Adnan Syed's murder conviction, sentence reinstated per court opinion
Opinion says prosecutors violated Young Lee's right to notice of and right to attend hearing to vacate charges
Opinion says prosecutors violated Young Lee's right to notice of and right to attend hearing to vacate charges
Opinion says prosecutors violated Young Lee's right to notice of and right to attend hearing to vacate charges
Adnan Syed's original murder conviction and sentence have been reinstated on the basis that the state violated the victim's family's right to attend the hearing on the motion to vacate, according to a Maryland court opinion posted Tuesday.
The Appellate Court of Maryland's opinion states the Baltimore court did not provide the victim's family with the rights to be afforded a victim or victim's representative under constitutional provisions and Maryland laws.
| PDF: Read the court's opinion
A spokesman for the Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office sent a statement to 11 News later Tuesday afternoon, saying: "The posture of the case currently is that the Appellate Court of Maryland has reinstated Mr. Syed's conviction and sentence. This office is currently conducting a review of the decision. We must allow the appeals process to play itself out, Mr. Syed and his legal team may file for an appeal to the Maryland Supreme Court, and we must respect their rights to do so until those rights are either heard or that request is denied; we are in a holding pattern. Any further comment would be premature at this time."
But according to the family attorney of Hae Min Lee, Steven Kelly, the reinstatement is a win in their favor.
"They feel good. They feel like it was a victory not only for them, but for victim's rights in general," he said. "The process was closed and secret, now it's going to be open and transparent. That's the biggest thing, and our client will have the chance to be there in person to challenge the evidence."
In the end, the Lee family just wants justice.
"Their mind is open. They just want justice for Hae, they don't want the wrong person to be convicted, and if Adnan is the wrong person, they're the last people that want him to spend another day in jail," Kelly said.
Opinion: Victim's family didn't receive enough notice
The opinion calls for a new, "legally complaint and transparent" hearing on the motion to vacate where the Lee family is given notice of the hearing that is sufficient to allow him to attend in person.
According to the opinion, state law provides victims with the right to prior notice on a motion to vacate and the right to attend the hearing.
The opinion states that a prosecutor called Hae Min Lee's brother, Young Lee, on Sept. 12, 2022, to notify him that the state was going to file the motion to vacate and asked whether Young Lee would like to be notified.
On Sept. 13, 2022, one business day before the hearing, a prosecutor again called Young Lee to inform him of "what was happening" and "what information (they) had developed," in addition to going "through the motion a bit."
The opinion states that Young Lee responded to an email by expressing disagreement with the state's decision to move to vacate the convictions. The motion to vacate was filed the next day, Sept. 14, 2022.
Video below: Law professor calls request to reinstate conviction unprecedented (February 2023)
The opinion states Young Lee wasn't given enough time to get from California, where he lives, to attend the hearing in person in Baltimore. Instead, the court required him to attend the hearing remotely.
The opinion states that the court requiring the victim to attend the hearing remotely violates the victim's right to attend the proceeding in person, particularly when the victim requests to attend in person.
As a result, the opinion states that the court has exceptional circumstances to "temper the state's authority" due to a violation of fundamental fairness where it circumvents the right to appeal.
The opinion states a victim doesn't have a statutory right to be heard at a vacatur hearing, but the court has discretion to permit a victim to address the court at a vacatur hearing regarding the impact of the court's decision on the victim and/or the victim's family.
The appellate court gave 60 days to allow Syed's attorneys to file an appeal.
| VIDEO BELOW: Court hears appeal from Lee family
Dissent: Procedure state followed was adequate
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stuart Berger wrote the notice in relation to the hearing should be considered in context of whether the notice was adequate to enable the victim or victim's representative to attend.
He wrote that the notice given to Young Lee was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the law.
"I would not find a violation of the victims' rights statute in this unique case when Mr. Lee was notified -- albeit one business day before the vacatur hearing -- and ultimately attended the vacatur proceeding electronically," Berger wrote. "I would hold that the notice sufficiently complied with the requirements of the statute because, critically, it enabled Mr. Lee to attend the proceeding via electronic means."
Analysis
David Jaros, faculty director of the Center for Criminal Justice Reform at the University Baltimore School of Law, expressed surprise, but told 11 News this is a hard case.
"The statute itself is really ambiguous about what kinds of rights a victim has in these kinds of hearings, so this is one of the challenges when a law is not written very clearly," Jaros said.
Analysis: Ruling sends case back to lower court for new hearing
Jaros explained the appellate court's decision has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, but instead whether the family of the victim had a right to have more notice that the hearing was going to occur, and the right to attend.
"They actually do not have a right to speak," Jaros said. "There are some who have argued that, in fact, the family was actually given more rights than one would expect, because while (the hearing) was remote, they did have the opportunity to make a statement."
The decision could next be appealed to the Maryland Supreme Court. If it isn't appealed, Jaros explained what would happen next.
"It'll be sent back down to be done again, but we aren't bringing in new evidence necessarily," Jaros said. "The victims won't have a right to speak, they'll simply have a right to be there."
Jaros said the fact that there was a dissent in this decision indicates this was a "hard, thorny issue," and that it's not clear.
"I think there's a strong argument, in fact, that the family of the victim's rights to be present and to get notice were satisfied," Jaros said.
Video below: What's next for Adnan Syed after conviction reinstated? Advocate responds
What led to today
Rabia Chaudry, a close family friend and public advocate for Syed, sent a statement to 11 News, saying: "We stand by the integrity of the evidence that exonerated Adnan, and urge the Baltimore police and state's attorney's office to find the source of the DNA on the victim's shoes and find Hae Min Lee's actual killer."
Syed was accused of killing Hae Min Lee in 1999 and was subject of the popular podcast, "Serial." His first trial ended in a mistrial. A jury convicted him in a second trial. Syed had been in jail since his arrest in February 1999.
A Baltimore City judge in September 2022 ruled to vacate Syed's conviction, and the Lee family filed an appeal over how it was treated. The Lee family filed the appeal, saying it was not given enough notice to have a strong enough voice in the process to vacate the conviction against Syed.
But before that appeal could be heard, the Baltimore City State's Attorney's Office dropped the charges against Syed entirely, saying DNA evidence cleared him. That led to the appeals court denying the Lee family's appeal before a hearing on it was held.
| VIDEO BELOW: Prosecutors drop charges after receiving DNA test results
