ANNAPOLIS, Md. — The Maryland Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in the decadeslong legal saga of Adnan Syed over whether the family of Hae Min Lee, whose killing is at the center of this case, was given proper time to participate in the hearing where a judge vacated his conviction last year.
Syed, 42, served 23 years in prison stemming from charges that he killed Lee, his high school girlfriend. His case garnered national attention and has been followed by millions after the podcast “Serial” chronicled the case in 2014.
At issue on Thursday was the reinstatement of Syed’s murder conviction in March after a Maryland court said officials failed to provide sufficient notice for Lee’s family to attend the hearing, as well as the degree to which victims and their families are able to participate in such proceedings.
Syed’s attorneys have said his freedom from prison is potentially at stake.
“It is Adnan whose liberty is at stake. The death of Hae Min Lee and the loss suffered by her family is unquestionably tragic,” his lawyer Erica Suter said in remarks outside court after the hearing. “So, too, is the incalculable loss that Adnan and his family have suffered when he spent over half his life in prison for a crime he did not commit.”
David Sanford, an attorney for Lee’s brother, Young Lee, said outside the court on Thursday that it was an “important day for victims’ rights.”
“We do not take a position with respect to Adnan Syed’s underlying guilt or innocence, this is not what today was about,” he said. Instead, the hearing was about [Young] Lee’s right “to have notice, to be present and to be heard in a criminal justice proceeding.”
Lee, who now lives in California, attended last year’s hearing via Zoom. He was notified on a Friday afternoon that it would take place the following Monday and he’s argued this did not give him proper notice to attend.
His attorneys are asking for a new vacatur hearing, which will include “reasonable notice, the right to attend in person and the right to be heard on and challenge the evidence.”
It is not clear based on the statute if the notice Lee was given was adequate or not, according to David Jaros, a law professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law.
“One thing that is clear about the case is that the statute that gives victims certain rights is written very poorly, and it’s not clear exactly how it should apply to this type of hearing as opposed to, say, a sentencing hearing,” said Jaros. “It’s not clear what the proper remedy should be. And it’s not clear what adequate notice is.”
He said the court could essentially push the issue back to the Legislature to revisit the language of the statute.
The court could find that Lee’s rights were violated and that the proper remedy would be to hold the hearing that vacated Syed’s conviction all over again, Jaros said.
But prosecutors have indicated that there is evidence pointing to other suspects and that Syed was released from prison in October, after then-Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby said DNA evidence supported his innocence.
“We’ve got no new information coming out. We have no reason to believe that the judge will come out with a different position,” said Jaros, who is also the faculty director of the university’s Center for Criminal Justice Reform. But he added that, given that there is a new state’s attorney for Baltimore this year, “the possibility does exist that the court could come out a different way, in which case Mr. Syed would have to go back to prison.”
Justice Brynja Booth asked Thursday if Young Lee should instead be asking the state assembly to expand victims’ rights.
“Why isn’t this a question for the General Assembly?” she asked. “The right that you’re speaking of is not in the plain language of the statute.”
Attorney Ari Rubin, who is also representing Young Lee, disagreed with that interpretation of the law, saying, “Every right that exists for the victim was deprived, including notice” and “including the right to be heard.” He added that new evidence in the case was not provided to Mr. Lee.
During the hearing, Syed’s attorney argued before a panel of seven justices that Lee’s rights were satisfied as “he was notified” and “he was able to attend” the hearing via Zoom.
She also said that if the state and circuit court “have agreed that a defendant has been wrongfully incarcerated for 23 ½ years, it is appropriate that the court move with urgency.”
She concluded, “it is our position that this case is moot” because prosecutors decided not to charge Syed after his conviction was vacated, nor would Lee’s presence at the hearing have changed the outcome.
Syed, dressed in a light blue traditional Muslim cap and a light blue dress shirt with a dark striped tie, stood with his arm around his mother’s shoulders as he spoke outside of the courthouse following the hearing Thursday.
“We’re hoping that in the end, we’ll have a chance to prove justice. Not just for Hae’s family, but for our family as well,” Syed said.
“We believe very strongly in trying to find justice for Hae and her family and we’re just hoping also that we’re able to find justice for us too,” he said.
The panel of justices will consider Thursday’s hearing and announce their ruling in the coming weeks or months.
Daniella Silva reported from New York and Julia Jester reported from Annapolis.
Source: | This article originally belongs to Nbcnews.com
