Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Bmorewiser t1_je1vmjd wrote

Reply to comment by addctd2badideas in Maryland’s second-highest court orders new hearing for Adnan Syed, reinstates conviction by Cody_in_Baltimore

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.

17

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?

11

FettLife t1_je3jl60 wrote

Yes. This MD statute is balls to the wall insane.

5

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.

2

FriedScrapple t1_je28a9x wrote

Have MD courts ever clearly defined a specific length of time that is sufficient, and how notice is delivered?

7

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.

7

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.

3

ChampagneWastedPanda t1_je3ar8z wrote

I would have to say though, the tragic murder of your sister at trial is a good reason…

6

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.

5

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.

2

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.

5