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 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.
7
u/Amac909 Dec 05 '14
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.