View Single Post
  #425  
Old 03-27-2015, 08:14 PM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
But, in addition to the timing point you raise, there's the point that Jay wasn't charged for it (I'm not sure on Maryland law specifically, but states charging defendants for their public defenders' time is consistent with Gideon), and the DA arranged for him pro bono representation.
Again, you are incorrect. Jay's attorney wasn't a public defender, and thus would in most cases not be paid at all. The DA did not arrange for pro bono representation, he asked a lawyer he knew to meet with Jay. Jay's lawyer testified that she didn't agree to represent him until after meeting with him. To quote the Jay's testimony from Adnan's initial appeal:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Syed Appeal
Wilds testified the he was first given his charging documents, and then taken up to meet the prosecutor, who introduced him to his attorney. Wilds also explained that his attorney ,"wasn't forced on me. It wasn't like they said, this is your lawyer. They asked me, they said well, you can meet with her and see if you want her to be your lawyer."

Wilds testified that his attorney told Judge McCurdy that she had been contacted by the State and that she looked at Wilds' case before deciding whether to take his case.

... his attorney informed Judge McCurdy that she came to represent Wilds because "she does pro bono work and that she found a case where she felt there was a need where someone needed help"
The above is largely the reason his appeal claims on that issue were rejected. That and the fact that the jury was told about this fact during the trial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
He did not go through the public defender program. That's why the judge agreed Jay received a benefit (ie, was paid.)
First, "received a benefit" doesn't mean he was "paid". I don't know why you keep repeating this absurd claim. Second, he couldn't get a public defender because he had not yet been charged. That issue had nothing to do with any benefit he may have received. He was likely not charged initially for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with him feeling obligated to set up Adnan.

The reality is that Jay gave his statements, which implicated him in a murder, to the police prior to getting a deal. Any benefit he received was not a prerequisite for testifying against Adnan. That's why the judge and the appeals court agreed that the state's "procurement" of Jay's lawyer didn't taint his testimony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
They lucked out and caught a jury that didn't really care and let their biases slip into their decision making against the judge's instructions. But it should bother all of us that the state can do such a sloppy job and get a conviction at the end. And that should bother us regardless of how much we think Adnan 'did it', because it contradicts our ideals of how our criminal justice system should work: that defendants are supposed to have the presumption of innocence, they they should have an unbiased jury, and that the state is supposed to meet a high bar of burden of proof. Sadly, I didn't see any of that happen here.
Did you read the TRIAL transcripts? If not, why do you feel qualified to judge this?