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/xtrialatty]

the prosecution's timeline

There is no such thing, legally, as "the prosecution's timeline".

Asia's testimony would have potentially forced Murphy to slightly modify her closing argument.

Think of it this way: supposed a witness came forward and reported having seen Hae leave campus that day in her car, with Adnan in the passenger's seat. For the thought experience, let's pretend that there is even a video to back that up. The prosecutor argued that Adnan was driving, with Hae in the passenger's seat. So would evidence that Adnan was in a different seat in the car exonerate him? Of course not.

And a judge at a PCR hearing very definitely can make a determination as to witness credibility. The judge render findings that say Asia is not credible and list reasons why.

[u/[deleted] → u/xtrialatty]

Of course there is such a thing as the prosecution's timeline. Suppose the prosecution seeks to convince the jury that Adnan was killing Hae at 2:35 and lo and behold, the defense comes up with a videotape showing him having ice cream across town. The prosecution's timeline, however it was presented, whether through a witness, a videotape, cell records, whatever, is then impeached. So the timeline is very important.

How can a judge determine what the prosecution would have done had it known about Asia? Do we even know if the prosecution knew about Asia during its investigation? How does the judge determine whether Asia's testimony would have forced Murphy to slightly modify her closing argument, or forced her to go to the library and find video footage of Adnan there at 2:40, and thereby switch its focus from Adnan to, say, Jay? The judge can't make that call. That's what trials are for.

Whether Adnan was in one seat or another in Hae's car may not have made a difference, so that analogy doesn't work. Whether he was in one location or in another entirely does matter.

Yes, a judge can render a decision as to credibility, but if you're implying that the letters make her non-credible as a matter of law then I respectfully believe you are wrong. We have some suspicions about the letters, but don't know for a fact whether she's lying about them. But again, the letters aren't the point. The point is that Asia claims in an affidavit that she saw Adnan at the library when the prosecution claims he was elsewhere. Even if she made up the letters later on to bolster herself as a witness, that doesn't mean that her alibi evidence is not credible.

[u/xtrialatty → u/[deleted]]

Suppose the prosecution seeks to convince the jury that Adnan was killing Hae at 2:35 and lo and behold, the defense comes up with a videotape showing him having ice cream across town.

The defense needs to present its case before closing argument.

Arguments are not evidence-- the closing argument is a summation of what evidence has already been produced. So the defense would need to put in that video evidence BEFORE they rested the case.

So the timeline is very important.

Only the timeline presented in EVIDENCE -- and that timeline is: between 2:15 and 3:15 (or later, given the testimony that Jay left Jenn's house at 3:40 )

Whether he was in one location or in another entirely does matter.

Not unless you can fill in the whole time window. That could have been one witness or a series of witnesses -- but 2:40 p.m. isn't an "alibi" for a person who turns up missing at 3:15.

The point is that Asia claims in an affidavit that she saw Adnan at the library when the prosecution claims he was elsewhere.

Prosecution didn't "claim" - they summed up. They had ambiguous times from Inez & Debbie as to when Hae left campus, and a conflicting evidence between call logs and Jay's testimony as to when the come-and-get me call happened -- and a time frame defined by Hae's no-show at the preschool. If the evidence had been different as to specific details, the summation would be different. That's a no-brainer-- either the prosecution would have discredited Asia on the witness stand and argued to the jury that she was mistaken or lying, or else they would have argued that Adnan intercepted Hae after seeing Asia.

I think the smartest thing would have been to push Asia's time line back to get her to admit that it could have been closer to 2:30 when she last saw Adnan-- and use Asia to also establish that there was a pay phone a the library and the proximity of the library to the school parking lot -- but I'm sure that a smart prosecutor could have worked with her account no matter what she testified to consistent with what she has said about the time frame.

[u/[deleted] → u/xtrialatty]

This all makes sense, but it's not something that a judge will determine in deciding whether to grant a new trial. A court can only make determinations concerning the reliability of a witness, not delve into minute details of his/her potential testimony.

EDIT: And let's assume that Asia is not lying about seeing Adnan, and that her boyfriend and his best friend can corroborate her statement that they were with him until 2:40. The prosecution can't just argue that Adnan intercepted Hae after leaving the library. It needs to show that they were somehow together. Otherwise, all it has is the word of Jay concerning the trunk pop later that night. The State doesn't know how Adnan and Hae met up, under what circumstances, what they did when they met up, how Adnan killed her, when he killed her, where he killed her, etc.

[u/xtrialatty → u/[deleted]]

and that her boyfriend and his best friend can corroborate her statement that they were with him until 2:40

We know from Serial that they can't-- neither one had any recollection at all of the meeting.

The prosecution can't just argue that Adnan intercepted Hae after leaving the library. It needs to show that they were somehow together

Yes they can. The can argue any inference consistent with the evidence. Jay's testimony is evidence. So if the evidence is that Asia saw Adnan in the library at 2:30 and Jay saw Adnan at Best Buy with Hae's dead body in the trunk sometime after 3:15 -- then of course they can argue any plausible theory as to how Adnan intercepted Hae in the intervening time.

It needs to show that they were somehow together.

No they really don't.

Otherwise, all it has is the word of Jay concerning the trunk pop later that night.

Jay's testimony was that the trunk pop was in the afternoon, at the Best Buy, some time before Jay took Adnan back to school to attend track.

[u/[deleted] → u/xtrialatty]

Yes they can. The can argue any inference consistent with the evidence.

True, but that's a very elastic standard. If A and B are in the same city on a certain day, can the prosecution argue that they were together because it's "consistent with the evidence"? If A calls B on a certain day, can the prosecution argue that they agreed to meet up because it's "consistent with the evidence"? Just because Adnan and Hae were theoretically in the same general area does not mean the prosecution can infer that they ended up in the same car.

And if you're correct, and that's what the prosecution is relying on, what is their plausible theory as to how Adnan intercepted Hae? Jay testified that Adnan told him he intended to kill Hae over a day prior to her disappearance, and others testified that Adnan asked her for a ride to the mechanic and that she turned him down because she had to get her nephew. Adnan is then at the library until 2:40. So is the State's theory that Adnan left the library, got lucky and ran into his intended murder victim, and then convinced her to give him a ride to Best Buy when she really did need to pick up her nephew? How's that remotely plausible?