Maryland Court of Appeal (the highest court in the state) ruled against Syed 4-3, six The judges agreed that her first lawyer, Cristina Gutierrez, "had a disability". To understand why, it is necessary to review the centerpiece of Syed's calls after his conviction: two letters from a classmate, Asia McClain, claiming that she had talked with Syed at the library. at the exact time that prosecutors accused him of strangling Lee.

Serial Fans will be aware of these letters, which McClain wrote to Syed while he was awaiting trial in prison. McClain discussed the conversation with Syed at the Woodlawn Public Library after school as she waited for her boyfriend to pick her up. She explained that she had already informed Syed's family about their meeting and was eager to talk to her lawyer, recognizing that it could help her at the trial. McClain had also called the library and discovered that she had a monitoring system that could have recorded their conversation. She told Syed that her "boyfriend and best friend remember seeing you there too." And she gave him a phone number where he could join her to further discuss the case.

The decision of the majority has a whiff of impatience; clearly he is happy to have this controversy out of his role.

Syed later stated that he had "immediately informed" Gutierrez of letters, asking him to contact McClain to investigate the tapes. He also informed Gutierrez that he remembered speaking at the library just after school. Later, Syed asked Gutierrez if she had talked to McClain. She told him that she had "examined the question and nothing had happened".

In fact, Gutierrez never contacted McClain – an astonishing error in judgment, since it offered an alibi that directly refuted the prosecution's case. Prosecutors said Syed killed Lee in a Best Buy car park between 2:15 pm, at the end of classes, and 2:36 pm. According to this timeline, Syed called his friend Jay Wilds at 2:36 pm from a payphone in the Best Buy car park, asking Wilds to pick him up. (Wilds was in possession of Syed's new mobile phone at the time, records indicate that his phone received a call at that time, but not from whom.) At that time, prosecutors stated that Wilds met Syed, saw Lee's body and helped him out. bury in Leakin Park.

Wilds has been the state's star witness, although his description of these events has changed on many occasions, and inconsistencies in his afternoon descriptions cast doubt on his frankness. During the trial, Syed was unable to refute his testimony with an effective alibi placing him away from the crime scene between 14:15 and 14:36. That's because Gutierrez did not call McClain to testify or even investigate his (credible) account of their meeting with the library. As a criminal defense expert testified later, McClain was a "fabulous witness" who "would have … changed the outcome of the match." If she had spoken, McClain would have informed the jury that Syed would not have been able to kill Lee when prosecutors claimed because he was talking to him at the Woodlawn Public Library.

All but one of the judges in the Maryland Court of Appeal agreed that Gutierrez's failure to respond to McClain's letters constituted insufficient assistance from counsel. "At the very least," wrote the majority, "due diligence required Mr. Syed's trial counsel to contact Ms. McClain to explore her potential as an alibi witness." . Strickland c. Washington, proof of insufficient performance is not enough to guarantee a new test under the Sixth Amendment. Instead, the defendant must also prove that the negligence of his attorney resulted in harm, rendering the trial "fundamentally unfair" and forcing a new one. In other words, there must be a "reasonable probability that, without the unprofessional mistakes of the lawyer, the result of the proceedings would have been different".

It was here, on StricklandSecond, that the Court of Appeal broke down. A simple majority concluded that Gutierrez's error did not prejudice Syed, as the jury could reasonably have concluded that he had murdered Lee after speaking to McClain, even though she had testified. The dissenters, on the other hand, felt that at least one juror would certainly have been influenced by McClain's testimony. "Ms. McClain's alibi is not only about the most integral period of the case," Judge Michele Hotten wrote, "it presents direct, not just circumstantial, evidence of Mr. Syed's location during this period. To the extent that I was able to determine, the Crown did not provide any other evidence that could have rebutted Ms. McClain's testimony and affidavits. "

Hotten's dissent actually demolishes the majority's assertion that there was no "reasonable likelihood" that McClain's testimony could have changed the outcome of the case. Because the prosecution had "no direct evidence regarding the whereabouts of Mr. Syed at the time of Ms. Lee's death," wrote Hotten, relying on "extensive" circumstantial evidence to place him at the crime scene. More importantly, prosecutors based their claim on Wilds' claim – as evidenced by Syed's cell phone records – that Syed would have called him at 2:36 pm, just after Lee's murder. McClain would have contradicted Wilds' crucial testimony.

Is it true, as the majority assumes, that if the jury hears McClain's story, he could simply change the date of the murder? Perhaps. But in doing so, the jury should reject the entire schedule of the lawsuit. Or, one would have to believe Wilds' testimony to McClain's, even though Wilds was an accomplice at Lee's funeral and McClain was a selfless classmate. Is there really no "reasonable likelihood" that at least one juror would have changed opinion after hearing McClain? For Hutton, it's impossible to accept. The testimony of McClain would undoubtedly have been "sufficient to establish" a reasonable doubt in the mind of one or more jurors.

The decision of the majority has a whiff of impatience; Obviously, he is happy to have this controversy on his own. But Maryland c. Syed will have ramifications beyond this notorious case. (Syed's lawyers may appeal to the Supreme Court, but it seems unlikely that this case will be successful.) The Court of Appeal lowered the criteria for competent criminal defense in Maryland, thereby downplaying the often vital role of alibi witnesses. It strengthened the ability of the courts to invent a whimsical reason why the mistake of a lawyer was not made. really In this case, a jury would have found a way to convict someone. In short, the court left its mark on the extent of the lawsuits to the detriment of the Sixth Amendment. the Strickland The standard may be strict, but it does not justify the logical logic wheels that the Court of Appeal used to prevent Syed from getting a new trial.

What would have happened if Syed had been tried again? Perhaps, assisted by McClain's testimony, the jury would have acquitted him. Or maybe he would have found him guilty and kept behind bars for life. The result, though important, is far from the central issue. What matters is that the proceedings against Adnan Syed are in accordance with the Constitution – and so far this is clearly not the case. We all deserve better than this masquerade of justice.