Adnan Syed Case: MD Court's Decision Concerns Defense Lawyers

WASHINGTON, DC — A national organization has submitted an "amicus curiae" brief to the Supreme Court regarding the case of Adnan Syed. The Maryland man is serving a life sentence for the 1999 murder of his ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee while they were students at Woodlawn High School. A national organization for defense lawyers argues that a Maryland court ignored evidence that might have changed the verdict, setting a troublesome legal precedent.

Syed petitioned the Supreme Court to review the matter, and the National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers wrote that it has a strong interest in this case, as a nonprofit professional bar association with thousands of members and 40,000 affiliates representing criminal defense attorneys.

The Syed-Lee murder case was publicized through the podcast "Serial," which brought to light unreliable cellphone data and an alibi witness, Asia McLain, who was never called to the stand. The Maryland Court of Appeals decided in March not to reopen the case, despite a judge vacating Syed's conviction in 2016 and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ordering a new trial in 2018.

The special appeals court ordered the new trial in March 2018 based on the violation of Syed's Sixth Amendment right, specifically the part guaranteeing "the assistance of counsel" for his defense. To be in violation, the court had to determine two requirements were met: The attorney made errors that deemed the counsel deficient, and the attorney prejudiced the defense.

"It is our opinion that, if McClain's testimony had been presented to the jury, it would have 'alter[ed] the entire evidentiary picture,' because her testimony would have placed Syed at the Woodlawn Public Library at the time the State claimed that Syed murdered Hae," according to the 2018 opinion issued by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. "The Court, therefore, held that the jury was deprived of the [opportunity] to hear testimony that [would or] could have supplied 'reasonable doubt' in at least one juror's mind leading to a different outcome."

The judges in the state's highest court hypothesized that the timeline prosecutors presented at trial may have been incorrect. Several judges said they believed that McLain's testimony would not have changed the outcome of the trial.

That is where the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers took issue.

"The Maryland Court of Appeals’ decision is the first and only to hold that trial counsel’s failure to investigate an unbiased and credible alibi witness is not prejudicial," according to the amicus curiae brief filed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "Such an unforeseen decision will impact criminal defendants and, in particular, habeas petitioners, far beyond Maryland’s borders."

Syed's attorney failed to speak with McClain, a classmate whose testimony could have exonerated him, according to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, which ordered the new trial in 2018. McClain swore in March 2000 and January 2015 affidavits that she had seen Syed at the Woodlawn library from approximately 2:20 to 2:40 p.m. on Jan. 13, 1999. At trial, where McClain was never called as a witness, prosecutors said the murder took place between 2:15 and 2:45 p.m. near Best Buy off Security Boulevard, about 1.5 miles from the library.

"Until this case, governing precedent across the nation had held uniformly that trial counsel’s failure to introduce neutral, credible alibi testimony undermines confidence in the verdict such that a reasonable probability exists that, but for trial counsel’s error, the outcome would have been different," the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers stated. "If allowed to stand, the Maryland Court of Appeals’ decision will create a split where none otherwise existed. But the consequences would not be limited to this case or even cases within Maryland: The majority opinion could impair the ability to remedy ineffective assistance of counsel through the habeas process throughout the country."

Several Maryland Court of Appeals judges signed an opinion stating that "the jury could have disbelieved that Mr. Syed killed Ms. Lee by 2:36 p.m., as the State's timeline suggested, yet still believed that Mr. Syed had the opportunity to kill Ms. Lee after 2:40 p.m."

In making this statement, the judges issued their an opinion based on something other than the case itself and what was presented at trial, which is what they were tasked with evaluating, Syed's attorney, Justin Brown, wrote in his petition to the Supreme Court filed Aug. 19.

"It instead sketched an entirely different evidentiary picture where the jury rejected the State's case in favor of an alternate time of death. But that is not the case that the State presented, and it is not the case that Syed's counsel was tasked with rebutting," Brown wrote. "By ignoring the case actually presented by the State in favor of a hypothetical case that neatly sidestepped Syed's alibi, the Maryland Court of Appeals erred."

See more on Adnan Syed on Patch:

• 'Serial' Star Adnan Syed Petitions Supreme Court To Take His Case
• Adnan Syed Case: Murder Conviction Upheld By Appeals Court
• 'The Case Against Adnan Syed': HBO Releases Documentary Trailer
• Adnan Syed Case To Go To Supreme Court: 'Serial' Case Continues
• Adnan Syed Case To Go To Maryland Court Of Appeals