Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hellomondays t1_je1n3df wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Maryland Court of Appeals reinstates Adnan Syed's murder conviction by nowhathappenedwas

Let's hope all that is, like this move sounds dangerously close to double jeopardy. Like, sure, the thoughts and notions of a victim and their family should play a role in the justice system but that role should be small enough as to not infringe on the rights of the accused.

55

KingfisherDays t1_je2tp1e wrote

>the thoughts and notions of a victim and their family should play a role

Should they? At the end of the day, the question is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the feelings of the victims have no bearing on that. For sentencing, maybe there's an argument there, but I'd argue that the point of the justice system is to take that kind of vengeance out of the equation.

63

hellomondays t1_je2v5f3 wrote

I'm not saying any sort of major role, like vegance should be the last thing a justice system cares about!

2

3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je299ry wrote

This is just vacating the last motion to vacate hearing, which was not conducted properly.

Some key notes in today's judgement:

> We note that, although CP § 8-301.1(f)(2) requires the court to “state the reasons > for” its ruling, the court did not explain its reasons for finding a Brady violation. See State v. Grafton, 255 Md. App. 128, 144 (2022) (Brady violation requires proof that: (1) the prosecutor suppressed or withheld evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to the accused; and (3) the evidence was material). > > It did not explain how, or if, it found that the evidence was suppressed, despite the lack of affirmative evidence that the information had not been disclosed, and the statement in the motion to vacate that, “[i]f this information was indeed provided to defense,” the failure to utilize it would be ineffective assistance of counsel. > > The court also did not explain how the notes met the Brady materiality standard. Additionally, the court found that the State discovered new evidence that created a substantial likelihood of a different result, but it did not identify what evidence was newly discovered or why it created the possibility of a different result."

Also

> We note, however, that, if there is an in-chambers conference, the judge should put on the record what was discussed in chambers. See Poole v. State, 77 Md. App. 105, 120 (1988) (at the conclusion of a chambers conference, the court should announce on the record, “at a very minimum,” what was agreed to during the discussion), aff’d, 321 Md. 482 (1991).

Source: https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2023/1291s22.pdf

17

WebbityWebbs t1_je2w83g wrote

The way Brady violations are handled is shameful. If a court finds a Brady violation under Grafton, the prosecutors and cops should be going to jail. We allow cops and prosecutors to engage in criminal acts without consequence and then act shocked that they are a bunch of criminals.

11

3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je2xcr2 wrote

Agreed, what was presented in Adnan Syed's motion to vacate is not Brady material.

7

Mythosaurus t1_je4kppd wrote

It’s almost as if their “real” job is to harass and terrorize minority communities with a figleaf of deniability.

And that holding them to account with reasonable standards would break these systems and institutions that were founded with evil goals.

−3

Trousers_MacDougal t1_je3l0sv wrote

I commented 6 months ago on the note in the MtV stating "even if [shared with defense]...then ineffective counsel."

It was the weaseliest sentence in a weasel explosion of a document. Glad the court picked up on it as a have your cake and eat it too justification. Once we all saw the content of the note it is manifest why it would not be used in any way by the defense.

4

ScrewAttackThis t1_je31c0t wrote

He hasn't been acquitted. Double jeopardy isn't an issue.

>should be small enough as to not infringe on the rights of the accused

Victims have rights, too.

12