5 ms·

The state won't retry. He's going to walk. Good for him. Who knows if he really did it or not, but the evidence against him was sketchy.

jchendy 10y ago
> The state won't retry. You say that like it's a fact. What's your evidence?
- macspoofing 10y ago
  Fair. They could retry but I can't see how. They don't really have anything. Jay is a terrible witness and he won't hold up in a cross, given the amount of times he changed his story (the latest being his intercept interview last year). Cell tower evidence is questionable and their expert witness recinded his testimony. The timeline has never been solid and is even more of a mess after Undisclosed. If they retry what evidence will they bring to the table?
  - kmonsen 10y ago
    Jay also seems like a coached witness, his value must be close to zero. And that means the whole investigation was a bit fishy.
- mcbits 10y ago
  What if they let him walk now, and then in 5 years stumble into evidence that could get him convicted. Could they retry him later? If so, that seems like a better strategy than jumping into a retrial now with what is apparently not enough of a case to re-convict.
  - AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
    IANAL, but I don't believe that's possible. The clock started ticking when they brought the original charges, and I don't think they can stop it now just because possible evidence may come out later.
    - ViViDboarder 10y ago
      I'm pretty sure that new evidence always means new charges can be brought. Also, I don't believe there is a statute of limitations for murder.
      - cormacrelf 10y ago
        Uh, guys. Fifth Amendment. Double jeopardy. No person shall "be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." In plain terms, you can't (in general) be tried again for the same crime after you are acquitted. It wasn't a felony murder, so it can't even be tried in a different jurisdiction (federal). The protection isn't altered when new evidence comes to light.
        mcbits 10y ago
        They already convicted him, so they could just leave him in prison instead of risking double jeopardy. What I'm curious about is whether they can release him without a new trial and without anything like an acquittal, basically resetting to "investigation" status indefinitely. It doesn't seem like the right to a speedy trial would be violated, since he would be free and not part of a prosecution during that time, which would likely be forever.
        venomsnake 10y ago
        Does retrial means acquitted? Or just that the previous is nullified?
        CPLX 10y ago
        Double jeopardy is irrelevant in this instance, as it generally is in instances where a judge orders a new trial. Had it gotten to the point where a jury actually acquitted him it would be a different story, but that didn't happen.
        jessaustin 10y ago
        This (mis)reading of 5A would seem to preclude all retrials. The judge vacated the previous verdict. It no longer exists. The retrial, whenever it occurs, will be single jeopardy. If the retrial doesn't happen soon (rather, soon after the appeals process is done), the State will be obliged to release Syed. Actually he might get bail in the meantime anyway.
sjm-lbm 10y ago
The state can appeal this decision, and I'd think they surely will do that. I don't know enough about law to know what their odds of succeeding would be. Beyond that? The evidence against him was a good deal less sketchy than Serial made it sound, but I still don't know if it would be enough to get a conviction sixteen years later.. so who knows.
- blueplanet200 10y ago
  how was it less sketchy?
  - sjm-lbm 10y ago
    It's really hard to answer that question without writing a couple thousand words about different things, honestly. Many (most?) of us in this thread have 10 or so hours of information about this case just from listening to Serial, so it's hard to provide a genuine response to that without spending quite a bit of time talking. I don't have the time to write that, and I honestly doubt you have the time to read it. That said, let's just start with the central premise of Serial E1: that it's hard to remember details of a day six weeks before, and that's why Adnan has trouble telling the cops what he needed to know. Remember, this is a day when his ex-girlfriend disappears and a police officer called him about it, but we're supposed to assume that nothing in that series of events is a big enough deal to stamp a few things (even just things related to Hae) in his memory. Furthermore, if we assume that it's easier to remember something that happened same-day, we can assume that he asked Hae for a ride home from school - per what he told the officer the day of - something that he now denies. He did this, of course, despite the fact that he had a perfectly working car in the school's parking lot at that moment. .. and so on. Like I said, it's really hard to start dealing with all of the claims made by various people at various times, but there's a number of ways to view the facts in a (to paraphrase Sarah Koenig) "bad for Adnan" way that aren't at all sketcky.
    - xenadu02 10y ago
      I thought Jay had borrowed his car and his phone? It seems like either Jay or Sayed did it. But there isn't enough evidence to determine which one.
TwoBit 10y ago
How do you know it was sketchy? Because an entertainment program on the radio told you so with only its side of the story?
lukevers 10y ago
According to Twitter[0] the state of Maryland's office of the attorney general will appeal the decision for a retrial. I think you're right though. If they do appeal it and fail they'll just let him walk, but are going to continue to this as long as they can to keep him in there as long as possible. https://twitter.com/mkhan47/status/748694451367714816 https://twitter.com/mkhan47/status/748694451367714816

jchendy 10y ago

> The state won't retry. You say that like it's a fact. What's your evidence?

macspoofing 10y ago
Fair. They could retry but I can't see how. They don't really have anything. Jay is a terrible witness and he won't hold up in a cross, given the amount of times he changed his story (the latest being his intercept interview last year). Cell tower evidence is questionable and their expert witness recinded his testimony. The timeline has never been solid and is even more of a mess after Undisclosed. If they retry what evidence will they bring to the table?
- kmonsen 10y ago
  Jay also seems like a coached witness, his value must be close to zero. And that means the whole investigation was a bit fishy.
mcbits 10y ago
What if they let him walk now, and then in 5 years stumble into evidence that could get him convicted. Could they retry him later? If so, that seems like a better strategy than jumping into a retrial now with what is apparently not enough of a case to re-convict.
- AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
  IANAL, but I don't believe that's possible. The clock started ticking when they brought the original charges, and I don't think they can stop it now just because possible evidence may come out later.
  - ViViDboarder 10y ago
    I'm pretty sure that new evidence always means new charges can be brought. Also, I don't believe there is a statute of limitations for murder.
    - cormacrelf 10y ago
      Uh, guys. Fifth Amendment. Double jeopardy. No person shall "be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." In plain terms, you can't (in general) be tried again for the same crime after you are acquitted. It wasn't a felony murder, so it can't even be tried in a different jurisdiction (federal). The protection isn't altered when new evidence comes to light.
      - mcbits 10y ago
        They already convicted him, so they could just leave him in prison instead of risking double jeopardy. What I'm curious about is whether they can release him without a new trial and without anything like an acquittal, basically resetting to "investigation" status indefinitely. It doesn't seem like the right to a speedy trial would be violated, since he would be free and not part of a prosecution during that time, which would likely be forever.
      - venomsnake 10y ago
        Does retrial means acquitted? Or just that the previous is nullified?
      - CPLX 10y ago
        Double jeopardy is irrelevant in this instance, as it generally is in instances where a judge orders a new trial. Had it gotten to the point where a jury actually acquitted him it would be a different story, but that didn't happen.
      - jessaustin 10y ago
        This (mis)reading of 5A would seem to preclude all retrials. The judge vacated the previous verdict. It no longer exists. The retrial, whenever it occurs, will be single jeopardy. If the retrial doesn't happen soon (rather, soon after the appeals process is done), the State will be obliged to release Syed. Actually he might get bail in the meantime anyway.

sjm-lbm 10y ago

The state can appeal this decision, and I'd think they surely will do that. I don't know enough about law to know what their odds of succeeding would be. Beyond that? The evidence against him was a good deal less sketchy than Serial made it sound, but I still don't know if it would be enough to get a conviction sixteen years later.. so who knows.

blueplanet200 10y ago
how was it less sketchy?
- sjm-lbm 10y ago
  It's really hard to answer that question without writing a couple thousand words about different things, honestly. Many (most?) of us in this thread have 10 or so hours of information about this case just from listening to Serial, so it's hard to provide a genuine response to that without spending quite a bit of time talking. I don't have the time to write that, and I honestly doubt you have the time to read it. That said, let's just start with the central premise of Serial E1: that it's hard to remember details of a day six weeks before, and that's why Adnan has trouble telling the cops what he needed to know. Remember, this is a day when his ex-girlfriend disappears and a police officer called him about it, but we're supposed to assume that nothing in that series of events is a big enough deal to stamp a few things (even just things related to Hae) in his memory. Furthermore, if we assume that it's easier to remember something that happened same-day, we can assume that he asked Hae for a ride home from school - per what he told the officer the day of - something that he now denies. He did this, of course, despite the fact that he had a perfectly working car in the school's parking lot at that moment. .. and so on. Like I said, it's really hard to start dealing with all of the claims made by various people at various times, but there's a number of ways to view the facts in a (to paraphrase Sarah Koenig) "bad for Adnan" way that aren't at all sketcky.
  - xenadu02 10y ago
    I thought Jay had borrowed his car and his phone? It seems like either Jay or Sayed did it. But there isn't enough evidence to determine which one.

TwoBit 10y ago

How do you know it was sketchy? Because an entertainment program on the radio told you so with only its side of the story?

lukevers 10y ago

According to Twitter[0] the state of Maryland's office of the attorney general will appeal the decision for a retrial. I think you're right though. If they do appeal it and fail they'll just let him walk, but are going to continue to this as long as they can to keep him in there as long as possible. https://twitter.com/mkhan47/status/748694451367714816 https://twitter.com/mkhan47/status/748694451367714816