You’re woken up by police officers one morning. They say that they are taking you to be questioned for the murder of Hae Min Lee. That’s what happened to Adnan Syed, a young man sentenced to life in prison for murdering his ex-girlfriend. This would be any old hear-it-and-forget-it case, except that there were multiple problems with the case. The evidence that the State used was flawed. So, because there has not been any evidence presented that can prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, Adnan is not guilty.
The first piece of evidence against Adnan is a testimony given by his acquaintance and partner-in-crime, Jay. The State uses this as one of their main claims. However, there are many reasons why this was the wrong way to go. First
First of all, if something monumental happens a person remembers the day it happened. In contrast, Adnan didn’t remember January 13. Yet, Jay remembers close to everything which points an arrow in his direction. However, Adnan says he didn’t ask Hae for a ride, but witnesses say he did. We can point that at Adnan for lying, but he may have failed
I plan to use the defense that there was no crime committed in this case. This requires some proof that there was no way that the defendent could have committed the crime. The burden of proof that Archer did not commit the crime will have to move to the defense.
Here Sarah is commentating on Jay’s testimony. Jay says, “And he takes the keys. He opens the trunk. And all I can see is Hae's lips are all blue, and she's pretzeled up in the back of the trunk. And she's dead”(Ep.1 pg. 10). This means that Jay saw Hae’s body in Adnan’s car. Therefore, Adnan did kill Hae because there was a witness that saw her body. However, this argument is wrong because if Adnan did strangle Hae, he would leave evidence on her body. And there is none. Here is Saad and Rabia’s opinion about the murder. “So just on motive alone, Saad and Rabia found the whole thing ridiculous. As for physical evidence, there was none-- nothing. Apart from some fingerprints in Hae's car, which Adnan had been in many times, there was nothing linking him to the crime-- no DNA, no fibers, no hairs, no matching soil from the bottom of his boots” (Ep.1 pg. 7). Because usually when somebody murders someone else, there is DNA evidence from the killer on the body. But here, the is no evidence of Adnan on Hae’s body. Because there is no evidence on Hae that links the murder to Adnan, he did not kill her. Therefore, Adnan did not kill Hae because there is no evidence linking them together. In conclusion, Adnan did not kill Hae because he could not have reached the Best Buy and killed Hae in 21 minutes, Jay lied to investigators about the story, and there is no evidence linking Adnan and Hae. Even though Adnan was sad when Hae broke up with him, he is ultimately innocent because there is nothing there to prove that he is guilty. The key things that can be learned from this is that even though something may seem simple, it can be quite complicated at a further
Lack of evidence, by itself, might not be enough to prove he is innocent. The prosecutors know that they do not have anything that directly links Adnan to any
For instance, the defense has denied to present you with the crucial evidence that would prove her innocence: an alibi. Justine was totally unaccounted for on the night of William’s murder, giving her ample time to commit the atrocity of causing his death. The defense has never presented you with anything that could account for her presence at some other location than the crime scene.
My first piece of evidence is that he was a great student-athlete that was a star on the football team and that he was a great student in getting good grades. Rabia Chaudry a woman described Adnan “ like his little brother “ is Adnan’s attorney. In the first episode, Sarah Koenig said that Rabia and Saad told her, “ When they told me about Adnan Syed, their friend, not just a good kid but an especially good kid. A smart , kind, goofy, handsome. So that when he was arrested for murder , so many people who knew him were stunned.” This means that people would not expect Adnan doing it
Adnan needed the help of his family to find one. Gutierrez states and says this when talking to Jay on the stand and tells her that Mr. Urick help him find a lawyer “Mr. Urick?! The prosecutor in this case helped provide you a lawyer (Gutierrez 10) “?! Gutierrez recognize that Mr. Urick the prosecutor help provide Jay with a lawyer which this is not right and should never happen. Gutierrez felt that this evidence would be good enough to the point where people would be able to see that Jay may be getting help from this case from everyone which is not
In Serial, there a few alibis which claim that Adnan acted suspiciously, showing that Adnan Syed acted suspiciously, showing that Adnan does not deserve a retrial. First, in episode six there was a few classmates that attended Adnan's school that herd Adnan had asked Hae for a car ride. This does not really feel significant. However, when looking at it again the motive can be Adnan asking Hae for a ride to kill her. A car ride looks normal until observed in depth. This puts Adnan on the spot making him look as he killed Hae. Secondly, in the same episode Nisha had gotten a phone call which talked about Adnan meeting up with Jay at the store. However according to Adnan he was at track practice. This track practice and Nisha’s call don’t match
Adnan spends his fifteen years behinds the bars by Jay’s testimony; however, through out the four interviews with the police and at the trial testimony, Jay provided different statements that make his word not a significant evidence of Adnan’s guilty. A witness is the one who would not lie and be firm on what they actually saw because that will contribute to proving one is an innocent or guilty, but people can see that Jay is not a realizable person based on his history as a drug dealer and his key elements of testimony keep changing rapidly. There were totally four interviews between the police and Jay, but the very first one had not been recorded, which is suspicious because something might happening during that conversation and would affect
This was something that honestly suited Adnan’s defense more than Jay’s. Remember when I said “He didn’t seem like some sort of assasinator?” Well, he really wasn’t. Why would he kill Hae anyway? Hae and Adnan had dated for about two years, but during the end, it’s like most high school relationships. Someone in the group, or both members, eventually lost interest and break up, which in this case, Hae was the one who broke up. She fell in love with another person, named Don. When they had a break up, Adnan was emotional, and upset. Now, that would make sense, but that was two months before Hae’s death. Why would Adnan kill Hae 2 months after they broke up? I mean, he was described as a player, and sometimes he’d cheat on her. Even after they broke up, many friends his said Adnan eventually got over it.
In the opening statements both side of the case make opening statements to lay the foundation of their cases. Opening statements are not allowed to be argumentative and cannot be considered evidence by the jury; they are the road maps laying out where each side intends to take its case. First the prosecution presented its case. They alleged Peterson killed his wife in their Modesto home because he was having an affair, then drove her body nearly 100 miles to San Francisco Bay and heaved it overboard from his small boat. Prosecution offered a steady drum beat of small bits of circumstantial evidence. From the Russian poetry Peterson read his mistress to the fishing gear in his alibi to the dessert featured on a particular episode of Martha Stewart Living, it added up to Peterson's guilt, they suggested. The defense countered that Modesto authorities unfairly targeted Peterson, ignoring important leads that didn't fit their theory. Defense said that, while prosecutors had only assembled a circumstantial case, they had five witnesses that were direct evidence of Peterson's innocence.
One thing that disturbed about this is that Adnan cannot remember what he was doing throughout the day of Hae disappearance, none of the memories that he did day that does not include anything that can help with the case. Adnan told the police that he had a class with Hae. He went to his track practice that afternoon, but he did not see Hae the next two days at school, Thursday and Friday, because the school was close to the intense weather. The Adnan vague memory of what was a normal day, but that affect Adnan in his defense because he was not able to provide his innocent. Jay gives many statements, which one is different than the other one, at the end they eventually put it in a way that people will believe it more. There was a letter that
There was too much reasonable doubt throughout Adnan's entire case, and not nearly enough hard evidence to convict the boy of this murder. The verdict of the case was decided because of two things: Jay’s story and the cell phone records. Both of
This newly discovered and insufficient evidence gives more than enough reason for a new trial. In the case that the court built against Adnan their key witness was Jay, an acquaintance of Adnan's who claimed that Adnan premeditated the murder of his ex girlfriend Hae. However, Jay's statement had provided many inconsistencies throughout the entire investigation. It also says that two other people (her boyfriend and his friend) also saw Adnan that day.
Criminal law is based on the principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The principle is to the extent that a man is not guilty of his acts, actus in the absence of a guilty conscience, mens rea (Gardner, 2009). To this end, criminal law justice provides that the person alleging the commission of a crime must proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person(s) possessed mens rea, if the court is to hold a criminal liability against the accused. In the case of People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson (1995) or what has come to be famously known as the O.J. Simpson Trial is a classical illustration of how highly the U.S. criminal justice regards the beyond reasonable doubt principle.