Cody_in_Baltimore OP t1_je1cfim wrote
>Maryland’s second-highest court has reinstated the conviction of Adnan Syed, ruling that a “new, legally compliant and transparent hearing” that does not violate the rights of victim Hae Min Lee’s family should take place.
The ruling is likely to be appealed to the Maryland Supreme Court.
>
>“Because the circuit court violated Mr. Lee’s right to notice of, and his right to attend, the hearing on the State’s motion to vacate ... this Court has the power and obligation to remedy those violations, as long we can do so without violating Mr. Syed’s right to be free from double jeopardy,” the court wrote in an opinion posted Tuesday afternoon.
“We can do that, and accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s order vacating Mr. Syed’s convictions, which results in the reinstatement of the original convictions and sentence.”
addctd2badideas t1_je1j0fx wrote
> right to notice of,
I don't understand. Is there something in Maryland code that requires a victim's family for right to notice of or right to attend? I always thought right to notice was for a defendant.
Court cases are not dictated by the victim's family in capital murder cases, as I understand it. Notifying them of actions by the court is usually a courtesy, albeit something that should be the policy of every prosecutor and Mosby failed miserably at this one, but I expect nothing less of her. Still, it shouldn't be enough to vacate the vacating of a conviction. Once it's vacated, that's it, isn't it? Doesn't double jeopardy apply?
Would love an attorney to weigh in here.
Animanialmanac t1_je1n337 wrote
I’m not an attorney, I was a crime victim and my daughter was a victim, I work with victims of violent assault who need physical therapy and have knowledge of their cases.
Our attorney told us in Maryland crime victims have the right to be informed of any action or proceeding that affects the interest of the victim, or victim’s family, guardian, heirs. That includes bail hearings, when the prosecutors stet the charges, dismissing cases.
Ms. Mosby’s prosecutors are known to do this to victims, not notify them before they dismiss cases or stet charges, not notify of bail hearings.
This is a link to a know your rights list for victims. Ms. Mosby’s prosecutors violated most of these in cases I experienced.
Anecdotally I was at hearing with a patient four years ago, the prosecutor announced she was dismissing the case, the judge asked the victim if she was informed about the dismissal before the hearing. The victim wasn’t information so the judge the scolded the prosecutor and did not let her dismiss the case.
FriedScrapple t1_je28ly1 wrote
That’s so unacceptable. Thank goodness we’re rid of her, though the human victims of her incompetence will remain.
[deleted] t1_je6sx0o wrote
[removed]
FriedScrapple t1_je1n5x8 wrote
Not a lawyer, but a victim or their representative(s) have the right in MD to attend any hearing where the defendant is present. Mosby says her office didn’t violate their rights because Lee’s family could have dialed in on Zoom, Lee family lawyers says the family isn’t technically inclined and the parents need translation assistance, and they were not given proper notice or support to arrange anything, and the judge agreed that this was a violation of their rights.
And we all know and saw what actually happened. Mosby was losing, this hearing came up right before the election and used it to grandstand on the courthouse steps as some kind of personal accomplishment. She never gave a hoot about victims’ families, other than for grandstanding around an election.
Bmorewiser t1_je1vmjd wrote
I can answer. There is a set of statutes and a provision in the state declaration of rights setting forth certain rights for victims. Among those is a right to be notified of and attend certain proceedings. In others, there is a right to be heard too.
Here, the court found that notice on the day before the hearing was insufficient and, though I haven’t read carefully, it seems it found the right to appear means the right to appear in person.
The double jeopardy bit is more complicated, but the gist is because of the error in notification the hearing didn’t count and a dismissal isn’t a formal termination of jeopardy so they can send it back.
Something similar happened with the guy tried for killing Felicia Barns a few years back.
addctd2badideas t1_je1wtac wrote
Thanks for responding.
I guess what I'm hung up on is that the "hearing didn't count" ruling seems like an extreme reaction. Wouldn't a proper legal response be for the Lee family to sue the State's Attorney's office for improper method of notice rather than nixing the entire process that freed Syed?
FettLife t1_je3jl60 wrote
Yes. This MD statute is balls to the wall insane.
ChampagneWastedPanda t1_je3b8ul wrote
No. The Brady violation, moots the dismissal. Because it was not a fair rehearing
[deleted] t1_je4dzbk wrote
[removed]
One_Finish7966 t1_je71sjm wrote
If a case were improperly dismissed, a victim who sues the prosecuting attorney would only be able to obtain relief against the prosecuting attorney. The defendant in the dismissed criminal case would not be convicted as a result of this lawsuit.
FriedScrapple t1_je28a9x wrote
Have MD courts ever clearly defined a specific length of time that is sufficient, and how notice is delivered?
Bmorewiser t1_je29akm wrote
I’d have to look. I seem to recall there being a rule that sets a general standard of no less than 5 days, not weekends, but I’m pulling that from my ass. It’s not something I regularly need to deal with.
Alaira314 t1_je379sv wrote
Damn, that's tighter than I'd expect. My work asks for two week's(10 work days) notice minimum for requesting leave, and even then you're prioritized below people who requested months earlier. 😬 If they like you they might make an exception for a "good reason" but I've seen people with a grudge stick to the letter of the rules, damn the reason, gotta be fair to everyone.
ChampagneWastedPanda t1_je3ar8z wrote
I would have to say though, the tragic murder of your sister at trial is a good reason…
Alaira314 t1_je3eyq3 wrote
If it's not legally protected it doesn't matter, unless someone's willing to run interference with the bureaucracy for you. But then you're benefiting from someone playing favorites, which is a whole other can of worms when coworkers start resenting their own "sorry no can do, rules are rules~!" experience with funerals, etc.
kindaoveritbruh t1_je4ozno wrote
When the judge dropped the charges, it had to be done "without prejudice," which allowed them to re-file any charges. If the DA honestly thought he was innocent, he would have done so, but there was also societal/office pressure and the victim's family to deal with. If the judge dropped the charges "with prejudice," double jeopardy would attach.
Bmorewiser t1_je4ut0z wrote
Unless the statute offers some unique quirk, there’s no way for the prosecutor to dismiss that case in a way that makes it so it cannot be brought again from the posture it was in at the time without engaging in some “funny business.”
Jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn and evidence admitted. Before that, no jeopardy. It also can attach sometimes during a plea. But when the state dismisses a charge, that is almost always without prejudice to their ability to bring it back later if they want subject to some restrictions.
ChampagneWastedPanda t1_je39rki wrote
It’s a victim’s rights Brady violation, This is simply an appellate grant of rehearing of the new trial motion. If this was the state appealing it would be routine. It is constitutional
DudleyAndStephens t1_jeah6sb wrote
IANAL but I do know that Maryland does have some rules about victims' rights. I'm a bit surprised that they allow a court to void the dismissal of charges but I guess you learn something new every day.
Pragmatically I am glad that this means the decision about the dismissal goes to Ivan Bates. Mosby was such a garbage public official that the resolution of the Syed case would always have been suspect if the final decision was up to her. If Bates looks at the totality of the evidence and agrees that the charges should be dropped I'll have a much easier time accepting it.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments