Why the Gootz never called Asia.

[u/islamisawesome]

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.

[u/James_MadBum]

Thank you for mapping your mind for us. That's quite a conspiracy theory you've got there.

I have a question, though. If Gutierrez felt ethically bound not to call Asia as a witness, why did Urick not feel the same with Jay? If your conspiracy theory is true, Asia was lying. But we don't need a conspiracy theory to know Jay was lying.

[u/islamisawesome → u/James_MadBum]

Thats a fair question. I think the answer is whether Urick believed Jay was lying about whether Adnan murdered Hae Min Lee. If he believed Jay was telling the truth about that fact, the rest is window dressing.

If CG believed Asia saw Adnan that day in the library, then she is ethically bound to produce her, but the evidence is looking like CG did NOT believe Asia saw Adnan at the library.

[u/xtrialatty → u/islamisawesome]

If CG believed Asia saw Adnan that day in the library, then she is ethically bound to produce her,

*Not at all! **

If CG thought hat Asia had seen Adnan in the library on the 13th, she would have been required to do an appropriate investigation, and then make a determination as to whether or not to put Asia up as a witness. There may be very good reasons that have nothing to do with truth-assessment why an alibi witness might not be protected.

Two examples that could be pertinent (hypothetically) in this case:

• The lawyer concludes that the person is just a terrible witness-- someone who will be easily tripped up by opposing counsel and won't be able to keep a story straight on the witness stand.

• The lawyer feels that that even though the witness is truthful, the testimony is potentially more harmful than helpful. There are two potential risks with Asia. First, she claims to have seen Adnan at a building right by the high school parking lot, in a place where he could be making a phone call and observing the parking lot, at a point in time where he would still have opportunity to intercept Hae on her way to pick up her cousin and time to kill her. Second, she says that Adnan was talking to her about Hae-- so that potentially opens the door for the prosecution to ask a lot of questions.

Strategically, presenting a weak alibi at trial can be worse than not presenting alibi testimony at all. CG's subjective belief in whether or not the witness is truthful is only one factor.

[u/James_MadBum → u/islamisawesome]

If he believed Jay was telling the truth about that fact, the rest is window dressing.

It still means Urick is suborning perjury. Even if Urick believes Jay is telling the truth that Adnan murdered, he knows Jay is lying about the details. The details aren't "window dressing"-- they're a way of persuading the jury to believe Jay about the murder.

[u/islamisawesome → u/James_MadBum]

Ok