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
This reason makes sense because Asia and even a friend of hers claim that they saw and even spoke to Adnan that day and at that time Hae was murdered. This part of the story is when Asia found out Adna was arrested so she wrote him a letter explaining what she remembered about seeing him that day and time. This is from the letter “Im not sure if you remember talking to me in the library january 13’th,but I remember”. This means Adnan is innocent because he was not murdering Hae at the time he was at the library. Therefore Adnan is innocent because Asia’s letters prove that he was at the library at the time Hae was
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.
based on the story of one witness, Adnan’s friend Jay, who testified that he helped
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
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.
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.
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
In this podcast Sarah explores and digs deep into the two options, is Adnan guilty? Or is Adnan innocent of his past? Adnan Syed should stay in jail and not be released from prison due to some main reasons that lean towards Adnan’s guilt. It didn’t seem like a healthy relationship should look like.
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.
The first reason why Adnan and Jay have a this conflict is because that Adnan is saying he doesn't remember what he did that day because it was just a normal day for him. The cops are not taking his word on his statement. On the other hand Jay is telling cops one story one day and then other story on another day. Trainum who got interviewed for this podcast says “The inconsistencies in Jay’s statements that the cops are catching him in, Trainum says, cops are used to that (Trainum 8)”. In other words, Trainum believes that the cops see and acknowledges the inconsistencies in Jay statements about what happened that day but they just feel that it's normal and
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
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
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.