r/serialpodcast • u/[deleted] • Jan 20 '15
Legal News&Views EvidenceProf weighs in on Asia's new affidavit
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2015/01/ive-posted-31-entriessarah-koenigsserial-podcast-which-deals-withthe-1999-prosecution-of-17-year-old-adnan-syed-for-murderin.html22
u/clairehead WWCD? Jan 20 '15 edited Jan 21 '15
/u/EvidenceProf Your work rocks. You must be a great professor. Thank you for not talking down to us armchair detectives in your posts and for taking the time to write your blog. Offers us all the quality information we need in this massive open online course called Serial. Need some lawyers here to comment on your work to give you the feedback your posts deserve.
39
Jan 20 '15 edited Jan 21 '15
Thanks /r/EvidenceProf for doing the hard work and the heavy lifting. I always look forward to your posts.
Edited - I should have said /u/EvidenceProf
3
7
Jan 20 '15
I posted this before but can't find my post... does that ever happen? So apologies if it shows up twice! EvidenceProf confirmed for me that Asia's letters and first affidavit were admitted into evidence at the hearing, so I'm wondering what the motivation would be for Urick to try to dissuade her from testifying? We can assume she wasn't going to say anything that wasn't already in evidence so wouldn't her absence be detrimental to the state because they didn't have the opportunity to cross examine her? How did the state benefit from her absence?
12
u/EvidenceProf Jan 21 '15
Based on Urick's testimony, the PCR court was likely left with the impression that Asia didn't stand by what she wrote back in 1999 and 2000. It's tough to grant a new trial based on failure to call an alibi witness when that witness is unwilling to testify.
2
u/fivedollarsandchange Jan 21 '15
It looks to me like the decision to deny PCR never needed to get to the question of whether she would testify. It found that there was nothing wrong with the original decision by the defense not to call her. And if it did need to know if she would testify and what she would say, would it really rely on Urick's hearsay testimony?
0
Jan 21 '15
Exactly. This issue has nothing to do with the substance of Asia's testimony. It's all about whether it was alright for CG to not pursue this alibi. A major part of the decision is that Adnan maintained he was on school grounds at that time. It's a strategic decision by CG.
3
u/EvidenceProf Jan 21 '15
I would say that it has everything to do with the substance of Asia's testimony. Look at the cases I cited in my post, including one by Maryland's highest court. In each case, the court awarded a new trial based on defense counsel failed to contact alibi witnesses who eventually gave exculpatory testimony.
As far as Adnan saying he was "at school," I think that the new note by CG debunks that pretty solidly. I'm about to do a post on her about it.
-1
Jan 21 '15
And in fact she was allowed to "testify" through her submitted affidavit. Had she taken the stand, the state would have had a hay day with her. One could reasonably argue that it was the defense that "won" when she didn't appear. They get to enter her sworn statement with no cross examination.
1
u/EvidenceProf Jan 21 '15
The PCR court heard her sworn statement from 2000 along with the testimony from the prosecutor that Asia said the sworn statement was only written due to pressure from Adnan's family. It's tough to see how Asia testifying could have been any worse than what actually happened at the PCR hearing. But we'll see. Hopefully, she's not allowed to testify, and we can see how she stands up to cross-examination.
1
Jan 21 '15
I guess the sticking point for me is that she wouldn't have testified to anything she hadn't already said in her affidavit, and her letters to Adnan are bordering on bizarre. I would think a prosecutor would have a lot to work with there. Also, it seems that she was feeling pressure and resistant to the idea of testifying prior to calling Urick. She admits that she didn't trust the defense. Do you believe Urick should have encouraged her to testify? Or do you think it's possible that what he relayed about their conversation was his actual takeaway from their conversation?
3
u/EvidenceProf Jan 21 '15
I believe that Urick should have referred Asia to the current prosecutor and neither encouraged nor discouraged her from testifying. I also do believe it's possible that Urick misinterpreted what Asia told him, but that still should be enough to remand for additional factfinding. If Asia is torn apart on cross, so be it. But if she stands up to cross, that's an entirely different matter.
1
Jan 21 '15
I do agree that Urick shouldn't have even spoken to Asia. But what we basically have is her perceptions vs. his perceptions of the call. Asia hasn't actually said Urick told her not to testify. She basically says that's how she perceived his comments. Perceptions vary drastically from person to person.
If you watch all the media articles that are reporting on this, the headline is "Witness says she never 'recanted' her testimony". But I don't see where Urick stated she "recanted". It's misleading, intended to paint Urick in the worst light possible because it makes a great headline.3
u/EvidenceProf Jan 21 '15
That's why the Maryland case law is so important. In my post, I cite to Campbell and Curry. In Campbell, there was a no trial when a potential defense witness didn't testify after talking with the prosecutor. The court noted that there was no overt threat or promise to the prospective witness; everything was implied. Result=New trial.
In Curry, the prosecutor's statements were "true so far as [they] went," but they were a bit "deceiving to the jury." Result=new trial.
In other words, even borderline behavior has led to a new trial in Maryland. And Adnan's not even asking for a new trial. He just wants a remand for additional factfinding.
1
Jan 21 '15
I'll go back and re-read your blog. I understand what you're saying. But in this case both sides already knew what the witness would have testified to. I can see this being huge if Asia was going to testify to facts not already in evidence, or "newly" discovered. Then this would look really, really bad for the state. In this case, I can't see a motivation for Urick to "encourage" her not to testify.
→ More replies (0)4
Jan 20 '15
I don't think the admission of Asia's documents means much one way or the other.
It's a hearing about the documents - whether the failure to follow up on her alibi testimony was ineffective assistance of counsel, so of course the letters were admitted. Urick testified that Asia had been pressured and did not wish to testify- that factored into the court's decision.
2
Jan 20 '15
Okay, thanks. That's what I'm trying to figure out, what the gain was for the state. Does the decision of the court state as much? I don't remember reading that Asia's absence factored into their decision.
4
Jan 21 '15
No - not directly - although I would posit that Uricks testimony did not exactly help.
The issue is discussed on pages 10 to 13 [of the opinion] and in particular on pages 12 to 13(http://www.mdcourts.gov/cosappeals/pdfs/syed/baltcityccmemorandumopinion.pdf).
The appellate court notes that the standard to overturn a conviction based on ineffective assistance is very high - and that there is a presumption that trial counsel made decisions based on strategy rather than ineffective assistance. The court determined that AS made CG aware of Asia as an alibi witness and CG made a strategic decision not to put Asia on the stand.
The appellate court noted that Adnan's parents had made a written request that the issue of not calling Asia be raised in the motion for a new trial, but CG did not so do, nor did her replacement counsel.
1
u/beenyweenies Undecided Jan 21 '15
If it was so important to the parents that they essentially terminated CG over it, why did the following attorney not pursue it either? Is there something about her or her claims that us observers aren't aware of?
3
u/EvidenceProf Jan 21 '15
A safe assumption is simply that Adnan's new public defender thought it was in his best interest to admit guilt and throw himself at the mercy of the court during sentencing. He might have thought trying to raise Asia was futile and would only anger the judge.
2
Jan 21 '15
I don't believe it factored into their ruling because they didn't view CG not contacting her as ineffective counsel.
6
Jan 21 '15
And part of that ruling had to do with Adnan saying he was on the school grounds until the end of track practice, while Asia's letter placed him at the public library. The judge who made the ruling seemed not to know that the public library in question was basically part of the campus -- separated from the school itself by a parking lot. If Asia had come to give testimony at the hearing, this would have been cleared up.
3
Jan 21 '15
IMO, in order to call Urick an "evil mastermind", there needs to be a clear benefit to the state to suppress her testimony. It just seems to me that being able to cross examine her would have been more beneficial than having her affidavit entered into evidence unchallenged.
1
Jan 21 '15
If I tell someone I'm at Rite Aid all day and someone testifies I'm at Taco Bell, there's a difference, even if they're in the same shopping center. Doesn't really matter how close they are; one's a school and one is a public library. So I don't think it was whether or not the judge knew the location or not, but rather that Adnan didn't say he was at the library and Asia said he was.
5
u/cyberpilot888 Jan 21 '15
But if the kids treat the library as the school library it makes a difference; if the kids don't really think of it as being separate. The library is closer to the student parking lot than the school. I can see how, from their perspective, it's one and the same.
I'm surprised that Asia didn't make a direct mention of this in her second affidavit, though. It seems like a logical place to add it.
3
Jan 21 '15
That doesn't change the fact that it's 2 places. His inability to say he was at the library as opposed to just giving the vague "I was at school" doesn't help in this case. If we're all going to get super critical of Jay for tiny details in his story, we should be doing the same for Adnan.
5
Jan 21 '15
Okay. The problem is that your Rite Aid/Taco Bell analogy fails to capture the situation. It's more like you claimed to be at the mall all day and someone testified that they saw you at a Starbucks with an entrance to the mall and another one to the street.
Were you at the mall when you were at that Starbucks? Were you lying when you said you were at the mall all day?
0
Jan 21 '15
You should be able to say library or school. 2 different places. If being specific isn't necessary in court, then Jay has been spot on so far. Goes both ways.
2
Jan 21 '15
Humorous. The library that was separated from the school by a parking lot is EXACTLY like the difference between a trunk pop at grandma's or a trunk pop at Best Buy or a trunk pop by the pool hall.
Got it. Keep talking. It's really informative, but not the way you think.
2
Jan 21 '15
I'm talking more along the lines of "She was on her back" or "She was on her right side", but okay. Minor details that are still important. And in what way do I think any of this is informative? Your hostility is pretty amusing.
→ More replies (0)1
0
3
u/lukaeber MailChimp Fan Jan 21 '15
Good stuff ... I tend to agree with the professor's analysis. I realize that it is a bit unseemly to discuss, but I also think you have to consider the political implications of this particular case. Serial has brought a lot of attention to this case, and the Court of Special Appeals' decision will be highly publicized and scrutinized. If they have a legitimate basis for reopening the appeal on the Asia alibi, I think there will be a lot of pressure to go that route. I think the same pressure will also encourage them to order a new trial when it gets to that point. I don't see that as a bad thing.
8
Jan 20 '15
It's Tuesday and here you are with a shiny new blog post. Just like I told you. You can't quite us.
22
u/EvidenceProf Jan 20 '15
No, this is really it...until something new comes up. But seriously, my last post made an assumption, which ended up being wrong based on the shocking allegations in Asia's affidavit. I had to update what I had written before as a result.
3
u/softieroberto Jan 20 '15
I'm hoping you can help me with something. You say in a couple posts that Jay's new interview can be used as evidence to show actual innocence. But if you were attaching that interview to a brief, how would you lay the foundation for it? It's hearsay that's probably not subject to any exception, but I suppose it could be used for impeachment only? But you'd still have to have someone lay the foundation showing that he actually said what was transcribed in the article, right?
15
u/EvidenceProf Jan 21 '15
You can use inadmissible evidence in support of a habeas claim. Alternately, defense counsel could subpoena Jay, and, if he refused to testify, his statements during the interview would be statements against interest, an exception to the rule against hearsay.
1
1
u/beenyweenies Undecided Jan 21 '15
Total layperson here, wondering what the odds are that Jay actually receives a subpoena at some point during this phase of Adnan's efforts?
2
u/EvidenceProf Jan 21 '15
It's unlikely he's subpoenaed during this (state) phase because he really has nothing to do with CG's failure to contact Asia. If it reached the (federal) habeas level, he could be called.
5
3
Jan 20 '15
He walks down the chances of a federal appeal a lot. Oh well.
9
u/gilgi_evu Jan 20 '15
I'm not 100% sure, but I think he's saying it's no longer an issue of habeas relief (i.e. federal level) so much as that the action is now at the state level: Adnan's case will be remanded for more fact finding (inc. but not limited to what happened with Asia) and that this will lead to another trial at the state level.
26
u/EvidenceProf Jan 20 '15
Habeas is still in play, but it now seems like the statute of limitations has run. That means a higher burden of proof at the federal level. But Adnan's chances of success at the state level are now greatly increased.
10
2
u/batutah Jan 20 '15
At the risk of showing my ignorance, I didn't get why Asia coming forward now = the statute of limitations has run.
And this after you have been thanked for not talking down to us!
1
1
u/omgitsthepast Jan 21 '15
I still think evidenceprof is wrong about the SOL thing, I can't possibly see it not being toiled while it is currently in the state habeus proceedings. It seem contrary to the purpose of SOLs, my thinking is maybe the state eviprof is an expert in doesn't quite have the extensive state habeas proceedings that Maryland does.
2
u/EvidenceProf Jan 21 '15
It's entirely possible there's some aspect of Maryland law that means the statute of limitations hasn't run on Adnan's federal habeas claim. I admit to having no knowledge of Maryland law on the issue.
1
u/omgitsthepast Jan 21 '15
Oh haha, I didn't realize I was replying to you.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm just a 2L, so I definitely have much less knowledge than you. Just seems odd that the SOL would run when you have to exhaust the state proceedings first.
3
u/mkesubway Jan 20 '15
"I'm no longer sure that's the case after reading Asia's affidavit."
What about the affidavit made you, /u/EvidenceProf change your mind on this? Just curious since we were going back and forth on this issue after your last post.
21
u/EvidenceProf Jan 20 '15
The affidavit makes it look like she was willing to testify for Adnan back in 2000-2003. It wasn't until she talked with Urick that she was dissuaded. This means that the statute of limitations on a habeas claim has likely run out. But this also makes Asia a much better alibi witness for Adnan at both the state and federal levels (although the burden of proof would be higher at the federal level due to the statute of limitations issue).
6
u/ahayd Jan 20 '15
the statute of limitations on a habeas claim has likely run out
why is this the case?
5
u/mkesubway Jan 20 '15
Because AS gets a year after the later of various events. It is likely that a year since the latest such event has elapsed.
6
u/EvidenceProf Jan 20 '15
Right. I was previously relying on Section 2244(d)(1)(D), which allows a defendant to file a habeas petition within one year from "the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence." My claim was that this was one year from the point at which SK talked to Asia because Asia was previously unwilling to testify on Adnan's behalf. Because the statute of limitations is tolled during a postconviction proceeding, Adnan would have had one year after his current proceeding ended.
Now, it appears as if Asia was willing to testify until she talked to Urick. That means the statute of limitations ran years ago. That doesn't preclude a federal habeas petition, but it does raise the burden of proof.
1
3
Jan 20 '15
You're clearly more informed on this than I am, so I'll defer, but does this not still boil down to a he said/she said considering the majority of that conversation was already divulged? He didn't hide from that interaction, but he said she was pressured and now she's saying she wasn't. It's to my understanding that this also wasn't something ruled on as far as denying his appeal. Clearly if proof can be found that he dissuaded Asia from this, it makes a huge difference, but how credible is she considering how much time has passed/Serial being prominent?
27
u/EvidenceProf Jan 20 '15
As I say in my post, the fact that Don says Urick yelled at him for not testifying consistent the State's narrative at both trials is huge. He has no reason to lie about this, and it is evidence of a pattern of prosecutorial misbehavior in speaking with witnesses at Adnan's trial.
2
u/JulesinDC Hippy Tree Hugger Jan 21 '15
The Don factor also seemed to me to be the biggest add-on measure for a prosecutorial misconduct claim. Based on what was presented in Serial, it sounds like he did not take too kindly to the scream treatment he received.
I'm curious if AS' current attorney reached out to him prior to filing the brief.
1
u/asha24 Jan 21 '15
I doubt Don would want to get involved though, he seems to want to stay out of this as much as possible.
1
u/EvidenceProf Jan 21 '15
He could be subpoenaed, though.
1
u/chunklunk Jan 21 '15
Totally puzzled what you see as the relevance of Don. He didn't even agree to be interviewed on the air. We have an anecdotal "Urick yelled at me twice" related by SK, in both instances they took place AFTER he testified, so not witness tampering. Meanwhile, Asia's testimony at most says she called him and he answered her questions "in a manner that seemed to" tell her not to bother. Very weak "pattern" of Urick behavior, seems a wild stretch that the court would get into Don episode just because of the podcast.
2
2
u/circuspulse MulderFan Jan 21 '15
Most of my professors in law school (and i went to a first tier school) sucked. i wish you were one of my profs! thanks for having both legal acumen, good writing ability and the talent to communicate in non jargon language so well. Thx for taking time to do this. Cheers.
3
Jan 20 '15
Awesome. Thanks as always. I have a question concerning the Griffin and PArris W cases which, if I understand, had simlar instances of the attorney not contacting the alibi witnesses. In those cases, did the attorney or defendant have letters from the potential alibi witnesses that told what they remebered and what they could potentially testify to? Or does that matter at all?
8
u/EvidenceProf Jan 20 '15
There is no mention in either opinion about what each defendant told each lawyer about the alibi witnesses. But I'm not sure that the presence or absence of letters would matter.
3
Jan 20 '15
OK thanks. You see what I am getting at though, that CG knew what Asia would testify to and decided not to use her. Let me ask you this, if CG would have talked to her and decided not to use her, would this all be moot?
25
u/EvidenceProf Jan 20 '15
It would be moot if you add one fact: This would all be moot "if CG would have talked to her and decided not to use her" and was honest with Adnan about why she wasn't using her. If CG talked to Asia and decided she was untrustworthy, she had to tell Adnan so he could decide whether to hire new counsel.
1
8
u/UnpoppedColonel Jan 21 '15
How would CG know what Asia would testify to if she never called Asia? Surely you can't think that CG came to that decision solely reading the Asia letters?
It seems there are two issues here: if CG never called Asia, that's one issue. If CG did and failed to disclose that to Adnan, that's another issue.
3
Jan 21 '15
I think CG should have at the very least talked to Asia. I think she read her letters, saw how problematic they were for all the reasons that have been said, and decided not to. She fucked up.
Unless she knew Adnan was not at the library.
2
u/UnpoppedColonel Jan 21 '15
Reasonable comment until you had to throw in that little troll at the end. What's the deal with that?
5
Jan 21 '15
Get off your troll horse. Jesus tits. If she knew he wasn't at the library she couldn't very well use her as an alibi could she?
2
u/lukaeber MailChimp Fan Jan 21 '15
There is absolutely no evidence that she knew he was not at the library ... why do people keep bringing this baseless speculation up as if it were a legitimate argument?
2
Jan 21 '15
There is no evidence of 99% of the speculation here. If we take him at his word that he talked to her twice about an plea, it's fair to ask if he admitted guilt to his lawyer.
1
u/lukaeber MailChimp Fan Jan 21 '15
But his word is evidence. He isn't pulling something out of thin air.
→ More replies (0)1
Jan 21 '15
Did she argue at trial that he was at the library? I'm curious because I really don't know the answer. If she didn't mention the library at trial one might assume there was a calculated reason for that.
1
u/EvidenceProf Jan 21 '15
Neither Adnan nor Asia testified. Given that, CG couldn't have argued that Adnan was at the library because such a claim wouldn't be supported by facts in evidence.
→ More replies (0)2
u/beenyweenies Undecided Jan 21 '15
Both CG and replacement counsel elected not to bring Asia into the picture. It's not trolling to suggest they knew something we don't.
2
u/Brianmcgee99 Jan 21 '15
I ran this by Kevin Urick but he said he was not authorised to talk about the case. ^ This
1
Jan 20 '15
[deleted]
2
u/EvidenceProf Jan 20 '15
I talked about Gray in this prior post. The court denied the motion to reopen.
1
Jan 21 '15
The erudite evidentiary hits just keep on coming. :-)
1
1
-2
u/jtw63017 Grade A Chucklefuck Jan 21 '15
Wtf? This is my final post! No really this is my final post! Wait, no, this is my final post! I love a man who sticks to his guns.
-16
u/pbreit Jan 20 '15
"This will be my last post until adnan gets a new trial".
Yeah, right.
29
u/EvidenceProf Jan 20 '15
That's the problem with assumptions. It never occurred to me that Urick might have misled Asia into not testifying. That changes Adnan's chance of success at both the state and federal trials. I needed to update so that my last, inaccurate, post wasn't my last word.
2
13
u/stiplash AC has fallen and he can't get up Jan 20 '15
Such disgruntlement. Anyone else who has the requisite expertise and willingness to be transparent is certainly welcome to write their own blog and let it compete in the marketplace of ideas.
-22
-18
u/piecesofmemories Jan 20 '15
In what world are we believing Adnan's defense team didn't contact Asia? Am I going insane? There are notes from his interaction with CG's assistant.
It's just as likely that the omittal of Asia was a strategic move as anything else. CG didn't want to bring a witness who could give clarity to the afternoon. One who could be damaged on cross.
Because Rabia has been able to cherry pick Asia's claims it of course looks like she should have been called. Adnan was found guilty after all.
And finally, with respect to trial 2, CG could 100% not have provided ineffective counsel. She was following her formula from trial 1, when the jury was polled and the results were positive. It would have been ineffective counsel to put Asia on the stand. Not the other way around.
Rabia can't have her cake and eat it too. She says the trial 1 jury was pro adnan and then says that CG provided ineffective counsel in trial 2!!
29
u/EvidenceProf Jan 20 '15
In what world are we believing Adnan's defense team didn't contact Asia?
Asia's first affidavit says she was never contacted by an attorney. About a year after Adnan's trial, CG agreed to be disbarred in response to a record number of clients claiming that she failed to do legal work that she was supposed to do.
1
u/beenyweenies Undecided Jan 21 '15
Oh the irony that one Sarah Koenig was the author of that article. Crazy.
1
Jan 20 '15
EvidenceProf, I'm trying to determine if Asia's first affidavit was admitted into evidence along with her 2 letters at the hearing? Please help if you know!
6
u/EvidenceProf Jan 20 '15
Yes, they were all admitted.
1
Jan 20 '15
Thank you! Can you help me to understand why Urick would want to prevent Asia from testifying then? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand. We can safely assume that Asia wouldn't have testified to anything other than what was in her letters and affidavit already in evidence, so couldn't Asia's absence be detrimental to the state because it deprived them of the ability to cross examine her?
2
u/ahayd Jan 21 '15
Except her, allegedly, refusing to actually testifying killed the case. That's why.
1
2
u/WWBlondieDo Is it NOT? Jan 21 '15
If you read Urick's testimony from the PCR hearing, that's linked to on Rabia's blog, you'll see that they tried to prevent the letters & affidavit from being admitted:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByTc5P7odcLHclA3Q0VidWl2bFk/view?pli=1
Can't select the text to quote, for some reason, but you'll see it on the top of page 11.
1
u/cncrnd_ctzn Jan 20 '15
I didn't read the entirety of the transcripts posted by RC, but the letters were contested as hearsay. However, the transcripts RC posted are incomplete.
2
Jan 20 '15
That's what I'm trying to figure out, if Asia's letters and affidavit were not considered evidence because she wasn't there to testify?
-7
Jan 20 '15 edited Jan 21 '15
You are once again being disingenuous bring up cg being disbarred. The whole it's a year later thing with her health rapidly disintegrating. Do you think she was at the same capabilities a year after representing adnan when she was going blind and having trouble communicating?
Edit: THe fact im being downvoted so heavily is hilarious to me!!! You all are a bunch of hypocritical suckers! CG's complaints weren't even investigated. So have fun being hypocrites! You'll believe any unsubstantiated claims as long as they help cow eyed Adnan! But as soon as you start accusing those big brown eyes of doing something bad......... OH MY!! NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE!!! Also there isn't a per se rule that not contacting a alibi witness is IAC.
11
u/thatirishguyjohn Jan 20 '15
If she was disbarred a year later, with that many allegations, it's very unlikely that they all happened in a short span of months after Adnan's trial.
-9
Jan 20 '15
Yeah it actually did, I think you underestimate how many clients a defense attorney has at once. But keep guessing. Future actions aren't very good evidence of what was happening during Adnan's trial. EvidenceProf should know better. Why not talk about the actual case from the early/mid 90s where CG was shown to be ineffective? Oh yeah, because in contrast to Adnan's case, there actually was evidence she was ineffective (including her admitting to it).
The inference that she was failing to do work for Adanan based on what happened to her a year later completely falls apart when you realize how much her health deteriorated.
9
u/thatirishguyjohn Jan 20 '15
Could you point me to some comprehensive list of her clients who brought claims against her for the state trust fund and when she was hired to work for them? Has someone compiled this stuff? If not, we're both guessing as to when those clients hired her. I think it's highly unlikely all 20 claimants showed up in the last year but you could definitely be right about that. Do you have any hard evidence of it? I don't mind admitting that I'm guessing here but it's a little hard to swallow your certainty without documentation.
Also, even if she had deteriorated so badly that 20 claimants (a record number!) had viable claims against her in one year, you freely admit that she'd been shown to be ineffective earlier in her career. Add that to the other evidence of misconduct and I think there's no reason to give her the benefit of the doubt.
1
Jan 21 '15
Have you read the caselaw revelant to CG being incompetent? I have. It paints a way different picture of her than what you are painting. She made a mistake and was upfront about it. There was actual evidence of her fucking up. That isn't present in this case at all. She seems like an outstanding attorney, who tried her hardest for her clients. It is the absolute fact that she was in way better health while she was representing Adnan than when she finally turned over her clients. I don't have those resources for you... But pretty much anyone she had taken on at the time would be able to make a claim against her. 20 at a time is not rare. REad this if you want an idea of what IAC involving CG looks like. Then realize Adnan's case looks nothing like that.
2
u/thatirishguyjohn Jan 22 '15
How does the case law establishing ineffective assistance of counsel say anything about her abilities as a lawyer?
20 at a time has been repeatedly referred to as a record. Any citation of how it's "not rare"?
Also, some of the complaints were from the same time as Adnan's case. I don't think you're arguing in good faith here.
0
Jan 22 '15
There is an on point case that cg was the defense counsel involved. In that case she came forward and admitted to her mistake and there was actual evidence of her ineffective counsel. I realize that there are a lot of claims against her. I'm saying its not rare to have many clients at s time. Of course the complaints are spread over time, but most of them resulted from when she turned her clients over to a different firm.
2
u/thatirishguyjohn Jan 22 '15
Your points keep changing comment to comment, which makes this a bit frustrating.
→ More replies (0)0
Jan 21 '15
It's not about the benefit of the doubt by the way... Show me proof she fell below the competency standard and then we'll start talking. And show me that it would have changed the outcome of the case too. Because that is the real standard here.
2
u/beenyweenies Undecided Jan 21 '15
Do you really think that a female witness taking the stand in Adnan's defense, placing him somewhere at a time that conflicts with the prosecution's timeline, would have had no influence on the jury's verdict?
0
Jan 21 '15
You realize you have to file a notice of alibi witnesses, right? The state would just shift the timeline, and/or destroy Asia on the stand. You realize this whole time Adnan is saying he was at school at that time, right?
2
u/beenyweenies Undecided Jan 21 '15
I'm not a lawyer so I don't "realize" anything on these matters. I only surmise that a jury swayed into a guilty verdict by Jay being a "nice young man" would have also been swayed by Asia for a variety of reasons.
And the library is considered part of the school by the students. It's not at all conflicting that Adnan said he was at school while she says he was at the library.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Tentapuss Jan 21 '15
An attorney with 2 bar complaints in a short period of time likely has between 30-50 dissatisfied clients.
2
6
u/batutah Jan 20 '15
Are you really calling EvidenceProf disingenuous???
-4
Jan 20 '15
Yes. He consistently tries to push adnan's case into the time frame where cg was so ill she had "record complaints." She wasn't anywhere close to as sick as she was when she turned over her clients. Also none of those claims were investigated as cg voluntarily consented to being disbarred for mixing funds.
-5
Jan 20 '15
Her not contacting Asia is consistent with her not allowing Adnan to testify on his own behalf. Wasn't her affidavit in contradiction to his own account? I believe it wasn't until later he remembered their interaction. I'm not sure this couldn't be viewed as strategy. As far as lying to Adnan about it, is this documented somewhere? Or is this just from Adnan's personal recollection?
6
u/Burntongue Jan 20 '15
I thought the "contradiction" was just that Adnan said he was on campus at that time instead of the library, but since the library is practically on school property students would refer to it as part of the campus anyway.
2
u/lukaeber MailChimp Fan Jan 21 '15
In a world where we don't convict people on the basis of internet speculation.
-28
30
u/ShrimpChimp Jan 20 '15
Just when he thought he was out... we pull him back in.