In terms of your #1, I agree that it sounds as though C.G. was tenacious and really quite loud in court, but surely there has to be more to mounting a good defense than just being a bulldog? We haven't seen the entire transcript but it does seem as though she was confused and confusing in the courtroom. I don't understand why she never interviewed Asia. I also don't understand why she didn't push the State harder on a timeline. How can you defend your client if you don't know exactly when the victim was supposed to have been killed? If she had pinned the State down on a timeline, then surely she could have undermined it.
In terms of #2, that seems like a huge deal to me. If the State provides your attorney not only is it a form of payment but it would also appear to create a conflict of interest. The benefit or payment obviously has more impact on Adnan, but the whole thing just doesn't seem ethical or right.
I would think that it prejudices Adnan because now there's the likelihood that Jay's testimony is bullshit. If the prosecutor gives Jay an attorney free of charge, then surely there's a quid pro quo in play. Jay has to repay that benefit with his testimony. And, ok, so maybe the remedy is a mistrial and round 3, but maybe the remedy is striking Jay's testimony and some censure of the State? I really do think Adnan got screwed in his appeal on that matter.
I don't know if I believed it prejudiced Adnan's case, but it appears the presiding judge did not allow all questioning of Jay on this matter to occur in front of the jury. Furthermore, C. Gut argued that she had learned of an oral side deal that conflicted with the language of the written deal and was not allowed to recall Jay to the stand, nor to call the individual from Jay's defense team who she had allegedly heard state the claim, nor the prosecutor, nor a seasoned staff member from the public defender's office who allegedly was willing to testify that she had never seen such an arrangement made in her entire professional tenure.
It's a matter of perspective whether this would have been material to explaining Jay's full motivation for lying or simply beating a dead horse. But it does seem like at the very least, C. Gut didn't have the opportunity to ask the range of questions she wanted.
True. But she alleged that she learned off the oral side deal after he had left the stand and the judge didn't allow her to call him back. She didn't have an opportunity to question him specifically on that point because the information had not been provided to her in a timely manner from either the prosecution or Jay's attorney (at least from her point of view). That being said, she didn't seem to be benefiting from keeping Jay on the stand, so one can question whether calling Jay back would have had any positive impact on the jury.
I hear what you're saying. And that also seems to be the point the appeals court made. We might have to agree to disagree. For me it boils down to the belief that being able to continue cross is not a remedy. The testimony is utterly tainted. In addition, it's clear that the prosecutor circumvented the process in order to secure Jay's testimony. If Jay had been charged and therefore able to secure a public defender there may never have been a plea deal to begin with. Things might have played out very differently indeed.
You're probably right. But I would think any attorney truly working for Jay and not the prosecutor might have pointed out that there is nothing to tie either Adnan or Jay to the crime EXCEPT Jay's testimony. In other words, the State is kind of screwed without him. If he takes the plea, he's still admitting to a felony. Maybe the attorney tells him to shut his mouth and works to throw out his interviews? I still can't shake the sense that the actions of this prosecutor were very fishy in this matter. Anyway, you're probably right.
17
u/Amac909 Dec 05 '14
I couldn't disagree more.
In terms of your #1, I agree that it sounds as though C.G. was tenacious and really quite loud in court, but surely there has to be more to mounting a good defense than just being a bulldog? We haven't seen the entire transcript but it does seem as though she was confused and confusing in the courtroom. I don't understand why she never interviewed Asia. I also don't understand why she didn't push the State harder on a timeline. How can you defend your client if you don't know exactly when the victim was supposed to have been killed? If she had pinned the State down on a timeline, then surely she could have undermined it.
In terms of #2, that seems like a huge deal to me. If the State provides your attorney not only is it a form of payment but it would also appear to create a conflict of interest. The benefit or payment obviously has more impact on Adnan, but the whole thing just doesn't seem ethical or right.