I would have thought it fairly clear from the outset of the podcast that it was never about demonstrating Adnan’s guilt or innocence, it was about whether Sarah Koenig thought Adnan was guilty. It is fair to say that it certainly invited the audience to form its own opinion based on what she reported, and that she at least (but not everyone involved) seemed to side with Adnan more often than not. It’s also obvious that the question of Adnan’s guilt and how the justice system works are much more interesting topics from the show than one reporter’s opinion.
But I feel like it’s being nearly held to a legal standard, as if it were arguing the case, and I never got that impression from it.
The podcast is neither a trial nor a legal argument. It was always clear from the beginning what the point of view of Sarah Koenig was: That she personally found it hard to believe that Adnan was a murderer. The entire series is her exploration of whether that feeling was justified. I certainly don’t believe she pulled the wool over my eyes.
Koenig was not setting forth a thorough summary of all the evidence at trial and the podcast was not entirely scripted in advance. Week-to-week, the podcast explored areas in a way that her personal explorations led her.
And most tellingly, she did not end the podcast saying, “I have proved that Adnan was innocent” or anything even close to that.
Jay is entitled to counsel, whether he can afford it or not, under Gideon v. Wainwright. 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. He did not go through the public defender program. That’s why the judge agreed Jay received a benefit (ie, was paid.) She just didn’t believe he was materially tampered with.
I actually agree that between Jay knowing about the car and the Leakin Park cell phone calls, there’s a reasonable case there. But it’s not enough: if those were literally the only two facts, it would be easy to put together a counter-narrative that Jay committed the murder, buried Hae, and had Adnan’s cell phone the whole time. That’s what the state attempted to actually put together a narrative, answering questions such as:
When and where did the murder occur
When was the body buried
Who was involved
What did the principals do in the meantime
What did they do prior to the murder
And there’s a fair amount of supporting evidence in there. The problem, thought, is that they ultimately relied on a witness who gave contradictory accounts, none of which matched actual evidence (the cell phone records), and presented a timeline at trial that didn’t happen. 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.
Uh, I read it. Then I quoted it. Then I linked to it. If you think it contradicts what I said, feel free to explain why.
Uh-huh. Feel free to link to and/or quote whatever you think helps you here. You didn’t cite anything to me, and to be honest, I skimmed most of your posts where you were in that slapfest with Acsenray, I think it was. I think everyone did.
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=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”
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
Did you read the TRIAL transcripts? If not, why do you feel qualified to judge this?
I think that you are looking at a fictional detective/TV standard. In the real world, this is a pretty simple case.
Jay is complicit. There is no getting around that (unless you unwind the “knew where the car is,” which no one even tried to do). The only question then is whether it is Jay alone, or Jay + Adnan, or Jay + someone else. That’s it. That’s the universe.
Jay + “I believe him when it comes to Adnan” = beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s not an abdication of the jury’s role, that is the jury’s role. They saw the witnesses, they heard the contradictions in various parts of Jay’s testimony, and they disregarded those contradictions when it came to assessing Adnan’s guilt or innocence.
Nor is it a cop-out. Jay had Adnan’s car and brand-new mobile phone. Of the many, many people who could have come forward and said that Jay did it, or at least that Jay had motive to do it, not one did. Not Jenn, not Stephanie, not even Adnan. Of the tens of thousands of people (at least) who know the essential facts of the case, not one has even come up with a plausible alternate theory that incorporates the undisputed facts, the timeline and motives.
Sarah Koenig did a wonderful job narrating, and built a compelling product. But she also is very lucky that Jay told so many different stories, because without them there would not have been much to talk about.
Wait, so you acknowledge that he received a benefit? Or are you stating this as a hypothetical?
And are you parsing “paid” as meaning “received cash”? Because I’ve been clear that I meant he was paid by receiving a thing of value, namely an arrangement with an attorney to which he was not entitled.
Look, if I wanted to straw man your position, I’d say you would feel that no one can make a judgment without perfect information. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt: you realize you have to make judgments all the time with imperfect data. So what’s the minimum to have an opinion here? Is it reading the transcripts in their entirety? What about being briefed on the undisputed facts of the case? Not enough?
We agree on much. But believing Jay on anything that isn’t independently corroborated is too far to go - he’s proven himself to be too unreliable.
You’re right that if Jay tells one story implicating Adnan, sticks to it, and it isn’t materially contradicted by known facts, there wouldn’t be anywhere to go. But, well, that isn’t the case here.
Strictly speaking yes, he received a benefit. Not from the state’s conduct per se, but because he got a lawyer for nothing as many would have to pay for such services.
You cannot be “entitled” to someone else’s services. Second, there is no reasonable definition of “paid” that is as broad as “receiving a material benefit”. By that logic, convicts are paid by the state for the food they eat and the bed they sleep in is “free” to them. Kids would be paid to go to public school because they get free books and transportation, and Starbucks pays it’s customers because they offer free wifi. The fact is you are using the term to impugn the character and motives of the witness rather than trying to make an accurate statement.
What are the undisputed facts of the case, and why do you think a jury would only base their opinions on undisputed facts? Think about that for a second. A trial is basically all about disputed “facts”. That’s why there is a trial.
Be honest, did you even know about the nurse or French teacher in this case, or Hae actively hiding from Adnan? If not, then maybe you should have some humility in realizing that at a bare minimum, you shouldn’t rely on a podcast with a clear bias/agenda to form a definitive opinion. Or that if you are going to do so, you should be open to more information and less inclined to making definitive statements about what happened.
He was independently corroborated on a number of points:
The burial time he testifies to coincided with the cell data
He knew where the body was and how it was positioned
His description of the body is consistent with the medical evidence
He knew where car was
He testified Adnan asked for a ride for the same reasons other testified he asked for
He said Adnan was late for class. Adnan denied this, but the school verified he was late
I didn’t realize I was going to have to get into a discussion about the meaning of the word pay, but, fine. Here’s Miriam-Webster’s definition:
[QUOTE=Miriam Webster]
to make due return to for services rendered or property delivered
[/QUOTE]
Your examples don’t meet that definition because they aren’t in compensation for a service rendered or property delivered. Jay’s payment (the lawyer arranged by the DA) is - it was arranged in exchange for his testimony.
Well, first, this isn’t always true. The jury I served on considered two charges, and for one charge, there was no material dispute about the facts. The only question was whether or not it met the legal definition of assault. But secondly, perhaps you should go back and review the thread of conversation to this point. I simply never claimed that a jury should base their opinions only on undisputed facts. The only context in which I’ve used the phrase in this thread was in reference to your question as to why I dared to think I could second-guess the jury if I hadn’t read the trial transcripts. I observed that we make decisions all the time on imperfect information, and threw it back to you as to what was, in your opinion, the minimum informational bar here. Here’s what I said, which you basically didn’t respond to (which is fine - we all pick and choose what we have time to respond to. I point this out only because in lieu of actually answering, you decided to lecture me about the purpose of trials, which was pretty off-point.)
[QUOTE=me]
Look, if I wanted to straw man your position, I’d say you would feel that no one can make a judgment without perfect information. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt: you realize you have to make judgments all the time with imperfect data. So what’s the minimum to have an opinion here? Is it reading the transcripts in their entirety? What about being briefed on the undisputed facts of the case? Not enough?
[/QUOTE]
See - that part about undisputed facts? Nothing about the jury there…
I’m open to more information. Do you actually believe you’ve provided any?
Again, I never said he was wrong about everything, and I have no problem taking his story where there is independent corroboration. I do have a problem accepting his story where there isn’t.
It wasn’t arranged by the DA. That’s what you keep missing. Yes, he asked her to meet with him, but there was no exchange, cooperation, agreement, or payment made that made the actions taken by the DA illicit.
None of those definitions fit. Even the closest approximation that he was given a free lawyer in return for his services is false because he was not given a lawyer, and said law services were not in return for his testimony. In fact, the plea deal his lawyer signed could be withdrawn by either party at any time, or for his failure to truthfully testify. Your attempt to make this transactional notwithstanding, there is no definition of pay that fits here.
First, you are moving the goalposts. Your initial claim was that that someone receiving a benefit was “paid”, which is absurd and clearly inflammatory. But fine, you want to change you standards that’s fine. Is it fair to imply the jury is biased because they are literally paid by the state? What about the judge?
No, it wasn’t arranged in exchange for his testimony. How do you know this? Look at the documentation on the plea agreement or consider the fact that if Jay decided not to testify, his lawyer would not have quit? In fact, his lawyer advised him and recommended the the reporter from The Intercept who did his recent interview. She wasn’t paid in either case, and neither was Jay.
You are being needlessly obtuse here. If the disagreement is whether something is actually assault, then it’s in dispute. The state alleges this is a fact, the defense says it isn’t. That is the dispute. Obviously not every fact is in dispute. Facts like the name of the defendant, and basic background stuff all the way up to “what happened” may or may not be in dispute technically speaking. The issue is that the jury is there to deal with disputed facts (eg. is X assault in this case).
I did respond. Here is what I said: What are the undisputed facts of the case, and why do you think a jury would only base their opinions on undisputed facts? The first part is a direct question to you. The second part is relevant given you are impugning the jury’s verdict. Now to specifically answer your initial question, yes, I think reading the transcripts and having an idea of what was actually said at trial is a bare minimum before one lashes out at the jury for their “failure”.
I have, but I will make this easy for you. Go here, look on the side for the court docs. Read them or at least read the cliff notes about what was said and done.
Yes, but one is a function of the other. His credibility is based in part on his info being verifiable in other contexts. Regardless, Adnan would have likely been convicted without Jay ever opening his mouth.
Just to highlight why listening to the podcast isn’t enough evidence to say the jury failed, we have SK openly admitting her reporting was not always dispassionate:
When a reporter admits something like that, isn’t it reasonable to think perhaps her reporting wasn’t as fair and authoritative as it seems?
Yeah. It won’t pretend to be in any way objective… but I would be lying if I said I wouldn’t be giving it a listen.
The first thing I thought when I saw that was “I wonder how people who donated to that fund feel?” If I had donated I would assume the money would be used to pay for legal fees. I know when you give someone money like that they can use it for whatever they want, but this seems like they’re creating a situation where it is even less likely that they’ll be able to find an impartial jury. Is that some sort of weird but sneakily brilliant legal angle I’m not understanding, or am I wrong in assuming that… or am I correct and they’re being idiotic?
What it means is that accusing it of being unauthoritative is not an appropriate criticism.
It also misses the mark to call it unfair. The starting point of the entire story was based on the premise “Can I discover something that will help me believe that this guy I and a few of his really like personally committed this horrible act?”
When she tells you explicitly from the start that this is her point of view, it misses the point to criticize it for being unfair in this particular way.
I just finished listening to it, only a year late. I wasn’t spoiled at all, which is a miracle.
I can’t see any justification for a jury finding him guilty with that evidence. The jurors explicitly saying they held Adnan’s lack of testimony against him is maddening.
Personally, I find it fairly likely that the cops massaged Jay’s story to fit what they needed it to fit.
I was interested to see that prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, Asia’s alibi, and the cell phone records are all now to be brought up in a new hearing.
I actually dreamed about this story last night. In my dream, I had what seems to me to be a novel idea, that the story that Adnan and Jay might potentially be hiding is innocent but very culturally damaging. What if Jay and Adnan had a sexual relationship? That would give both reason to be weird about certain events/timing without it meaning anything. Or, of course, it could potentially give more of a motive to one or both to kill Hae if she knew/found out/threatened to out them.