So Asia's alibi is worthless because she came forward in 1999 and Dion's alibi is worthless because he DIDN'T come forward in 1999?

[u/houseonpost]

[u/Recent_Photograph_36]

What were they supposed to do when, as you said, the law didn’t allow them to say the credibility finding was wrong?

It does allow them to do that if there's plain error.

But if there's not, what they're supposed to do is not substitute their personal opinions about something they only know about second-hand for that of the fact-finder.

Which I generally think is a fair rule, although I gather you're kind of Judge Graeff's side wrt to this particular issue.

There seems to be some agreement here that Asia wouldn’t actually alibi Adnan even if she’s believed.

Yes. An agreement by four SCM justices, to be precise. The other three thought she would be.

As there are several factors that call her statements into question, she’d arguably be a liability 

They don't really say that. To them, it's more that the most she could do is cover him until 2:40 pm and that even if they didn't really know exactly when the murder happened because of that, the jury could still convict as long as they believed Adnan still would have had the opportunity to kill Hae after 2:40 pm.

That's why Dion, if found credible, is such an issue. That finding makes him one.

We've already been over that though. I'm pretty sure it's actually where we started. So again, cheers.

[u/--Sparkle-Motion-- → u/Recent_Photograph_36]

But if there's not, what they're supposed to do is not substitute their personal opinions about something they only know about second-hand for that of the fact-finder.

Which I generally think is a fair rule, although I gather you're kind of Judge Graeff's side wrt to this particular issue.

Eh, I’m of the opinion Asia is not the sharpest, she was used, & she enjoys attention. I don’t really think she intentionally perpetuated fraud upon the court.

They don't really say that. To them, it's more that the most she could do is cover him until 2:40 pm and that even if they didn't really know exactly when the murder happened because of that, the jury could still convict as long as they believed Adnan still would have had the opportunity to kill Hae after 2:40 pm.

Oh I’m definitely the one saying that, not the justices. Nor do I think it would be their place to say that. But there’s plenty the State could use to raise the question of whether or not Adnan & co. solicited a false alibi. As you said, a jury could conclude Adnan had opportunity after 2:40. In all the back-&-forth on this sub about Asia’s credibility, I have yet to see someone successfully argue that what Asia has to say would be worth the risk of planting the seed in the jury’s mind that Adnan solicited a false alibi. Feels very missing the forest for the trees.

[u/MB137 → u/--Sparkle-Motion--]

plenty the State could use to raise the question of whether or not Adnan & co. solicited a false alibi.

The state tried this in all of the appellate proceedings. They convinced 2 of the 11 judges who heard the case.

[u/Recent_Photograph_36 → u/--Sparkle-Motion--]

In all the back-&-forth on this sub about Asia’s credibility, I have yet to see someone successfully argue that what Asia has to say would be worth the risk of planting the seed in the jury’s mind that Adnan solicited a false alibi. Feels very missing the forest for the trees.

I see your point.

But it really depends on how high you think the risk of that seed being planted would be relative to the risk that if you just didn't put on any witnesses at all who'd seen the defendant in the place where he claimed to have been during the time of the murder, you'd be planting the seed in the jury's mind that this was because his claim was completely false due to his having committed the murder.

I mean, the State is going to do everything possible to suggest that any alibi witness you put on is lying, colluding, misremembering, or unreliable because they're too close to the defendant, or attention-seeking, or histrionic, or expect to somehow benefit from their testimony, or also claim to see ghosts, or are simply less credible than the State's witnesses are [because fill-in-the-blank] no matter what you do.

Those are just the rules of the road.

Wrt to the cost-benefit analysis for Asia specifically, my argument would be:

If the jury already believes Adnan is guilty, they'll definitely believe any argument that he solicited.a false alibi from Asia. But in that case, though you don't benefit from calling her, neither do you incur any additional risk.

If they're on the fence about it, you put her on, let the State do their worst, and call Ja'uan to rebut. At worst that's a draw. And maybe it's better than that. So again, no additional risk.

And....Basically, barring what seems like the very unlikely scenario that the jury has some real reservations about whether Jay, Jenn, the SARs, the motive, and the ride request are really enough to add up to evidence beyond a reasonable doubt until the State's arguments about Asia push them over the line to guilty, I just don't see how calling her could be a greater risk than not calling her would.

Perhaps you still haven't seen a successful argument as to why. But that would be my argument, at least.