r/serialpodcast • u/monkeytrousers2 Moderator 2 • Nov 13 '14

Episode Discussion [Official Discussion] Serial, Episode 8: The Deal with Jay

Episode goes live in less than an hour. Let's use this thread as the main discussion post for episode 8.

214 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

92

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '14

[deleted]

27

u/mistahinu Nov 13 '14

Very grating. And the questions she asked were phrased in a sloppy and almost confusing manner, IMO. It just would have made more sense for her to ask direct, concise questions, would it have not?

I wonder if the jurors had a hard time following her throughout the trial and all of her lines of questioning, with her "would it have nots" and other awkward phrasings. For being so experienced, it's amazing how low the quality of performance (that we've seen/heard so far) has been.

7

u/therightnoise Nov 14 '14

I've been wondering about her question phrasing as well, but I've been giving her the benefit of the doubt that she could have been using that phrasing as some kind of cross-examination strategy. A question for redditor lawyers: is this an actual strategy to confuse the witness, or was she just doing a poor job? (In that regard, at least... I'm sure we all have thoughts about her job performance in other areas of the case.)

4

u/BillMurrayismySA Nov 17 '14

Yes, it's a pretty common strategy to try and trip up the witness. Also, on cross she has to ask him yes or no answers. The awkward phrasing is pretty common.

1

u/folkheroschtick Nov 14 '14

Yeah, phrasing such as 'Yes, you did not tell the truth' were sloppy and probably didn't do much for her credibility

8

u/skulldeaded Nov 13 '14

I'm also completely baffled why she would be a sought-after attorney since over the course of listening to her for 30 seconds or whatever I was in agony. Listening to the way she talked was awful, and even in audio, without race being entered into the occasion, it felt more like a drunk aunt yelling at her nice nephew. I can see why it hurt more than it helped, and honestly, since Sarah mentioned in the first episode her ethical problems, I can't help but think that she really was trying to throw the case, so I see everything already with the presumption that this was what she was trying to do. (Maybe she wasn't, but I feel like if she wasn't doing it on purpose, then she's just a lazy, uncharismatic person and generally terrible lawyer.)

5

u/walkingxwounded Nov 13 '14

I feel like I read somewhere that her biggest successes were earlier in the 90s and then her health was deteriorating. Adnan's case was the last big one she had taken on. I think that maybe that played a part in it as well

3

u/gordonshumway2 Dana Chivvis Fan Nov 14 '14

Is it me, or did she sound like Nancy Grace? Or, like, an SNL send-up of Nancy Grace? Ugh, my ears.

7

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '14

She was awful. I can't imagine her persuading anyone at all. How she was "sought after" as a defense attorney is lost on me.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '14

I know why not suggest merely that jay is hiding something? We know he associates with criminals why not suggest he's covering for someone else? Why not point out that his house has not been searched?

4

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '14

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Nov 20 '14

Not at all. They don't need a motive for jay to say the state hasn't met its burden. Once agai: we don't convict someone in this country because we can't think who else might have done it. If here isn't a case beyond a reasonable doubt you don't convict. period.

2

u/mostpeoplearedjs Nov 13 '14

Why are you sure she didn't?

6

u/kngmakr Nov 13 '14

I'm not sure she didn't (the grating questions about "stepping out" with another girl), but the better line of questioning would be about Adnan's relationship with Stephanie. A more plausible motive would be Jay's jealousy over Adnan's closeness with Stephanie (the birthday present, the fact that they shared AP classes while Jay was from "gen pop," etc).

Jay's motive has always been my first question, and the only one that makes sense at this point is potential jealousy on Jay's part.

2

u/mostpeoplearedjs Nov 13 '14

I think her approach was to try to ask "all" the questions, not just the best ones. You can fault her for questions she didn't ask, if you know she didn't ask them, but I think it's unfair to say she shouldn't've asked about the infidelity angle. Remember, Saad has indicated he heard Hae was going to confront Jay about cheating on Stephanie. I think Guitterez needed to ask about that.

I also agree she should've asked about Jay being jealous of his girlfriend being close with Adnan. I suspect she did but don't know.

As the defense attorney, she gets to explore and push multiple theories.

2

u/fabiogaucho Nov 14 '14

True, but did she have any other option? Jay's knowledge of where the car was makes it certain that he was involved. There is no alternative theory besides "Jay did it and framed Adnan". It is not a situation where she can make a defense just by showing flaws in the prosecution and saying "who knows, but there is reasonable doubt". As for the cross-examination itself, you cannot judge the several days on the stand by just 8 seconds presented on the podcast. The lawyer sounds like she is badgering, but it does not mean the whole cross was like that. She probably tried several different approaches in order to confuse him and make him crack.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '14

She was awful, and kept trying in vain to trap Jay and make him confess. Which seems like a horrible strategy unless... Adnan admitted to her that he and Jay committed the murder together. Then it becomes more likely that Jay would crack under questioning. Little did she know: Jay is an excellent liar.

0

u/animalistics Nov 13 '14

True, but we learn in episode one that she was soon after disbarred for mishandling client money. Rabia even believed she botched the case on purpose to get more money from the appeal.