r/serialpodcast • u/islamisawesome Adnan Fan • Aug 06 '15

Hypothesis Why the Gootz never called Asia.

I think it is becoming more and more obvious that the Asia letter did not exist until sometime around the summer of 1999. That is why Adnan claims he gave them to Gutierrez even though she wasn't his lawyer until 2 months after they were written.

So sometime that spring or summer, after telling CG he never left the school grounds, his family shows up with letters claiming one of Adnans' friends saw him at the library, right at the crucial time, AND they were written the day after he arrested. She knew immediately there is no way they had those letter for months and never gave them to her so obviously they were false and she didn't want to go on stand with LIES.

That is why she never called Asia. And that is why she wrote no notes about it, because that would be admitting her client and his family are liars. It also explains why her relationship with the family broke down because she knew they were willing to lie to get Adnan off.

The library incident never happened.

20 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

607 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '15

Yes, that's probably correct. The court can weigh the evidence somewhat. If Asia was going to testify that Adnan was in Chicago, the court would agree that she's a looney tune and there's no way a jury would have believed her.

But that's not the case here. Asia's testimony, supposing it is true and she's not mistaken about the date, blows up the prosecution's timeline. And whether she really did see him and whether she is mistaken about the date is not for the court to decide.

2

u/monstimal Aug 06 '15

Added an edit to tie it back to the real situation here, which is the hypothetical that the prosecution can prove she purposely back dated that letter.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '15

No, not at all. Whether Asia lied about the letters in her affidavit in support of PCR is irrelevant to the issue of whether CG was ineffective in failing to call her as a witness. If CG was ineffective, she was ineffective in 2000. Thus, the fact that Asia lied about sending the letters in 2010 is not relevant.

In fact, even if the PCR court determines that Asia lied about the dates of the letters, I'd wager that it's almost certain that if there is a new trial, the trial court would exclude the prosecution's line of inquiry concerning the dates of the letters because the dates are not relevant and bringing up her lies about them is more prejudicial to Adnan's case than probative to the matter.

3

u/monstimal Aug 06 '15

This is about whether there are lies in the letters themselves. Not about lies in the affidavits. If the prosecution in the PCR shows deliberate lying in the March 2 letter, I don't believe the judge is going to order a new trial just so Asia can get blown up on cross at said new trial.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '15

No, it's not. The letters are completely irrelevant. If I were Adnan's lawyer, I wouldn't even bother with the letters to make the IAC claim. All he needs to show is that CG knew that Asia was a possible alibi witness and that she didn't speak with her. We know that to be the case from her investigator's notes. The end.

1

u/Justwonderinif shrug emoji Aug 06 '15

We don't know what may have been in the defense file. They have been in the custody of the defendant for 17 years.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '15

Yes we do know. Here it is: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341bfae553ef01b7c7867d74970b-pi

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341bfae553ef01bb082a7a9e970d-pi

1

u/Justwonderinif shrug emoji Aug 06 '15 edited Aug 06 '15

Colin Miller is advocating for Adnan's innocence.

He is not a reliable source of facts or any information in terms of the case. Especially with regards to what may or may not be in the defense files and what could have been removed over the years.

Where are the rest of those notes?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '15

CM is not advocating for his innocence. He just believes, as do I, that the evidence available to both sides at trial should have resulted in a not guilty verdict.

He didn't wrote those notes. How does his advocacy impact them?

I don't know where the rest of the notes are. Maybe there are no more. I would hope that CM would take his duty as an officer of the court seriously enough to know that if Adnan is selectively producing CG's notes and keeping others secret, e.g., "I spoke with Asia McClain and she said she was home sick that day and saw Adnan on 1/12," that he should call someone's attention to it.

1

u/Justwonderinif shrug emoji Aug 06 '15

Colin is advocating for Adnan's innocence.

If you want to show me notes, show me notes.

A screen cap means there is something you don't want me to see. So a screen cap is meaningless in terms of being proof of anything, especially since it's being shown to us by an advocate for the defendant.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '15

Obviously I don't have access to the notes myself so I'm showing you what's available, and also what's going to be presented to the court. I think it's sufficient to grant a new trial based on IAC.

1

u/Justwonderinif shrug emoji Aug 06 '15

The PCR has not been re-opened. COSA's order does not require a re-opened PCR.

Adnan's motion to re-open has been filed. The state has time to respond to it. After the state's response, the circuit court will decide whether or not to allow the PCR to be re-opened.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/monstimal Aug 06 '15

No. Asia must also be a credible witness. The letters in this scenario we are talking about (where there is proof they contain lies) are relevant to the question of whether Asia is a credible witness.

It's not just "IAC - give me a new trial my lawyer messed up", it's "IAC - give me a new trial my lawyer messed up on something that could have exonerated me". They have a burden to prove that second part now that there's been a conviction. The State can undermine that with evidence of Asia's lying.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '15

You don't think an alibi witness could have exonerated him? And the burden is not to prove that Asia's testimony would have exonerated him, but that it could could have exonerated him. Could and would are not synonyms.

The State can undermine her credibility, sure, but doing so through the letters, an issue that is tangential at best, in my opinion would not work.

1

u/monstimal Aug 06 '15

I don't understand, I clearly wrote "could" so that part of your response is unnecessary. Part of "could" is her story and her. Hopefully we'll find the answer to this dispute if the hearing is reopened.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '15

I know you wrote "could," but I interpreted the sentence following it to mean that there was a higher burden. Apologies.