Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

longhorn718 t1_je1xsxk wrote

Reply to comment by EthanSayfo in Maryland’s second-highest court orders new hearing for Adnan Syed, reinstates conviction by Cody_in_Baltimore

I get that, but justice is supposed to be blind and dispassionate. If the law was broken to get him out of jail, that is not a furtherance of true justice. That's more akin to vigilantism. If his case crumbles within the legal framework, it super sucks for him but is at least legal.

It's like defense lawyers of the most hated criminals and suspects. Emotionally, defending them seems terrible, but even the worst of the worst are constitutionally guaranteed a vigorous defense.

10

dynamobb t1_je1z2i7 wrote

If this thread of comments is correct and the father attended via zoom but syed has to go back to prisom because a different judge interpreted zoom as not adequate as a substitute for being in person…that just doesnt seem like blind and impartial justice

8

longhorn718 t1_je210l3 wrote

I believe part of those rights include legal counsel or at least enough time to put together the victims' thoughts and arguments or pleas or whatever they get to say. It might just be that Mosby needed to get the zoom option approved at a certain level. I haven't read the whole opinion.

Also, I've just now found one source (AP article via BG Daily News) that says Adnan "will not be taken back into custody."

3

Bmorewiser t1_je2ab6p wrote

That’s the thing… they don’t have a right to say a word at this particular hearing. They don’t need time to gather thoughts or retain counsel to intervene, because they don’t get a say. They are not parties and even this court agreed they have no right to be heard.

They have a right to notice and to attend, and they got notice (albeit late) and they did attend (albeit virtually). They even got to speak when they weren’t entitled to. The decision puts form over substance on the thinnest of grounds all for nothing. Absent some change in position from Bates, all that happens here is a quick redo I would think.

8

longhorn718 t1_je2ewq7 wrote

You may see it as form over substance, which is your right. I just believe that courts and legal professionals should strive to follow laws and not ignore a party's rights when that party raises the issue. (Party in that sentence is not meant as a legal party, just a character in the overall story. They're legal parties of their appeal though...? Not important.)

Adnan gets to stay free for the next 60 days. It doesn't affect his daily living. Everyone believes that nothing will change for him in the end. I don't understand why some people are arguing against the Lees when they're the actual victims in this whole saga. If they want to defend and exercise their rights, then they should have that chance.

5

EthanSayfo t1_je1yt0z wrote

Well, we’ll see if this vacating of the vacating passes muster by the Supreme Court, or whether we’ll end up with a vacating of the vacating of the vacating kind of situation.

4